DAKOTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Dakota County Western Service Center – Room 106 14955 Galaxie Avenue Apple Valley, MN 55124
Thursday, February 27, 2020 Room 106, 7:00 PM – 9:00 PM
Agenda I. Call to Order
II. Pledge of Allegiance
III. Public Comments for Items Not on the Agenda (limited to 5 minutes) IV. Approval of the Agenda V. Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes VI. 2020 Transportation Capital Improvement Program Overview - Information VII. Land Conservation Plan – Action (Al Singer – Environmental Resources, Mary Jackson – Planning)
VIII. Priorities for Joint Meeting with Dakota County Board of Commissioners – Action (Kurt Chatfield – Planning)
IX. River to River Greenway Natural Resource Management Plan – Action (Tom Lewanski and Chris Klatt – Parks)
X. Planning Manager Update and County Board Actions • Planning Commission voting procedures update
XI. Upcoming Public Meetings – Community Outreach River to River Greenway NRMP (tentative) Mar 25, 5:00pm-7:00pm Open House Wentworth Library Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan Late April (TBD) Open House Schaar’s Bluff Gathering Center
XII. Planning Commissioner Announcements/Updates XIII. Topics for Next Meeting, Dakota County Western Service Center, March 26, 2020. • Joint Meeting with Dakota County Board of Commissioners • Whitetail Woods Natural Resource Management Plan • Spring Lake Regional Park Master Plan and Natural Resource Management Plan
XIV. Adjourn DAKOTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION February 27, 2019: Dakota County Land Conservation Plan Draft (information-discussion)
PURPOSE Provide Planning Commission: 1. An overview of the draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County, including new content in the Executive Summary and ten-year targets 2. An opportunity for discussion to provide comments and suggestions 3. Recommendations on releasing the draft plan for public review and comment
BACKGROUND In 2018, Dakota County began developing a countywide Land Conservation Plan to help protect and manage natural resources throughout the County for current and future generations. The plan:
• Identifies Goals, Strategies and Tactics to advance land conservation throughout the County • Uses Preliminary Conservation Focus Areas as a framework for prioritizing land protection and natural resource management throughout the County • Guides improved coordination and collaboration with other agencies and organizations on land protection and natural resource management • Further identifies potential tools and incentives to increase voluntary protection and stewardship of private natural resource and agricultural lands An overview of the draft plan was provided during the January 23, 2020 Planning Commission meeting and the overview and discussion were not completed. New and revised content will be presented on February 27 for discussion. Proposed stakeholder engagement activities during the recommended public review period will also be presented.
ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Plan
QUESTIONS The following questions are intended to help assist in review of the packet materials.
1. How effectively do does the draft Plan address protection and long-term management needs?
2. Does the draft Plan need additional content or clarification?
3. Is the draft Plan ready for public review and comment?
Land Conservation Plan
for Dakota County
Draft to Consider for Public Review
Public Review Draft: February 20, 2020 Dakota County Board of Commissioners Mike Slavik District 1 Kathleen Gaylord District 2 Thomas Egan District 3 Joe Atkins District 4 Liz Workman District 5 Mary Liz Holberg District 6 Chris Gerlach District 7
Dakota County Planning Commission Michael Greco District 1 Jerry Rich District 1 Lori Hansen District 2 Timothy Tabor District 2 Jill Smith District 3 Greg Oxley District 3 Amy Hunting District 4 Barry Graham District 4 Ram Singh District 5 Robert Timmerman District 5 Nate Reitz District 6 James Guttmann District 6 Anthony Nelson District 7 Donald Post District 7
Project Team Dakota County Environmental Resources Georg Fisher Al Singer Lisa West Dakota County Office of GIS Beth Koch Dakota County OfficeDraft of Performance to Consider Analysis for Public Review Josh Hill Hoang Ton Dakota County Office of Planning Kurt Chatfield Mary Jackson Dakota County Parks Tom Lewanski Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District Brian Watson
Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County CONTENTS I. Executive Summary ...... 1 II. Introduction and Purpose ...... 7 Introduction ...... 7 Planning Purpose ...... 9 Planning Context ...... 9 Planning Principles ...... 11 III. The Land Conservation Plan ...... 13 Plan Vision ...... 13 Plan Goals, Strategies, and Tactics ...... 13 Conservation Focus Areas ...... 18 Natural Resource Management ...... 28 Potential Ten-Year Outcomes for the Plan ...... 32 IV. Implementation ...... 33 Establishing Priorities ...... 33 Partnerships ...... 38 Funding the Work ...... 41 Program Operation ...... 47 Public Information and Education ...... 51 Progress Measurement and Reporting ...... 51 Appendix 1. Planning Process and Background ...... 53 Planning Process Summary ...... 53 County Land Conservation Overview ...... 54 Refining the DirectionDraft of to Land Consider Conservation ...... for Public Review 57 New Recommendations ...... 66 Appendix 2. Community Engagement Highlights ...... 67 Appendix 3. Plan Research Highlights ...... 73
Darvan Outdoor Education Center, Inver Grove Heights
Draft to Consider for Public Review
Pine Bend Bluffs Scientific and Natural Area, Rosemount
Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Dakota County -- a vast homeland to Dakota and Ojibwa people, then part of the Dakota Territory encompassing millions of acres westward to the Missouri River -- is now one of seven core Twin Cities Metropolitan Area counties. Bounded by the Mississippi, Minnesota and Cannon rivers, the County includes 576 square miles of ecologically and visually diverse landscapes. The majority of nearly 430,000 residents live in developed and expanding suburbs in the northern third of the County, and 820 farms and small rural centers cover the southern two thirds of the County.
The Need for Natural Resource Conservation Our natural resource base is essential to individual and community health, and is irreplaceable. We all need drinkable water, breathable air, reliable food, and a safe place to live. It’s not difficult to find evidence of declining environmental quality, whether relative to the world of our childhood, or that of our grandparents, or earlier. The following indicators provide a snapshot of water quality, natural areas, wildlife, and County residents’ concerns about environmental quality.
• State impaired waters listings identify lakes, rivers, and streams that no longer provide for designated uses, such as fishing, swimming or drinking. The number of impaired waters in the County has increased over time. In 2018, testing found at least one impairment for every tested waterbody, for a total of 81 impairments.1 The number of quality issues has also grown, as new problems emerge, and new impairments are defined. • Wetlands are critical to overall water quality and flood control. More than 85 percent of Dakota County’s settlement-era wetlands have been lost.2 • Despite having a highly diverse mix of landscapes and ecosystems in the mid-1800s, only an estimated three percent of Dakota County’s natural landscapes remain. • Habitat loss has led to declining wildlife populations and diversity. Nationally, bird populations dramatically illustrate this decline since the 1970s.3 For example, grassland bird species have declined nationally by more than 50 percent.
Living in a modern world defined by development, transportation, and convenience requires balancing the trade-offs between control of our immediate environment with protection of the natural environment that sustains us all.
To protect natural resources and systems, land conservation reserves lands with significant natural resource value and manages them to restore natural functions. It is based on the concept that natural resources and natural places provide ecological, societal and economic benefits within and beyond the conservation area boundaries.Draft Landto Considerconservation includes for protectionPublic, which Review restricts use of the land. To be effective over the time, protection must be accompanied by ongoing natural resource management.
Benefits that protected and restored forests, grasslands, and wetlands can provide include: • Absorbing nutrient runoff, toxins, and sediments for cleaner water downstream • Promoting infiltration and groundwater recharge and protecting drinking water supplies • Moderating drought and flood • Improving soil health • Providing wildlife habitat and sustaining pollinators
1 https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/2018-impaired-waters-list 2 Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Plan, Version 1.02, 1997, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota. 3 Decline of the North American Avifauna, Science, Sept. 2019
Page 1 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
• Providing opportunities for recreation, education, and inspiration • Mitigating and adapting to climate change
Scientific surveys of County residents consistently show strong support for land protection and resource management, with the strongest support for water quality, wildlife habitat, and natural areas.
2019 County Survey, Percent identifying preserved land management as “Essential” or “Very Important” Approach Percent Protecting and improving water quality 92 Protecting and improving wildlife habitat 84 Protecting and improving natural areas 83 Increasing access for outdoor recreation 73 Protecting and improving land used for agriculture/specialty crops 71
Land Conservation in the County Dakota County’s 2001 Farmland and Natural Protection Plan identified priority natural areas and farmland to protect. Residents passed a $20 million bond referendum in November 2002 for a new land protection program. As of 2019, the County had spent $20.6 million, received $26.3 million in landowner donations, and leveraged $34.7 million in non-County funds to:
• Acquire 68 agricultural easements totaling 7,770 acres, including 1,300 acres of natural areas and 49 miles of shoreland • Acquire 42 natural easements totaling 1,777 acres and 30 miles of shoreline • Work with other public entities to protect 22 properties totaling 2,000 acres and 16 miles of shoreline
Land Conservation Plan Dakota County recently began developing a countywide Land Conservation Plan as a shared vision for the geographic area of Dakota County, to be implemented with partners, to guide future land protection efforts, and to strengthenDraft natural to resource Consider management for on Publicprotected lands. Review The focus was to: • Identify and prioritize significant natural areas and connecting corridors for voluntary protection and increased resource management, especially for wetland restoration and water retention on the land • Improve County coordination and collaboration with other agencies and organizations on land protection and long-term natural resource management • Explore potential tools and incentives to increase voluntary land protection and natural resource management of private lands • Update Land Conservation Program guidelines for interested landowners and partners
Page 2 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
Stakeholder and partner engagement led to development of the Plan vision, goals, and new approaches.
Land Conservation Plan Vision The natural resources of Dakota County are collaboratively protected, improved, and managed for current and future generations.
Land Conservation Plan Goals 1. Ecologically important areas are prioritized for protection. 2. Water quality and quantity is enhanced and protected. 3. Biodiversity is restored and sustained. 4. Natural resource quality is improved and sustained. 5. Dakota County’s natural resources are valued and sustained by the public. 6. Recreational access to conservation lands is enhanced.
New approaches will be used to achieve these goals.
Refine Land Protection Priorities with Preliminary Conservation Focus Areas (CFAs) Land protection priorities will be based on natural features, connectivity, hydrology, and land ownership with renewed emphasis on water. The resulting 24 Preliminary CFAs total about 82,115 acres, of which roughly 38,236 acres are already protected, and provide a framework for landowner outreach, collaborative landscape conservation and public investments.
Develop a City-CountyDraft to Consider for Public Review Conservation Collaborative Form a city-County collaborative to more effectively protect critical undeveloped areas, increase natural resource restoration and management, and share information and financial and staff resources within all incorporated areas.
Page 3 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
Establish a County Conservation Private Funding Partner Continue evaluating models for raising and distributing private funds for natural resource restoration, enhancement and maintenance on protected private lands.
Restore Large-Scale Wetlands and Assist in Implementing the new Dakota County Groundwater Plan Strategically protect, restore, and maintain existing and former wetlands, recharge areas and sensitive groundwater resources. 14,000 acres of cultivated wetlands in large basins have been identified for potential restoration.
Improve Conservation in Agricultural Use Areas Assist the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District as they work with rural land landowners and agricultural operators to improve management practices and convert marginal farmland to natural vegetation.
Ten-Year Plan Outcomes Ten-year outcomes and associated costs were developed for four protection and ownership scenarios: • Publicly-owned conservation land within Preliminary CFAs • Protected private lands within Preliminary CFAs • Non-protected private land within Preliminary CFAs • Non-protected private land outside of Preliminary CFAs
Estimates were developed based on the following key assumptions: • 80 percent of public agencies would be interested in participating in partnership efforts to restore their lands • 30 percent of landowners with County easements would be willing to additionally protect and restore land. • 20 percent of new landowners would be interested in protecting and restoring some of their land. • Continued availability of existing and future State and other non-County grant funds • County cost-share likely would be 20 to 25 percent for protection and restoration activities Draft to Consider for Public Review Based on the scenarios, landscape types, and assumptions, a range of land protection and restoration targets for the next ten years are:
2,500-5,000 acres of additional land protection at a projected County cost of $5.2M-$10.4M. 4,000-15,500 acres of additional restoration at a projected County cost of $3.8M-$7.6M.
Estimated Cost The total estimated cost for protecting and restoring lands within the Preliminary Conservation Focus Areas and areas identified outside of the CFAs is $367M, based on past program experience, current land and easement values and unit restoration costs.
Page 4 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
Potential Outcomes and Estimated County Cost
Ten-Year Ten-Year Ten-Year Ten-Year Ten-Year Ten-Year Protection and Total Total County Total County Protection Restoration Ownership Status Acres Protection Protection Restoration Restoration Acres Acres Costs Cost Costs Cost 1. Public Conservation 29,073 0 $0 $0 10,600 $30.5 M $3.5 M Lands within CFAS 2. Protected Private 8,533 1,900 $31.7 M $2.1 M 2,500 $20.7 M $0.9M Lands within CFAs 3. Non-Protected Private Land 43,879 2,600 $159.2 M $7.8 M 2,100 $99.4 M $3.0 M within CFAs 4. Non-Protected Private Land 2,400 500 $16.4 M $0.5 M 400 $9.2 M $0.2 M outside of CFAs Totals 83,885 5,000 $207.3 M $10.4 M 15,600 $159.8 M $7.6 M
Operational Considerations Land conservation projects can be highly complex, with many variables that influence timeframes and costs. Acquisition projects can require 18 to 24 months and restoration projects require three or more years. Staff capacity influences the amount of land that can be protected and restored annually and over the Plan’s ten-year timeframe. Based on current staff capacity, an estimated 250 acres could be protected each year for a total of 2,500 acres and 400 acres could be restored each year for a total of 4,000 acres over the ten-year plan.
An additional 1.0 FTE Acquisition Specialist could double the land protection to 5,000 acres over ten years. An additional 3.0 FTE Restoration Specialists could quadruple the natural resource restoration acreage to 15,500 acres over ten years. The estimated costs for these staffing options are outlined below:
Estimated Annual Costs Land Protection Natural Resource Restoration Acres 250 500 400 800 1,200 1,600 County Operational Cost $300K $415K $300K $415K $530K $645K (Current) (+1 FTE) (Current) (+1 FTE) (+2 FTE) (+3 FTE) Additional County CapitalDraft Cost to Consider$520K $1.04M for Public$190K Review$380K $570K $760K Total County Cost $820K $1.46M $490K $795K $1.1M $1.45M
Estimated Ten-Year Costs Land Protection Natural Resource Restoration Acres 2,500 5,000 4,000 8,000 1,2000 1,6000 County Operational Cost $3M $4.15M $3M $4.15M $5.3M $6.45M (Current) (+1 FTE) (Current) (+1 FTE) (+2 FTE) (+3 FTE) Additional County Capital Cost $5.2M $10.4M $1.9M $3.8M $5.7M $7.6M Total County Cost $8.2M $14.65M $4.9M $7.95M $11M $14.5M
Once the Land Conservation Plan is adopted by The Dakota County Board of Commissioners, the Environmental Resources Department will develop annual workplans detailing activities for the following year. Annual program budgets are subject to County Board review and approval.
Page 5 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
Moving Forward The County will continue to rely on private landowner interest in voluntary land protection and will work with landowners on their timeframes and meeting their needs.
Realizing the vision will also rely on partners that have additional objectives, needs, and priorities beyond Dakota County’s. Dakota County envisions its role in facilitating, planning assistance, implementation assistance, and funding to realize this vision. The hope is that others embrace this plan and take ownership in its goals and implementation.
Chub Creek, Eureka Township
Draft to Consider for Public Review
Marcott Lakes, Inver Grove Heights
Page 6 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
II. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
Introduction 1. A Changing Landscape Dakota County -- a vast homeland to Dakota and Ojibwa people, then part of the Dakota Territory encompassing millions of acres westward to the Missouri River -- is now one of seven core Twin Cities Metropolitan Area counties. Bounded by the Mississippi, Minnesota and Cannon rivers, the County includes 576 square miles of ecologically and visually diverse landscapes. The majority of nearly 430,000 residents live in developed and expanding suburbs in the northern third of the County, and 820 farms and small rural centers cover the southern two thirds of the County.
From hunting and gathering indigenous cultures, to diverse agricultural heritage, to contemporary residential, commercial and industrial land uses, the County’s rich natural resources provided for survival, development, commerce, and special places deemed sacred, beautiful, and defining a sense a of place.
As in most communities, these natural resources and special places were transformed over time. Vast grasslands were cultivated to provide food. Forests were felled for building lumber and in turn, provided more land to farm. Large wetlands were drained, filled, and tiled to grow food. Many agricultural areas then gave way to towns and cities, a growing network of roads, suburbs, and larger cities.
Development of natural lands has altered and damaged natural resources and systems in the County, with consequences to local communities. Rivers, streams and lakes became increasingly polluted from urban and agricultural runoff. Groundwater is being pumped more rapidly than it is being replenished and contamination is a growing concern. Soil health has been compromised by development, erosion, compaction, and chemicals. Wildlife habitat has been lost, fragmented, and degraded resulting in declining plant and animal populations and overall species diversity. Many natural places enjoyed and valued by generations have disappeared across the County.
2. Land Conservation in the County Early conservation efforts included the establishment of Carleton Arboretum along the Cannon River in 1920’s, Kaposia Park in South St. Paul in 1937 and the Gores Pool State Wildlife Management Area along the Mississippi River floodplain in the late 1930’s. Extensive land protection efforts in the County expanded in the 1960’s with the establishment of Fort Snelling State Park, Dakota County’s park system, the regional park system, Dodge NatureDraft Center to in Consider West St. Paul, and for many Public city parks. Review These lands were protected for the many public and individual benefits that land conservation offers, including a broad range of ecosystem services (ES).
• Regulation of natural processes, such as maintaining air and water quality, climate moderation, pest mitigation, and flood control • Supporting processes that contribute to and are essential for ecosystem services, such as soil generation, waste decomposition, nutrient and water cycling, and pollination • Providing products obtained from nature, such as food, fresh water, timber, fiber, and biomass fuel • Cultural nonmaterial benefits, such as recreation, aesthetic appreciation, education, health, and inspiration
Page 7 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
Forests, grasslands, and wetlands absorb nutrient runoff, toxins, and sediments from roads, agriculture, and industry, protecting drinking water and aquatic resources and saving municipalities major costs in chemical or mechanical water treatment. Forests, grasslands, and wetlands also slow runoff, minimize evaporation, and allow for infiltration and groundwater recharge. This can moderate drought and flood to provide a more consistent water supply for consumption, electricity generation, industrial uses, and recreation.
Large, contiguous blocks of forests and wetlands are most likely to contain fully functioning ecosystems and provide valuable ecosystem services. Healthy, functioning watersheds naturally filter pollutants, reduce soil erosion, decrease flooding, and recharge groundwater, with cleaner water downstream.
3. Farmland, Natural Areas, and Land Conservation Resident interest in protecting farmland and natural areas increased in the 1990’s, in response to increased residential development and the possible relocation of the Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport to central Dakota County. The County’s 2001 Farmland and Natural Protection Plan identified more than 78,000 acres of natural area and farmland to protect. Residents supported County leadership in land protection and demonstrated a willingness to increase their property taxes by passing a $20 million bond referendum in November 2002 for land protection.
In 2003, the County began working with willing sellers to protect high-quality natural areas and farmland with high quality soils along rivers and streams, through acquisition of permanent conservation easements and financially assisting other public entities in acquiring fee title. As of 2019, the County had spent $20.6 million, received $26.3 million in landowner donations, and leveraged $34.7 million in non-County funds to:
• Acquire 68 agricultural easements totaling 7,770 acres, including 1,300 acres of natural areas and 49 miles of shoreland • Acquire 42 natural area easements totaling 1,777 acres and 30 miles of shoreline • Work with other public entities to protect 22 properties totaling 2,000 acres and 16 miles of shoreline The combination of County acquisitions and lands acquired by cities and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has increased the amount of publicly accessible protected natural lands in the County by an estimated 3,811 acres over the past 18 years. Combined with nearly 8,700 acres of permanently protected private lands, nearly 8.6 percent of the County is permanently protected conservation lands.
Management of natural resources on protected lands also has accelerated throughout the County. The growing recognition thatDraft land is tonot trulyConsider protected unless for it Public is actively managed, Review the relentless spread of invasive species, expanding scientific knowledge, increased management capacity in the public and private sectors, and greater access to native plants and seeds all have contributed to this essential component of lasting conservation work.
Despite this notable progress, the need for additional conservation work continues. • Most of the surface waters in the County continue to be impaired in some way. • Nitrate contamination is documented in extensive portions of the County’s groundwater. • Diminished soil health continues to be a concern. • Flood damage has increased due to our land use practices and more frequent and extreme precipitation. • Special concern wildlife species continue to decline in numbers and diversity. • Recognition that people benefit physically and mentally from quality time outdoors has grown.
Page 8 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
Land conservation reserves lands with significant natural resource value, to protect them from the harmful impacts of various land uses. It is based on the concept that natural resources and natural places provide a wide range of ecological, societal and economic benefits within and beyond the conservation area boundaries. Land conservation includes land protection, generally achieved through the purchase of land in fee title or easements that restrict use of the land. To be effective over the long-term, land protection must be accompanied by ongoing natural resource management, including restoration when needed. Many natural processes that would normally maintain the integrity of natural resources have been disrupted by a range of land use activities (e.g., suppression of natural fire, alteration to pre-settlement hydrology, and introduction of invasive species). Without evaluation, intervention, and ongoing management, natural resources on protected lands are likely to decline over time, undermining the investment made in protecting these lands.
Planning Purpose In 2018, the County began developing a countywide Land Conservation Plan as a shared vision for the geographic area of Dakota County, to be implemented with partners, to guide future land protection efforts, and to strengthen natural resource management on protected lands. The focus was to:
• Identify and prioritize significant natural resource lands and connecting corridors for voluntary protection and increased natural resource management, especially for wetland restoration and improved water retention on the land • Improve County coordination and collaboration with other agencies and organizations on land protection and long-term natural resource management • Explore potential tools and incentives to increase voluntary land protection and natural resource management of private lands • Update Land Conservation Program guidelines for interested landowners and partners This Plan builds from the lessons learned and the successes of the 2002 Dakota County Farmland and Natural Areas Protection Plan and the countywide Farmland and Natural Area Program (FNAP), as well as its successor, the Dakota County Land Conservation Program. Draft to Consider for Public Review
Planning Context This Plan was informed by many comprehensive and natural resource management plans that address the geographic area of Dakota County, including City, Township, County, Regional, and State plans. Review of current plans demonstrated alignment of goals and principles for protection and management of land and natural resources. Vermillion River Gorge, Hastings
Page 9 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
County Plans This Land Conservation Plan is guided by two overarching County plans, the 2017 Dakota County Strategic Plan and the 2040 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan.
The Dakota County Strategic Plan reflects the County Board of Commissioners' vision for the County and guides County programs and initiatives, including the Land Conservation Plan.
A great place to live • Dakota County strives to be a welcoming place where all people are safe, have opportunities to thrive, and enjoy a high lifelong quality of life.
A healthy environment with quality natural areas • Dakota County protects and maintains natural resources for the health and enjoyment of current and future residents.
A successful place for business and jobs • Dakota County fosters business and employment success through modern infrastructure, low taxes, and a prepared, connected workforce.
Excellence in public service • Dakota County demonstrates sound stewardship of human and financial resources, communicates and engages with the public, and innovates and collaborates to provide excellent service.
The Land Conservation Plan supports the following Natural Resources Goals identified in the 2040 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2019:
5.3 Preserve vital functions of natural systems by strategically and collaboratively improving Dakota County’s green infrastructure
5.4 Conserve and protect natural resources in Dakota County, including air quality, water, soil, productive farmland, minerals (bedrock, sand and gravel aggregates), vegetation, and wildlife
5.5 Sufficient and sustainable high-quality water resources
5.6 Sufficient and sustainable high-quality water supplies Draft to Consider for Public Review City and Township Plans Comprehensive Plans prepared by municipalities in the County identify land protection and natural resource management goals. More than half of the city plans identify needs for open space/natural area protection not related to parks acquisition, and many identify working with the County on land protection. Roughly half of the large city plans called for habitat corridors linking natural areas. Most townships and rural centers in Dakota County participated in the Rural Collaborative Comprehensive Plan, which includes land protection and natural resource management policies that are consistent with the County’s, as shown by the following excerpt:
Page 10 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
Rural Collaborative 2040 Comprehensive Plan Environmental Resources Policies • Work cooperatively with Dakota County and other organizations that support the goals of protecting natural areas and corridors in southern Dakota County. • Develop and implement a protection and management plan for natural areas that includes:
- A cohesive system of natural areas connected by natural corridors - Areas identified and prioritized for preservation, protection, or restoration - A functional classification of natural areas based upon appropriate use, including recreation, preservation, hunting, agricultural, and private access - Land protection strategies for targeted areas, including voluntary conservation plans, donation or purchase of conservation easements, transfer of development rights, purchase of development rights, and acquisition - Strategies and standards for the long-term management of natural areas - A description of partnerships with other units of government to protect shared natural areas - Innovative and appropriate natural area agricultural practices - Funding and funding sources
Planning Principles Guiding Principles were developed for this Plan based on research and stakeholder engagement. These principles establish primary approaches for the County in pursuing land protection and natural resource management.
1. Protect and manage land to ensure that quality natural resources exist for future generations. 2. Recognize that natural resources are not confined to jurisdictional or ownership boundaries. 3. Protect and manage natural resources as a shared responsibility. 4. Emphasize protection and management of natural resources that provide multiple benefits. 5. Emphasize connection of natural communities. 6. Manage natural resources as an adaptive process requiring a long-term commitment. 7. Serve as a catalyst for broader participation and collective action in Dakota County as a place with natural resources and systems worth protecting and managing. Draft to Consider for Public Review Operating Principles articulate values grounding the Dakota County Land Conservation Program and are a lens through which program decisions will be made and how program work will be done:
• Accountability: track and report program progress toward County and Plan goals • Collaboration: develop working partnerships with other agencies, organizations, and residents to achieve shared goals • Data-driven decision making: use sound, science-based information as a foundation for decisions • Equity and inclusiveness: engage all people who may have an interest in program activities • Fiscal stewardship: make optimal use of program budget and leveraging outside funding • Transparency: provide easily accessible public communication on program activities
Page 11 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
School Field Trip in Restored Prairie
Draft to Consider for Public Review
Restored Prairie, Miesville Ravine Park Reserve
Page 12 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
III. THE LAND CONSERVATION PLAN
Plan Vision The overarching vision for the Land Conservation Plan is:
The natural resources of Dakota County are collaboratively protected, improved, and managed for current and future generations.
Plan Goals, Strategies, and Tactics Plan Goals Six goals emerged from research and community engagement. The goals aspire to desired future conditions for natural resource protection and 1. Ecologically important management in the County. areas are prioritized for protection. The following section discusses the goals, providing a set of strategies (approaches) for reaching the desired future conditions. Strategies are 2. Water quality and supported by a set of proposed tactics (specific tasks) for the Land quantity is enhanced and Conservation Program and its partners. Proposed tactics will be refined protected. throughout implementation, as needed, related to Land Conservation Program annual work planning and landowner response to outreach. A 3. Biodiversity is restored current status is provided for each tactic – ongoing (current activity that will and sustained. continue), expanded (more will be done within a current activity) , or new (a new activity introduced by this Plan). 4. Natural resource quality is improved and Goal 1: Ecologically important areas are prioritized for protection. sustained. Preliminary Conservation Focus Areas (CFAs) emerged from an evaluation and refinement of previously-identified priority areas for voluntary land 5. Dakota County’s natural protection and enhanced natural resources management. CFAs include resources are valued and natural resource lands that are publicly protected, private easements, sustained by the public. unprotected areas, and connecting corridors. The CFAs form a countywide network of landscapes and corridors that represent some of the County’s 6. Recreational access to best natural resources, but also are a starting point for discussion with conservation lands is stakeholders. Section C of this chapter provides information on the process enhanced. used to identify CFAs. Draft to Consider for Public Review Strategies and Proposed Tactics: A. Use preliminary Conservation Focus Areas (CFAs) as a framework for protecting and connecting natural areas and habitat. 1. Refine acquisition project evaluation criteria and weighting for different classifications (surface water, wetland/upland and upland) to prioritize potential land protection projects. (expanded) 2. Conduct landowner outreach within all CFAs to effectively inform and engage landowners. (expanded) 3. Create detailed, baseline information profiles for each CFA to document natural resource quality, needs, and opportunities with evolving updates. (new) 4. Identify and prioritize wetland basins for further hydrological analysis and cost estimates. (new)
Page 13 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
5. Use a range of voluntary land protection methods such as fee title and easement acquisition and land registry. (expanded) 6. Develop and test prioritization approaches for individual CFAs. (new) 7. Protect representative, high quality native communities (wetlands, grasslands and forests) within the County. (expanded) 8. Establish a technical advisory group to evaluate and develop recommendations for the use of property tax modifications as conservation incentives. (new) 9. Protect critical groundwater recharge areas within CFAs as identified by the County Groundwater Plan. (new) 10. Review CFA boundaries every five years and revise as needed, based on new information. (new)
B. Expand strategic partnerships with agencies and organizations. 1. Establish and begin implementing a City-County Conservation Collaborative for natural resource planning, protection, and management. (new)
Goal 2: Water quality and quantity is enhanced and protected. Land conservation with enhanced natural resource management can be a powerful asset in improving and protecting surface and groundwater quality. The Land Conservation Program will focus on wetland protection and restoration at a large scale and protecting and restoring shoreline to improve surface water quality. The Program also can assist in implementing the new County Groundwater Plan by working with interested landowners to strategically protect vital recharge areas and sensitive groundwater resources. Several Drinking Water Drinking Water Supply Management Areas and other infiltration areas could benefit from land-management changes and land protection to adequately protect groundwater. These areas also would be a priority for the Land Conservation Program, whether or not the lands are located within the preliminary CFAs.
To improve water quality in these areas, it will be important to work with willing landowners to improve agricultural management practices, potentially convert row crop agricultural lands to less impactful crops, or even restore natural areas. It is envisioned that the Land Conservation Program would assist the Dakota Soil and Water Conservation District as they lead these activities. Strategies and ProposedDraft Tactics: to Consider for Public Review A. Use preliminary CFAs to identify, prioritize, protect, and restore wetland basins, shoreland, headwaters, and recharge areas to improve water quality and supply and to reduce flooding. 1. Establish evaluation criteria and weighting to prioritize potential protection and restoration projects. (expanded) 2. Conduct landowner outreach within all CFAs to effectively inform and engage landowners. (expanded) 3. Use a range of voluntary land protection methods such as fee title and easement acquisition and explore options for long-term agreements. (expanded) 4. Use a range of natural resource management techniques to restore, enhance and maintain lands for improved water quality, infiltration and storage to reduce flooding and provide wildlife habitat benefits. (expanded)
Page 14 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
B. Partner with SWCD and other entities to promote, incentivize and implement water quality and quantity management and soil health practices (e.g., functional buffers, perennial vegetation on critical recharge areas, erosion control, wetland restoration, water retention basins, and soil health). 1. Develop project goals and funding criteria. (expanded) 2. Secure new cost-share funding for best management practice implementation. (new) 3. Promote awareness of practice implementation opportunities among landowners and operators. (expanded) 4. Combine and leverage resources to implement projects. (ongoing) C. Protect -and restore critical infiltration areas outside CFAs identified by the County Groundwater Plan. 1. Establish evaluation criteria and weighting to prioritize potential protection and restoration projects. (new) 2. Conduct landowner outreach outside of CFAs where important areas have been identified to effectively inform and engage landowners and initiate wetland restoration initiatives. (expanded) 3. Use a range of voluntary land protection methods such as fee title and easement purchase and long-term agreements. (expanded) 4. Use a range of natural resource management techniques to restore, enhance and maintain lands for improved water quality, infiltration and storage to reduce flooding and provide wildlife habitat benefits. (expanded)
Goal 3: Natural resource quality is improved and sustained. Natural areas are not truly protected unless the natural resources are managed over the long-term. Restoration and natural resources maintenance are necessary to protect the initial investment made in these lands, but also requires a long-term commitment of funding and effort. The need for restoration and management applies to both publicly-owned and privately-owned protected lands. More can be accomplished on public lands through collaborative approaches, such as a City-County Conservation Collaborative (CCCC). The Collaborative would identify land protection priorities and opportunities; develop natural resource management plans and priorities for city properties; develop joint grant proposals; improve efficiencies and lower costs for purchasing seed, nursery stock, and other materials; and potentially share staff resources and equipment.
Providing funding for sDrafthort- and to long Consider-term natural resource for Publicrestoration, Reviewmanagement, and maintenance on protected private land has been a critical and ongoing challenge. Precedent research did not identify a County-affiliated entity for natural resource management of private lands.
Strategies and Proposed Tactics: A. Restore, enhance, and maintain natural resources on private lands. 1. Develop criteria and weighting for ranking potential natural resource restoration projects within CFAs. (new) 2. Develop funding formulas for restoration projects on private land within and outside of CFAs. (new) 3. Require ongoing restoration, management and maintenance activities as part of land protection agreements. (ongoing)
Page 15 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
4. Partner with the SWCD and other entities to promote, incentivize, and implement natural resource management practices on private lands. (expanded) 5. Provide new incentives for improved natural resource management on both protected and non- protected private lands. (new) 6. Work with other jurisdictions, agencies, and organizations to share natural resource management information and techniques with private landowners. (new) 7. Explore options for using a private funding entity to secure and disburse private funds for natural resource restoration and maintenance on protected private lands. (new) 8. Develop and implement monitoring protocols of management areas to assess results. (new) B. Restore, enhance, and maintain natural resources on public lands. 1. Develop criteria and weighting for prioritizing potential natural resource management projects within CFAs. (new) 2. Develop funding formulas for restoration projects on public lands within and outside of CFAs. (new) 3. Use the CFA framework to determine natural resource management priorities for public lands. (new) 4. Establish and implement a City-County Conservation Collaborative to increase natural resource management within ecologically significant city lands using shared and leveraged resources. (new) 5. Expand strategic partnerships to increase natural resource management using shared and leveraged resources for ecologically significant, non-County public land. (expanded) 6. Coordinate natural resource information with other public entities. (new) 7. Establish a network of natural resource restoration reference sites. (new) 8. Develop and implement monitoring protocols of management areas to assess results. (new)
Goal 4: Biodiversity is restored and sustained. The process for identifying CFAs looked at State biodiversity data and rare species and ecosystems, as well as corridors that are vital for the movement and population health of wildlife. The use of land protection tools combined with collaborative enhanced natural resource management is intended to assist in stabilizing and sustaining the County’s native natural heritage. Draft to Consider for Public Review Strategies and Proposed Tactics: A. Use CFAs to protect habitat for rare, declining, and special concern species on public lands. 1. Identify and inventory areas of existing high biodiversity and high restoration potential. (expanded) 2. Develop baseline biodiversity data, goals, priorities, and monitoring protocols for the County and each CFA. (new) 3. Compile comprehensive list of plant and animal species found in the County. (new) B. Use CFAs to protect habitat for rare, declining, and special concern species on private lands. 1. Prioritize biodiversity in CFA protection and restoration criteria, weighting, and implementation. (new)
Page 16 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
C. Develop and implement a Pollinator Habitat Network. 1. Develop a Pollinator Habitat Network for the County. (new) 2. Partner with transportation agencies and utilities to improve pollinator habitat within right-of-way and corridors. (new) 3. Partner with non-profit and other entities to improve smaller-scale pollinator habitat sites within the Pollinator Habitat Network. (new)
Goal 5: The public supports and is involved in natural resource protection and management. This goal addresses the need for enhanced communication on the Land Conservation Program, land protection, and natural resources management. In addition to providing high quality information, this goal seeks ways to engage people who would like to be more involved in conservation activities. Strategies and Proposed Tactics: A. Provide timely and relevant Land Conservation information. 1. Develop a business plan for creating a web-based network with partners for sharing natural resource information. (new) 2. Develop inclusive and accessible information resources for the public. (new) 3. Provide regular information and two-way communication opportunities for participating landowners. (expanded) 4. Develop inclusive and accessible information for the public. (new) B. Work with partners to engage the public through in-person conservation events and activities. 1. Provide volunteer opportunities in partnership with other organizations and County departments (e.g., BioBlitz, seed collection, and vegetation and wildlife monitoring). (expanded) 2. Provide seminars, tours, and speaking engagements. (expanded) 3. Help promote the Soil and Water Conservation District Conservation Landowner of the Year program. (new)
Goal 6: Recreational access to conservation lands is enhanced. Access to protected public lands with high quality natural resources enables people to learn about and appreciate nature, relax,Draft recrea teto, and Consider be inspired. For for youth, Public early experiences Review in nature may help shape the next generation of conservationists and natural resource stewards. The Program will work with landowners within CFAs to explore interest in allowing some degree of public access. Across all CFAs, there should be a net increase in publicly-accessible sites, particularly to expand opportunities to experience higher quality natural areas and representative landscapes of the County. Strategies and Proposed Tactics: A. Provide new and enhanced opportunities for compatible outdoor recreation activities through the addition of publicly accessible lands within CFAs. 1. Work with landowners to provide at least one publicly accessible site within each CFA. (expanded) 2. Provide at least one location for the public to access high quality, representative wetland, grassland and forest communities. (expanded)
Page 17 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
B. Improve outdoor recreation activities on public lands through enhanced natural resource quality, information and amenities. 1. Work with other public entities to provide coordinated information about recreational and interpretive opportunities. (new) 2. Work with the DNR to provide more public amenities (kiosks, benches, trails) on state Wildlife and Aquatic Management Areas. (new)
Conservation Focus Areas Evaluation of natural areas and connectivity in the County considered public and private lands that are already protected and past conservation mapping work from other plans, including:
2002 Farmland and Natural Areas Protection Plan In 2002, residents identified natural open space, compiled into a “Citizen Natural Area Protection Map.” Dakota County SWCD mapped land cover and protected areas using the newly-developed Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS). Combined analysis identified 36,000 acres of priority natural areas. Residents also identified priority farmland to protect and the Plan included 42,000 acres of productive farmland adjacent to natural corridors and within a half mile of a stream or river.
2003 Metro Conservation Corridors The Minnesota DNR and Metro Greenways Program partners used the MLCCS to update a Metro Conservation Corridors map for the seven-county metro, focused on larger areas and connections between waterways and existing public lands.
2008 Dakota County 2030 Park System Plan This plan proposed a 200-mile network of multi-purpose greenways connecting natural areas, parks, schools, open and civic spaces, and new development. Greenways would benefit habitat, water, and non-motorized recreation and transportation. Many corridors aligned with previously identified conservation corridors.
2010 Vermillion River Corridor Plan With funding fromDraft the state to Environment Consider and Natural for Public Review Resources Trust Fund, the County developed a plan for the Vermillion River Watershed to integrate water quality, wildlife and outdoor recreation.
2015 Refined County Conservation Corridors Map With updates to the MLCCS, land protection projects, regional greenways, and land use changes, a refined map was developed with County Priority Natural Areas and Metro Conservation Corridors in the County, which became the basis for the County’s land conservation efforts. Chimney Rock, Marshan Township
Page 18 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
1. Preliminary Conservation Focus Areas The County’s landscape is a diverse and dynamic mixture of public and private natural areas, farmland, culturally and historically significant places, rural towns, and suburban cities -- which do not exist independently of one another. These landscapes protect water, clean air, mitigate climate change impacts, and provide habitat for plants and animals that people depend on for many needs. Landscapes help drive local and regional economies (e.g., timber, grazing, farming, tourism), reflect cultural legacies, provide scenic beauty, and offer opportunities for recreation and gathering. Communities need healthy, natural landscapes to remain viable.
A more integrated effort is needed to connect habitats for biodiversity, ecological function, and climate resilience. Conservation efforts cannot ignore ownership or political boundaries but needs to take a larger view and recognize interrelated large-scale issues, such as wetland loss and declining water quality or habitat fragmentation and loss of species.
CFA Definition To refine priorities and protect significant and sustainable natural areas and connecting corridors, this plan proposes working with landowners on a voluntary basis within landscape-oriented Conservation Focus Areas (CFA). The preliminary CFAs were identified to include high quality natural areas, undeveloped open space and working lands and interconnecting corridors to create an extensive, integrated natural area system.
The preliminary CFAs encompass 82,115 acres and include a combination of public and private lands. Examples of public lands included in the CFAs are the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, State Aquatic and Wildlife Management Areas and Scientific Dodge Nature Center, Mendota Heights and Natural Areas, Dakota County Regional Parks, and several city-owned community parks, totaling Protection Status within Preliminary CFAs, about 29,703 acres. This plan suggests greater Acres collaboration with other public entities managing natural resource lands.Draft to Consider for Public Review
CFAs also include protected and unprotected private lands. For the approximately 8,533 acres 29,703 of private lands already under permanent 43,879 protection, this plan suggests greater outreach and collaboration with landowners on restoration, 8,533 enhancement and long-term natural resource management. For lands that are not currently protected, this plan will continue to rely on outreach and working with willing landowners to Public Land Protected Private Easements Private Land protect land and manage natural resources over the long-term through a variety of incentives.
Page 19 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
CFA IDENTIFICATION METHOD The CFAs were developed through review of previous plans and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis of:
• surface water and hydrology • presence of larger drained wetland basins • public and private protected lands • land cover • natural resource quality and restoration potential • natural area size and connectivity • land ownership
The CFAs presented in this plan are preliminary and would become the framework for future outreach and subsequent land conservation projects. Outreach would be a first step in convening landowners to assess the issues and opportunities for each CFA and determine priorities, goals, and future land protection and natural resource improvement projects. CFA boundaries will likely evolve based on the landowner discussions. Some areas may be removed from the map due to lack of landowner interest or relative importance. Other lands could be added to CFAs. Wetland restoration hydrology involves many unknowns and will likely require project boundary adjustments and different approaches.
Potential wetland restoration areas are included in the preliminary CFAs. The identification of proposed wetland restoration areas focused on larger drained basins (most are currently cultivated) with relatively fewer landowners, using the following method:
1. Using the County Soil Survey and MLCCS data, a map of cultivated, hydric (former wetland) soils was developed. 2. Light Detection and Ranging landform sensing technology (LIDAR) was used to identify basins. Relatively larger scale potential wetland basins were selected and divided into units. 3. Using basin size, proximity, land ownership and avoidance of roads, individual basins were aggregated to maximize size and minimize multiple ownership parcels.
The location and impact of underground drain tile is largely unknown, which will influence the feasibility and extent of any wetland restoration project. Basin boundaries can change based on further study. More than 14,000 acresDraft of potential to Considerwetland restoration for basins Public also are Reviewidentified.
The following map shows preliminary CFAs totaling 82,115 acres.
Page 20 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
Preliminary Conservation Focus Areas and Proposed Large Wetland Restoration Basins
Protected Private Total Land Cover Draft to Consider forPubli cPublic Review Percentage Private Land Land Acres Floodplain - Natural vegetation 7,334 1,145 7,511 15,990 20 Non-hydric Cultivated Land 2,466 3,349 7,844 13,659 17 Upland Forest/Woodland 4,151 367 6,367 10,885 13 Cultivated Wetlands 365 1,860 7,626 9,851 12 Open Water 7,815 7,815 10 Floodplain - Cultivated 175 752 5,885 6,812 8 Grassland/Pasture 3,049 403 2,962 6,414 8 Designated Wetlands 1,224 589 3,346 5,159 6 Other Artificial* 1,090 47 1,984 3,121 4 Public Right-of-Way 1,969 0 0 1,969 2 Designated 50- and 16.5-foot wide Stream Buffers 65 21 354 440 <1 Totals 29,703 8,533 43,879 82,115 100
Page 21 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
PRELIMINARY CFA DESCRIPTIONS The preliminary CFAs represent some of the highest quality natural resources in the County and include a diverse mix of natural landcover types, as well as agricultural land. They also represent opportunities to restore natural resource integrity and functions and interconnect high-quality habitat.
The preliminary CFAs are organized into 24 named areas. Due to their size or river corridor character, some CFAs are further subdivided into sub-units.
1. 180th Street Marsh 2. Cannon River 3. Chimney Rock 4. Chub Creek 5. Chub Lake 6. Darden Creek 7. Douglas Township Natural Area 8. Dutch Creek 9. Etter Creek 10. Hampton Woods 11. Lake Marion 12. Lebanon Hills 13. Marcott Lakes 14. Minnesota River A. Black Dog Unit B. Fort Snelling Unit C. Mendota/Lilydale Unit D. Oheyawahe Unit 15. Mississippi River A. Pine Bend Unit B. Spring Lake Unit C. River Bluffs Unit D. Vermillion Bottoms Unit 16. Mud Creek 17. Orchard Lake 18. Pine Creek 19. River to River Greenway 20. Sand Coulee 21. Trout Brook Draft to Consider for Public Review 22. Vermillion Highlands 23. Vermillion River Main Stem 24. Vermillion River Tributaries
Page 22 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
The preliminary CFAs encompass the majority of the sites in the County identified by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) as having high or outstanding biodiversity. A broad range of representative native communities4 of varying ecological quality exist within the preliminary CFA boundaries. The CFAs also include existing and potential habitat for rare and declining native species, including many with legal protection status. Examples of Species of Greatest Conservation Need associated with some of these communities are provided below.
Native Communities and Species of Greatest Conservation Need Found within CFAs Native Community found in CFAs Example Species of Greatest Conservation Need Wetlands Wetland Species • Black Ash - (Red Maple) Seepage Swamp • Calcareous Fen (Southeastern) • Northern Wet Meadow/Carr Sedge wren (bird) Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrow (bird) • Sedge Meadow Two-spotted Skipper (insect) • Seepage Meadow/Carr Least Bittern (bird) • Southern Seepage Meadow/Carr Virginia Rail (bird) • Spikerush - Bur Reed Marsh (Prairie) Blanding’s Turtle (reptile) • Tamarack Swamp (Southern) • Willow - Dogwood Shrub Swamp Grasslands Grassland Species • Dry Barrens Prairie (Southern) Loggerhead Shrike (bird) • Dry Bedrock Bluff Prairie (Southern) Henslow’s Sparrow (bird) • Dry Hill Prairie (Southern) Western Hognose Snake (reptile) • Dry Sand - Gravel Prairie (Southern) Prairie Vole (mammal) • Mesic Prairie (Southern) Karner Blue (insect) • Wet Prairie (Southern) Savanna Savanna Species Eastern Racer (reptile) • Dry Sand - Gravel Oak Savanna (Southern) Field Sparrow (bird) Red-headed Woodpecker (bird) Forest and Woodland Forest and Woodland Species • Red Oak - Sugar Maple - Basswood - Forest Acadian Flycatcher (bird) • Red Oak - White Oak Forest Wood Thrush (bird) • Silver Maple Floodplain Forest Cerulean Warbler (bird) • Southern Dry-Mesic Oak Forest Prothonotary Warbler (bird) • Sugar Maple - BasswoodDraft Forest to Consider for PublicFour-toed Salamander Review (amphibian) • White Pine - Oak - Sugar Maple Forest Woodland Vole (mammal) • Pin Oak - Bur Oak Woodland Eastern Pipistrelle (mammal) • White Pine - Oak Woodland Northern Long-Eared Bat (mammal) Lakes, Rivers, and Streams Lake, River, and Stream Species • Shallow Lake Higgin’s Eye Pearly Mussel (mussel) • Deep Lake Pallid Shiner (fish) • Coldwater Stream Paddlefish (fish) • Major River
4 DNR, Natural Heritage Information System GIS Database
Page 23 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
Prothonotary Warbler, National Audubon Society Higgins Eye Pearly Mussel, US Fish and Wildlife Service
Blanding’s Turtle, US Fish and Wildlife Service Redheaded Woodpecker, National Audubon Society
Draft to Consider for Public Review
Page 24 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
The following profile for the preliminary Marcott Lakes CFA in Inver Grove Heights provides an example of the information that will be developed for each CFA.
Size and Ownership 650 acres 93 Landowners 10.8 percent public protected land 34.4 percent private protected land 54.8 percent unprotected land
Unique or Significant Features This preliminary CFA encompasses three of the four southernmost lakes in the Marcott Chain of Lakes, which are the most pristine with visibility reaching depths of 20 to 30 feet.
Vegetation Forest/Woodlands are varied and include oak woodland-brushland, non-native deciduous woodland, oak forest, mesic oak forest, and conifer plantations.
Grasslands include long grasses, medium-tall grass altered/non-native dominated, short grasses and mixed trees, mixed planted and/or native grasses,
Wildlife Although not documented on protected land, Blanding’s turtle was recorded within one mile. This CFA contains suitable habitat for this species.
Sixteen to twenty bird Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) have been recorded within the vicinityDraft of the to Marcott Consider for Public Review Lakes CFA, including rose-breasted grosbeak, eastern pewee, black-billed cuckoo, and wood thrush.
Other SGCN documented over many years on protected land include big brown bat, least weasel, five-lined skink, and spotted salamander.
Page 25 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
2. Additional Eligible Lands Outside of CFAs
A. GROUNDWATER PROTECTION AREAS Groundwater aquifer recharge areas are vital in ensuring an adequate water supply in the future. Depending on soil types, some portions of the County have faster infiltration rates ranging from a half an inch to more than five inches per hour.
Where groundwater is highly vulnerable to contamination, voluntary land protection in tandem with adoption of groundwater-protective management practices provides another option for improving groundwater quality over time. The County Land Conservation Program will assist, as needed, in protecting high priority aquifer recharge areas outside of CFAs.
The following map depicts significant recharge areas outside of the preliminary CFAs, also excluding developed areas with more than ten percent impervious surface:
Significant Aquifer Recharge Areas
Aquifer Recharge Areas 83,807 acres
Preliminary CFAs 82,115 acres
Draft to Consider for Public Review
Page 26 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
B. OTHER NATURAL FEATURES Additional areas outside of the preliminary CFAs also have ecological value and would be evaluated for protection based on landowner inquiry. These areas include:
• More than 1,800 acres of forests/woodlands with greater than 40 contiguous acres • Small restorable wetlands • Locally significant open spaces • Small sites that could provide native plants seeds
Restored Prairie on protected private property, Eureka Township
Draft to Consider for Public Review
Woodland Easement, East Lake Community Park, Lakeville
Page 27 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
Natural Resource Management
1. Purposes Natural resource management is vital for Conservation Focus Areas and protected lands, whether private or public. Ongoing stewardship maintains ecological functions as part of a larger regional natural framework.
Dakota County’s rich natural heritage is based on its location at the crossroads of several ecological subsections identified by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, including the St. Paul Baldwin Plains and Moraines, Big Woods, Oak Savanna, Rochester Plateau, Bluff land, and three Major River systems. Although little pre-settlement landscape remains in Dakota County, high quality natural areas and open space areas could be restored and managed as wetland, prairie, and woodland.
Restoration and management of these natural areas can increase provision of a broad range of ecological services. These services provide real economic benefit that measurable in dollars per year but are often regarded as “free” and generally not well-accounted for in a range of land uses and development. Many studies have evaluated economic values for these services5. For more information, please see Appendix 3.
Natural resources also influence how a community defines itself, with effects on culture and the economy,
beyond the ecological benefits often Vermillion River, Vermillion Township cited as the main purpose of natural areas. Parks, open spaces, greenways, and agricultural landscapes add value and create a sense of place that Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services (ES): 5 attracts new residents and convinces Middle Cedar River Watershed, Iowa, 2011 A valuation study of ecosystem service benefits in the Middle current residents to stay.Draft Raising to Consider for Public Review Cedar River Watershed in Iowa identified 14 categories of ES awareness of how natural resources across eight land cover classes in the 1.5 million-acre (~2,400 positively affect the culture and square miles) watershed. The study estimated that the ES economy of a community establishes generated between $548 million and $1.9 billion in goods and the rationale for protecting and services. Wetlands constitute 2.3 percent of the land cover in the properly managing natural resources watershed but were found to contribute 16.5 to 30.1 percent of as a widely accepted, normal part of a the total ES value. The top-ranking ES provided by wetlands was community’s ongoing and future flood risk mitigation, valued at $2,544 to $3,651 per acre per year. activities.
5 Kocian, M., Traughber, B. Batker, D. (2012). “Valuing Nature’s Benefits: An Ecological Economic Assessment of Iowa’s Middle Cedar River Watershed.” Tacoma: Earth Economics
Page 28 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
2. Natural Resource Management Issues and Opportunities Restoring natural places and systems amid a long history of ecosystem alteration and loss must address systemic changes over time, current efforts and issues, and growing research on effective approaches.
Systemic changes that have contributed to the decline of native species and ecosystems include: 1. Land use change since the mid 1800’s: Native ecosystems were removed or altered as the County was farmed and urbanized, with loss and fragmentation of native species habitat, disrupted connectivity between habitat areas, and a reduction in the number of native species.
2. Removal of natural regulatory processes such as fire and grazing, contributes to changes in landscape composition and health. Fire recycles excess nutrients and repeated fire prevents colonization by pioneering woody plants that convert grasslands to shade-dominated woodlands.
3. Hydrologic changes from urban stormwater systems and agriculture (e.g., drain tile) have increased runoff entering natural waterways instead of being infiltrated on land. Warm water from streets and fields enters lakes, streams, and wetlands, carrying chemicals, nutrients, and sediment.
4. Invasive species include a growing number of plants and animals. Without natural predators or diseases, non-native invasive species outcompete the native species and ecosystems.
5. Climate data has indicated warmer and wetter conditions with more frequent severe weather events and weather extremes, with impacts to native ecosystems.
Ongoing Issues include: • Reversing the systemic changes mentioned above is difficult, even when possible. Mitigation of their impacts at a smaller scale requires a long-term effort. • Natural resource management requires an ongoing commitment to maintenance. • Despite increased public investment in protecting land and water quality, more restoration and natural resource management remains to be done. • Most land will remain in private ownership and pose many challenges in addressing long-term natural resource management and costs. • Natural resources management would benefit from a clear and shared framework, including language and terminology. Draft to Consider for Public Review
Natural Resource Management Recommendations include: • Basing management decisions on sound science and professional practice. • Involving the public and landowners, to benefit from diverse perspectives, needs, and interests. • Working across jurisdictional and ownership boundaries, through partnerships and collaboration. • Having clearly-conceived goals that are realistic, with sufficient time horizons. • Having clear performance metrics to track progress toward project goals. • Continuing natural resource monitoring and assessment over time. • Developing and using clear standards for restoration and management goals, effective monitoring, and adapting project practices when needed.
Page 29 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
• Providing adequate budgets to sustain restoration and management efforts over time. • Sharing resource and management information with landowners, partners, and the public.
Ecological Restoration and Management Ecological restoration rebuilds ecosystems by stabilizing and enhancing the diversity, resilience, and natural functions of ecosystems. Healthy ecosystems are usually diverse in plants and wildlife, have few invasive plants, have healthy soils and good reproduction of important species, and generate ecosystem services, such as clean air and water, regulating and purifying stormwater runoff, recharging groundwater, controlling erosion and building soil.
The composition and function of restored ecosystems is intended to be similar to native ecosystems. The development of site-specific Natural Resource Management Plans (NRMPs) is fundamental to effective natural resource management. NRMPs describe the ecological setting, existing conditions, and goals for natural resources. Plans define management units, tasks, costs, and a schedule of work. Successful natural resource restoration and management plans are flexible. Ecosystems may not respond as expected, or new technology and scientific understanding may emerge. NRMPs are a starting point and should be updated based on site response and new information. Regular monitoring of conditions and reporting on progress provides a basis for adjusting NRMPs, also referred to as adaptive management.
Ecological restoration involves short- and long-term phases. The short-term phase is often more intensive, but provides an essential foundation for the overall restoration. Establishing the proposed plant community structure (e.g., tree canopy, shrub layer) often lasts three to four years. Tasks can include woody brush removal, invasive species control, seeding/planting native species, and using bio-control techniques when available. After initial restoration, ongoing management is essential to protect the investment already made. Typical tasks include spot spraying of invasive plants, re-seeding disturbed or poorly developing areas, re-planting woody plants, and maintaining the right disturbances, such as fire, to perpetuate the plant community.
It is important to develop and use consistent standards and language for describing natural resource management. The Five-Star Ecological Recovery Reference System6, developed by the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER), provides a potential framework for setting goals and monitoring progress. The Five Star model:
• Evaluates progression of an ecosystem based on recovery outcomes, not restoration activities. • Is based on keyDraft attribut es,to or Consider broad goals supported for Public by more specific Review goals and objectives. • Recognizes that each restoration project does not necessarily start at the same level and full recovery of some attributes will be difficult to achieve.
6 https://www.ser.org/page/SERNews3113
Page 30 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
The following table and adapted graphic provide an example set of attributes, goals, and measures.
Five-Star Ecological Recovery Reference System Attributes, Goals, and Measures Attributes Goals Example Measures 1. Absence of • Reduce invasive species Common buckthorn, honeysuckle, garlic Threats mustard, and black locust are not present 2. Physical • Restore wetlands and increase surface Acre-feet of new water storage Conditions water storage and quality 3. Species • Increase number of desirable plants List of all native species evidently persisting on Composition • Increase number of desirable animals the site, particularly any threatened species 4. Structural • Establish desired vegetative layers Assemblage of species and age Diversity 5. Ecosystem • Maximize number of wildlife indicator Breeding bird census Function species 6. Connectivity • Maintain and increase wildlife movement Wildlife species using adjacent/nearby sites
This adapted Ecological Recovery Wheel is based on a more complex SER Ecological Recovery Wheel. It can be used to visually depict the status of a site at a specific time in the restoration process. This can be an important tool for comparing efforts but requires coordination and acceptance of established standards and measurements. The concentric rings are used to represent a “one to five” assessment for each attribute over time.
Draft to Consider for Public Review
Page 31 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
Potential Ten-Year Outcomes for the Plan Targeted ten-year outcomes and associated cost estimates were developed for four protection and ownership scenarios:
• Publicly-owned conservation land within Preliminary Conservation Focus Areas • Protected private lands within Preliminary Conservation Focus Areas • Non-protected private land within Preliminary Conservation Focus Areas • Non-protected private land outside of Preliminary Conservation Focus Areas
Acquisition and restoration costs were then estimated for the following eleven major landscape types:
• Open water • Floodplain – natural vegetation • Floodplain – cultivated • Designated wetlands • Designated 50- and 16.5-foot wide stream buffers • Upland forest/woodlands • Cultivated, non-hydric land • Cultivated hydric land/wetland • Grassland/pasture • Public right-of-way • Other
The total estimated cost for protecting and restoring lands within the Preliminary Conservation Focus Areas and areas identified outside of the CFAs is $367M, based on past program experience, current land and easement values and unit restoration costs. These estimates were then adjusted based on the following key assumptions:
• 80 percent of public agencies would be interested in participating in partnership efforts to restore their lands, the majority of floodplain acres would not require restoration and one third of grasslands have already been restored • 30 percent of landowners with County easements would be willing to additionally protect and restore land. Draft to Consider for Public Review • 20 percent of new landowners would be interested in protecting and restoring some of their land. • Continued availability of existing and future State and other non-County grant funds • County cost-share likely would be 20 to 25 percent for protection and restoration activities
Based on the scenarios, landscape types, and assumptions, a range of land protection and restoration targets for the next ten years are:
2,500-5,000 acres of additional land protection at a projected County cost of $5.2M-$10.4M. 4,000-15,500 acres of additional restoration at a projected County cost of $3.8M-$7.6M.
Page 32 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
IV. IMPLEMENTATION
Establishing Priorities The following section discusses prioritization of plan actions that should occur early in implementation and at the geographic level, to identify approaches for initiating work within Conservation Focus Areas.
1. Priorities for Plan Actions Goals, strategies, and tactics are summarized in the following table with preliminary priorities suggested for strategies. The fourth column identifies generally when the tactic would be initiated over the ten-year life of this Plan: within one-two years (2020-2021), within three-four years (2022-2023), or within five or more years (2024 and beyond). Determining initiation timeframes is based in part on overall priority and partly on the availability of needed resources and information. It is useful to note that some of the tactics are discrete tasks that can be completed in less than one year, others will be multi-year projects, and many will be ongoing activities. Implementation and prioritization of strategies and tactics are subject to County Board approval, through annual budgeting, work planning processes, and partner considerations.
GOALS STRATEGIES PROPOSED TACTICS STATUS TIMEFRAMES
1. Refine acquisition project evaluation criteria and Expanded 2020 weighting for different classifications.
2. Conduct landowner outreach within all CFAs. Expanded 2020-2021
3. Create detailed, baseline information profiles for New 2020-2021 each CFA.
4. Identify and prioritize wetland basins. New 2020-2025
5. Use a range of voluntary land protection Expanded 2020-2030 A. Use preliminary methods. Conservation Focus Areas 6. Develop and test conservation approaches for (CFAs) as a framework for New 2020-2024 protecting and connecting individual CFAs. natural areas and habitat. 7. Protect representative, high quality native Priority: HIGH Expanded 2020-2030 Goal 1 communities. Ecologically 8. Establish a technical advisory group on property important New 2020-2021 tax modifications as conservation incentives. areas are prioritized Draft to Consider for Public Review 9. Protect critical groundwater recharge areas for New 2022-2030 protection. within CFAs.
10. Review CFA boundaries every five years and New 2025-2030 revise as needed.
B. Expand strategic partnerships with agencies and 1. Establish and begin implementing a City-County organizations. Conservation Collaborative for natural resource New 2020-2021 planning and protection. Priority: MEDIUM
Page 33 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
GOALS STRATEGIES PROPOSED TACTICS STATUS TIMEFRAMES
1. Establish evaluation criteria and weighting to Expanded 2020 A. Use CFAs to identify, prioritize potential water quality projects. prioritize, protect, and restore wetlands, shoreland, 2. Conduct landowner outreach within all CFAs. Expanded 2020-2021 headwaters, and recharge 3. Use a range of voluntary land protection areas for water quality and Expanded 2020-2030 methods. supply and flood reduction.
4. Use a range of natural resource management Priority: HIGH Expanded 2020-2030 techniques.
B. Partner with SWCD and 1. Develop program goals and funding criteria. Expanded 2020 Goal 2 other entities to promote, Water quality incentivize and implement 2. Secure new cost-share funding for BMPs. New 2021-2030 and quantity water-quality and quantity is enhanced management and soil health 3. Promote awareness of practice opportunities. Expanded 2020-2030 and practices. protected. Priority: MEDIUM 4. Combine and leverage resources. Ongoing 2020-2030
1. Establish project criteria and weighting New 2020 C. Protect and restore critical 2. Conduct landowner outreach outside of CFAs. Expanded 2021-2030 infiltration areas outside of CFAs identified in the County 3. Use a range of voluntary land protection Expanded 2020-2030 Groundwater Plan. methods.
4. Use a range of natural resource management Priority: LOW techniques for water quality, infiltration and Expanded 2020-2030 storage and habitat. 1. Develop criteria and weighting for restoration New 2020 projects within CFAs. 2. Develop funding formulas for restoration projects New 2020 on private land within and outside of CFAs. 3. Require ongoing restoration, management and Ongoing 2020-2030 maintenance as part of protection agreements. A. Restore, enhance, and 4. Partner with the SWCD and other entities on maintain natural resources on Expanded 2020-2030 natural resource management on private lands. private lands. 5. Provide new incentives for improved New management on private lands. 2021-2030 Goal 3 Priority: HIGH Natural 6. Work with other organizations to share natural resource management information and techniques with New 2021-2030 quality is Draft to Considerprivate landowners for Public Review improved 7. Explore a private funding entity for resource New 2020-2021 and management on protected private lands. sustained. 8. Develop and implement monitoring protocols of New 2020 management areas to assess results. 1. Develop criteria and weighting resource New 2020 management projects within CFAs. B. Restore, enhance, and 2. Develop funding formulas for restoration projects maintain natural resources on New 2020 on public lands within and outside of CFAs. public lands. 3. Use CFA framework to determine natural Priority: Medium New 2020-2021 resource priorities on public lands.
4. City-County Conservation Collaborative for New 2020-2021 management of ecologically significant city lands.
Page 34 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
GOALS STRATEGIES PROPOSED TACTICS STATUS TIMEFRAMES
5. Expand partnerships to increase management of Expanded 2020-2030 ecologically significant, non-County public land. 6. Coordinate natural resource information with New 2020-2030 other public entities. 7. Establish a network of natural resource New 2021 restoration reference sites. 8. Develop and implement monitoring protocols of New 2020 management areas to assess results.
1. Inventory areas of high biodiversity and Expanded 2020 2021 A. Use CFAs to protect habitat restoration potential. for rare, declining, and special 2. Develop baseline biodiversity data, goals, concern species on public New 2020-2021 lands. priorities, and monitoring protocols.
Priority: HIGH 4. Compile list of plant and animal species in Dakota New 2020-2030 County. Goal 4 B. Use CFAs to protect habitat Biodiversity is for rare, declining, and special 1. Prioritize biodiversity in CFA criteria, weighting restored and concern species on private New 2020-2021 and implementation. sustained. lands.
Priority: MEDIUM 1. Develop a Pollinator Habitat Network for the New 2020-2021 County C. Develop and implement a pollinator habitat network. 2. Partner with transportation agencies and utilities New 2021-2030 to improve habitat within right-of-way. Priority: LOW 3. Partner with other entities to improve smaller New 2022-2030 scale pollinator habitat sites within the network. 1. Develop a business plan for a web-based network New 2020-2021 for sharing natural resource information. 2. Develop web-based natural resource information A. Provide timely and relevant New 2021-2023 network Goal 5 natural resource information.
The public 3. Provide regular information and opportunities for Priority: HIGH Expanded 2020-2030 supports and participating landowners. is involved in 4. Develop inclusive and accessible public natural New 2023-2030 resource information. protection Draft to Consider1. Provide volunteer for opportunities Public in partnershipReview and B. Work with partners to with other organizations and County Expanded 2020-2030 management engage the public through departments. conservation events and 2. Provide seminars, tours, and speaking activities. Expanded 2020-2030 engagements 3. Help promote SWCD’s Conservation Landowner Priority: LOW New 2022 of the Year Program Goal 6: A. Provide new and enhanced 1. Work with landowners to expand and improve Expanded 2020-2030 Recreational opportunities for compatible publicly accessible sites within each CFA. access to outdoor recreation activities conservation through addition of publicly 2. Provide at least one location for the public to lands is accessible lands within CFAs. access high quality, representative wetland, Expanded 2020 grassland and forest communities. enhanced Priority: MEDIUM
Page 35 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
GOALS STRATEGIES PROPOSED TACTICS STATUS TIMEFRAMES B. Improve outdoor recreation 1. Work with other public entities to provide activities on public lands coordinated information on recreational and New 2020-2030 through enhanced natural interpretive opportunities. resource quality, information 2. Work with the DNR to provide more public and amenities. amenities on state Wildlife and Aquatic New 2021-2030 Priority: MEDIUM Management Areas.
2. Establishing CFA Priorities The Preliminary Conservation Focus Areas are the primary geographic focus for this Plan. While unprotected lands within CFAs would be automatically eligible for protection, the Land Conservation Program will still need a mechanism to evaluate and prioritize projects as they are submitted from CFA landowners.
A. PRIORITIES ACROSS CONSERVATION FOCUS AREAS Implementation of this Plan will involve outreach to all landowners in all CFAs after Plan adoption. The Land Conservation Program will respond to all expressions of landowner interest. CFAs with greater interest among landowners would move up in priority for convening the CFAs landscape conservation dialogues.
In addition to priorities based on the degree of landowner interest from initial outreach efforts, the presence of larger-scale wetland restoration basins would increase the priority level of a CFA to begin the process of convening landowners and working to develop projects.
B. PRIORITIES WITHIN CONSERVATION FOCUS AREAS CFA-level Priorities will be identified through group landowner meetings and with individual landowners. This plan proposes establishing one to three pilot landscape conservation projects involving individual CFAs in 2021. Early on in the process, the goal is to convene landowners to discuss their priorities for their CFA.
Updated project evaluation criteria will reflect at least three types of land protection projects:
• Areas with Surface Water Present: including priority natural areas, natural area conservation zones, greenway corridors, areas adjacent to water, priority groundwater recharge areas, and areas withDraft flood reduction to Consider or storage potential. for Public Additional considerationReview will be given to public health benefits, urban projects, and areas adjacent to protected land. • Areas with a Combination of Uplands and Wetlands: including the same categories identified above -- priority natural areas, natural area conservation zones, greenway corridors, areas adjacent to water, priority groundwater recharge areas, and areas with flood reduction or storage potential. Additional consideration will be given to public health benefits, urban projects, and areas adjacent to protected land. • Upland Forest and Grassland: including priority natural areas, natural area conservation zones, greenway corridors, and priority groundwater recharge areas. Additional consideration will be given to urban projects, and areas adjacent to protected land.
Page 36 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
C. PRIORITIES FOR OTHER COUNTYWIDE NATURAL AREAS (OUTSIDE OF CFAS) Although the CFAs are the primary plan focus, additional areas outside of the CFAs are important to protect and restore. Apart from CFAs, natural areas with at least one of the following significant natural characteristics are eligible for protection under the Land Conservation Program: • Includes ecologically significant features • Provides important wildlife habitat • Is adjacent to a river, lake, or stream • Is adjacent to existing protected property with natural habitat • Is located within a designated greenway corridor • Provides other environmental benefits (e.g., surface water or groundwater quality protection, aquifer recharge, flood control, connectivity). Depending on the benefits, this may be considered as more than one criterion to eligibility • Is considered locally significant open space Examples of other natural areas that that merit review for protection are small woodlands at least 40 acres in size, restorable wetlands, and other natural areas with habitat characteristics or known species of concern.
D. PRIORITIES FOR NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS Criteria for evaluating natural resource management projects within and outside of CFAs will be developed to address water quality goals, ecological benefits, social considerations, economics, and project locations, including:
Water Quality • Improves water retention and infiltration • Retains water in stream headwaters • Installs stream channel and shoreline stabilization projects • Promotes functional vegetative buffers along water resources in areas where they are not already required by regulations and/or restores native or desirable vegetation in buffers that consist of non-desirable species • Promotes perennial vegetation on critical recharge areas • Implements erosion control practices • Promotes soil health • Improves Drafthabitat to Consider for Public Review Ecological • Existing high biodiversity • Presence of rare or unique species • Offers opportunity to develop baseline biodiversity data • Offers opportunity to develop comprehensive list of plant and animal species • Improves pollinator habitat • Connects existing natural areas or restorable areas • Improves SGCN habitat • Cessation of threats from over-utilization or elimination and control of invasive species • Reinstatement of hydrologic conditions • Elimination of undesirable plants and animal species and promotion of desirable species
Page 37 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
• Reinstatement of structural layers, food webs, and spatial diversity • Promote connection of habitat links into bigger, functional whole • Difficulty of restoration • Conditions of adjoining lands
Social • Promotes landowner involvement • Promotes City-County Conservation Collaborative on ecologically significant land • Expands strategic partnerships with other entities • Promotes information sharing with other entities • Provides public participation opportunities • Includes areas of public use or visibility • Provides potential education opportunities
Economic • Cost • Leveraged non-County funding resources • Relative restoration cost to achieve a certain standard • Long-term maintenance costs • Level of landowner commitment • Level of partner(s) commitment • Opportunities for volunteer assistance
Project locations • Inclusion in a CFA • Drinking Water Supply Management Area outside of CFA • Woodlot outside of CFA • Small wetland outside of CFA • Other undeveloped land in cities • Native seed source site
Partnerships 1. City-County ConservationDraft to CollaborativeConsider for Public Review Many agencies -- such as Dakota County Parks, Dakota County Environmental Resources, Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), Watershed Organizations, the State’s Department of Natural Resources, private and nonprofits groups -- work to conserve natural resources. Agencies often work independently, using the legal, financial, and other resources available to them. Collaboration often occurs on case-by-case projects or initiatives, but conservation and resource management are not always coordinated and systematic. An organized collaborative can help coordinate activities, allowing partnering agencies to do more together than they could do separately. Each organization in the collaborative would bring its own strengths, expertise, experience, and tools to create a whole that is greater than the sum of its individual parts. These suggested guidelines envision several layers of collaboration to perform different tasks. The large group guides efforts, coordinates plans, and shares experiences. Project-specific partner groups meet more regularly to perform tasks with a focus on specific project delivery.
Page 38 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
The collaborative approach also puts the weight of the region and multiple organizations behind funding applications and project delivery. This gives local projects both legitimacy and demonstrated need by showing they are supported. The following table suggests participants and activities for the large group collaborative and smaller project-specific collaboratives.
Suggested Model for a City-County Conservation Collaborative Group Large Group Collaborative Project-Specific Partnerships • Businesses • Cities and Townships • Dakota County • DNR and other state agencies Participants • Cities • Landowners • Dakota County • Nonprofit Organizations • SWCD • Watershed Management Organizations • Identify collaboration opportunities • Guide efforts • • Develop standards Develop comprehensive, master and development and other plans based on • Communicate values shared vision Activities • Reinforce regional importance • Land protection projects • Develop grant applications • Natural resource restoration and • Increase staff capacity and knowledge management • Share natural resource information • Coordinated purchasing
Governance of the Collaborative requires a mutually-acceptable framework by which cities, the County, landowners, and other partners set project goals and fund activities. The roles of each agency or organization may vary greatly from project to project. Partners should seek a structure that is opportunistic and nimble, to take advantage of funding and opportunities without cumbersome processes. It must also build from the strengths of each project partner. Suggested functions and roles are below:
Collaborative Functions Communication will be vital to develop and institutionalize effective communication channels Coordinated Planning will be necessary to build consensus on conservation and project goals, roles, and funding responsibilities. In manyDraft cases, integration to Consider of objectives from for existing Public plans will Review be essential. Project Prioritization will use a collaborative approach to identify priorities within each project. Land Protection and Ownership Options will be determined based on project type, location and other factors. Cost-Sharing and Funding should be linked with other strategic decisions. Funding roles should be determined based on the strengths of each agency and individual conservation projects. In-kind contributions of land, easements, design, restoration, and management are encouraged. Joint Powers Agreements will be developed to establish predominant roles and responsibilities. Long-Term Management and Stewardship will vary across projects and land ownership types. The Collaborative will develop goals and identify partner roles for natural resource management and long-term maintenance of conserved areas. Measuring Success includes lands protected, restored, and maintained; outside dollars leveraged by the collaborative, dollars saved through cost sharing or combined purchasing, staff time utilized on conservation related activities, and more.
Page 39 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
2. Convening CFA Landowners and Stakeholders In addition to conducting annual landowner application rounds as the Program has done in the past, this plan uses a “landscape conservation” approach to convene landowners and stakeholders to share information and make decisions in a way that promotes natural landscapes as a valued part of society. The idea of a shared landscape fosters dialogue and exchange of ideas to develop projects that are community- supported, locally significant, and enduring. Bringing landowners and stakeholders together, with diverse perspectives and expertise, can help find common ground and develop creative solutions that protect and restore natural resources.
The plan recognizes that each CFA is unique in terms of land, natural resources, and people. The landscape conservation approach will explore how to engage and convene landowners within each CFA to determine individual and shared needs, goals, and conservation-related priorities. The following chart summarizes how the County could convene landowners and stakeholders and help advance desired goals.
Elements of a Collaborative CFA Initiative ADVANCE and PHASES ORGANIZE ASSESS DEVELOP ACHIEVE SUSTAIN Define CFA Identify resources, Prioritize, fund Evaluate progress, boundary based on issues, challenges, and Develop vision, PREPARATION and implement update plan and resources, land use, opportunities within goals, and strategies strategies adapt over time ownership, etc. the CFA With Partners: • Finalize vision and • Map ecological • Celebrate • goal Contact and features, land uses successes convene • Identify concerns, • Refine boundary • Identify and • Identify interests, and interests and profile • Evaluate secure funding progress and concerns, goals, • Explore connectivity • Finalize plan • Implement effectiveness and roles to other Protection KEY priority With Landowners: conservation efforts priorities • ACTIVITIES activities Recalibrate • Create owner • Identify protection Resource strategies and • database opportunities and management Monitor, tactics to reflect • Meet with key approaches priorities measure, and lessons learned share results landowners • Identify resource Communications • Adapt as • Outreach management needs Metrics necessary • Convene and opportunities • Select projects • Building trust • Give credit to all • Strengthen • Determine how to • Add stakeholders • Continue relationships most effectively use • Recognize partner strategic • PARTNER Showcase • Identify others communications to contributions, outreach and BUILDING successes and who shouldDraft be to Considerbuild trust, forsha Publicred activities, Review develop new AND progress involved partnerships, and and understanding communication OUTREACH through events • Conduct ongoing learn from each • Ensure good activities and and effective communications other communication products communications • Acknowledgment • Identify lead • Establish • Refine entity coordination governance • Identify key • Explore leadership structure, roles, structures as • Remain flexible STRUCTURE landowners and and organizational and needed and adaptive, AND partners options, roles, and responsibilities • patient and STAFFING Increase • Identify potential activities • Establish project staffing persistent coordination roles and capacity as structure responsibilities needed
Page 40 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
Funding the Work 1. Current Land Conservation Operating Budget The Land Conservation Program has grown incrementally since its inception. Program staff and budget for 2020 include:
4.0 FTEs, salaries and benefits: $486,137 Operations/Contracted Services: $201,664 $687,801
2. Potential Protection and Restoration Outcomes and Estimated County Cost Ten-Year Ten-Year Ten-Year Ten-Year Ten-Year Ten-Year Protection and Total Total County Total County Protection Restoration Ownership Status Acres Protection Protection Restoration Restoration Acres Acres Costs Cost Costs Cost 1. Public Conservation 29,073 0 $0 $0 10,600 $30.5 M $3.5 M Lands within CFAS 2. Protected Private Lands 8,533 1,900 $31.7 M $2.1 M 2,500 $20.7 M $0.9M within CFAs 3. Non-Protected Private Land 43,879 2,600 $159.2 M $7.8 M 2,100 $99.4 M $3.0 M within CFAs 4. Non-Protected Private Land 2,400 500 $16.4 M $0.5 M 400 $9.2 M $0.2 M outside of CFAs Totals 83,885 5,000 $207.3 M $10.4 M 15,600 $159.8 M $7.6 M
Operational Considerations It is important to recognize that land conservation projects can be highly complex, with many variables that influence timeframes and costs. Typical acquisition projects require 18 to 24 months and typical restoration projects require three or more years.
In the past, most land protection projects consisted of large tracts of agricultural easements, resulting in: • An average ofDraft ten completed to Consider acquisition projects for per Public year for one Review full-time staff person (FTE) • Higher average acreage per project • Lower average cost per acre and lower total cost per project • Less complexity and reliance on partners requiring less average time per project • Initially no natural resource restoration requirements
Based on past performance and going forward, anticipated land protection projects and associated restoration will likely result in: • Lower average acres per project • Higher average cost per project • Greater complexity and reliance on partners, including adjacent landowners • Obligatory natural resource management will increase project duration and require more staff time per project and longer duration
Page 41 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
Staffing Staff capacity influences the amount of land that can be protected and restored annually and over the Plan’s ten-year timeframe. Based on current staff capacity, an estimated 250 acres could be protected each year for a total of 2,500 acres and 400 acres could be restored each year for a total of 4,000 acres over the ten-year plan.
An additional 1.0 FTE Acquisition Specialist could double the land protection to 5,000 acres over ten years. An additional 3.0 FTE Restoration Specialists could quadruple the natural resource restoration acreage to 15,500 acres over ten years. The estimated costs for these staffing options are outlined below:
Estimated Annual Costs Land Protection Natural Resource Restoration Acres 250 500 400 800 1,200 1,600 10-Year Target Outcomes Cost $20.7M $16M County Operational Cost $300K $415K $300K $415K $530K $645K (Current) (+1 FTE) (Current) (+1 FTE) (+2 FTE) (+3 FTE) Additional County Capital Cost $520K $1.04M $190K $380K $570K $760K Total County Cost $820K $1.46M $490K $795K $1.1M $1.45M
Estimated Ten-Year Costs Land Protection Natural Resource Restoration Acres 2,500 5,000 4,000 8,000 1,2000 1,6000 Ten-Year Target Outcome Cost $207M $160M County Operational Cost $3M $4.15M $3M $4.15M $5.3M $6.45M (Current) (+1 FTE) (Current) (+1 FTE) (+2 FTE) (+3 FTE) Additional County Capital Cost $5.2M $10.4M $1.9M $3.8M $5.7M $7.6M Total County Cost $8.2M $14.65M $4.9M $7.95M $11M $14.5M
3. Grant Opportunities Successful land conservation efforts require sufficient funding, typically sustained through collaboration and robust grant opportunities. An inventory of available grant programs follows.
A. FEDERAL FUNDING U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resource Conservation Service: Conservation EasementsDraft to Consider for Public Review • The Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) consists of the Agricultural Land Easements (ALE) Program and the Wetlands Reserve Program. ACEP provides matching funds that can be used to purchase permanent conservation easements on agricultural land, grasslands, and wetlands and to assist with grassland and wetland restoration. • The Healthy Forest Reserve Program helps protect and restore forest lands. Conservation projects must benefit endangered species, improve biodiversity, or enhance carbon sequestration. This program funds restoration activities as well as permanent or 30-year easements. • The Forest Legacy Program protects private forest land by purchasing conservation easements or land in fee from voluntary landowners. • The Community Forests Program provide financial assistance to local governments, tribal governments, and qualified nonprofit entities to establish community forests that provide
Page 42 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
continuing and accessible community benefits.
Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) • The RCPP enlists local governments, state agencies, tribes, and other groups to coordinate conservation on a national or state scale and also engages landowners and agricultural producers in conservation activities that improve water, soil, wildlife habitat, or other natural resources. Conservation easements may be acquired using RCPP funds and cost-share funding is available.
Conservation Practices • The Environmental Quality Incentives Program provides financial and technical assistance for activities on agricultural lands that benefit air quality, water quality, soil and water conservation, and wildlife habitat. • The Conservation Stewardship Program helps maintain, improve, and expand activities that benefit natural resources (including soil, water, air, and wildlife habitat) or conserve energy.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • The North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) provides competitive matching grants to increase bird populations and wetland habitat, while supporting local economies, hunting, fishing, bird watching, family farming, and ranching. • The Partners for Wildlife Wetlands Restoration Program provides cost-share for wetland restoration, preferably large drained wetlands or multiple basins, using ten-year agreements. There are no restrictions on haying or grazing. • The Partners for Wildlife Grasslands Restoration Program provides cost-share for grassland restoration, preferably adjacent existing or restorable wetlands, using fifteen-year agreements. Haying and/or grazing are typically not allowed. • The Habitat Easement Program provides funds for permanent easement on existing or restorable wetlands and grasslands, preferably close to other protected lands. Haying and/or grazing may be allowed. • The Wetland Easement Program provides payment for permanent easements on existing or restorable wetlands. Haying, grazing and/or farming wetlands is may be allowed.
B. STATE FUNDING Draft to Consider for Public Review Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund In November 1988, Minnesota voters passed a constitutional amendment that permanently established the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund (ENRTF). In 1998 voters passed another constitutional amendment extending the dedication through December 2024. The ENRTF supports projects with the public purpose of protection, conservation, preservation, and enhancement of the state’s air, water land, fish, wildlife, and other natural resources. The Legislative-Citizen Commission on the Minnesota Resources (LCCMR) committee governs this fund and makes annual funding recommendations to the legislature.
The County has received past ENRTF funding for development of the Farmland and Natural Areas Protection Plan, development of the Farmland and Natural Areas Program Guidelines, Vermillion River Corridor Plan, funding to acquire conservation easements, and funding through the Metropolitan Council to acquire greenway and regional parkland.
Page 43 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
Clean Water, Land and Legacy Fund In November 2008, Minnesota voters approved the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment, which dedicated a sales tax increase of 3/8 percent (0.375) to clean water, natural areas, parks, arts education and history. There are three primary funds which can be used for conservation purposes:
• Outdoor Heritage Funds (OH) are used to restore, protect and enhance wetlands, prairies, forest and habitat for fish, game, and wildlife. The Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council (LSOHC) oversees this fund and makes annual recommendations to the legislature. The County has received a total of $8.867 million in OH funds since 2008 and currently has $5.8 million of OH funds appropriated by the 2018 and 2019 Minnesota Legislatures for natural resource protection, restoration and enhancement.
• Clean Water Funds are used to protect, enhance, and restore water quality in surface and groundwater. The Clean Water Council, as well as an interagency committee of state agencies, makes funding recommendations to the governor. • Parks and Trails Funds are used to support parks and trails of regional or statewide significance. The funds are divided between the ten Implementing Agencies (including Dakota County) of system, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for state parks and trails, the Greater Minnesota Regional Parks and Trails Commission for grants to counties and cities outside the seven-county metropolitan area.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) • The General Operating Fund includes direct appropriations for managing state parks and trails, minimizing the spread of invasive species, managing the state’s forests and lands, protecting water, providing outdoor recreation opportunities, and enforcing natural resource laws. • The Game and Fish Fund supports management, monitoring, and protection of fish and wildlife resources as well as the enforcement of game and fish laws. Sales of hunting and fishing licenses and federal sport fish and wildlife federal grants provide a significant portion of this funding.
• The Natural Resources Fund supports the development and maintenance of Minnesota’s natural resources and the enforcement of natural resource laws. This fund consists of 20 accounts that are dedicated for a specific purpose ranging from water-based recreation to forest management to state parks. • There is a range of Local Park and Natural Area Grant Programs such as the Conservation Partners Legacy Grant Program,Draft Federal to RecreationalConsider Trail Program,for Public Local Trail Review Connections Program, National Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Program, Natural and Scenic Area Program, No Child Left Inside Grant Program, and Outdoor Recreation Grant Program which provide matching funds to local governments and organizations for a variety of conservation and recreation projects.
Reinvest in Minnesota The Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) conservation easement program permanently protects habitat and water resources. It is primarily funded through legislative bonding, and the Clean Water and Outdoor Heritage Fund. It is administered by the Board of Water and Soil Resources. The Re-Invest in Minnesota Critical Habitat Match program is administered by the DNR for the protection of wildlife habitat. It is funded by legislative bonding, license plate sales and private donations.
Page 44 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
C. REGIONAL FUNDING The Metropolitan Council (MC), the planning agency serving the Twin Cities seven-county metropolitan area, works with ten regional park Implementing Agencies (IAs) to award grants to finance land acquisition and development of the parks system
• The Acquisition Opportunity Fund (AOF) assists IAs in acquiring land for the Regional Parks System. The AOF comprises state and regional funding sources in two separate accounts: The Parks and Trails Legacy Fund / Park Acquisition Opportunity Fund account funded by state Legacy dollars and regional park bonds.
The ENRTF / Park Acquisition Opportunity Fund account funded by ENRTF dollars and MC funds. • Operation and Maintenance (O and M) funding is appropriated by the state of Minnesota money from the General Fund and “Lottery in lieu of sales tax” to the MC for distribution to the IAs to assist in the operating and maintaining the Regional Parks System. O and M can include natural resource restoration and maintenance which is up to individual Agency discretion. • The Regional Parks Bonding Program is intended for acquisition, development, and redevelopment projects. The State of Minnesota can issue bonds appropriated for the Regional Parks System matched with MC-issued regional park bonds. The funds are disbursed to IAs according to the population within the jurisdiction of each IA and the number of visits an IA hosted from people who live outside the Agency’s jurisdiction. • Approximately 59,000 acres of agricultural land in the County is currently enrolled Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Program which is administered by individual townships. The Program stipulates that there can be no development for eight years upon un-enrolling and it provides a $1.50 per acre property tax reduction. The Legislative Auditor concluded that the program has been effective in preserving agricultural land, but it should not be considered as permanent protection.
D. COUNTY FUNDING Environmental Legacy Fund The Environmental Legacy Fund (ELF) was established in December 2015 for the specific purpose of protecting preserving and enhancing the environment in the County. The ELF receives revenue from two primary sources: • Host Fees are negotiated with the six landfills located in the County, including two municipal solid waste landfills, an industrialDraft waste to landfill, Consider and three construction/demolition for Public Review landfills. Host fee agreements were updated in 2017, with an increase in most of the fees which have an annual escalator. However, revenues are also based on the volume of waste and can fluctuate considerably. Host fees generated about $8.9 million in 2018. • Gravel Tax Revenues. Fifteen percent of the total gravel tax revenue generated every year is deposited in ELF. The Gravel Tax is also based on volume and has fluctuated based on markets. Gravel tax generated about $181,000 in 2018. Most of the ELF funding is used for County programs (including matching dollars for grants) or funding to partners for projects that directly relate to county goals and objectives. Specific County activities that are eligible for ELF support include brownfield redevelopment, environmental capital projects, Environmental Resources Department operations, gravel pit remediation, natural area and shoreland conservation, park/greenway master plan improvements, and implementation of the County’s Natural Resources
Page 45 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
Management Plan and Solid Waste Master Plan. ELF funding is also used for the Landfill Host Community Grant Program. One grant cycle has been held and the selection process is continuing to evolve. The following table summarizes various grant sources for activities of the Land Conservation Program. Potential Funding Sources Acquisition Restoration Maintenance U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Agricultural Conservation Easement Program X X (Wetland) Community Forests Program X Conservation Stewardship Program X Environmental Quality Incentives Program X Forest Legacy Program X Healthy Forest Reserve Program X Regional Conservation Partnership Program X U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat Easement Program X North American Wetlands Conservation Act X X Partners for Wildlife Grasslands Restoration X X Program Partners for Wildlife Wetlands Restoration Program X X Wetland Easement Program X State of Minnesota Clean Water Fund X X Conservation Partners Legacy Program X X Environmental and Natural Resources Trust Fund X X Outdoor Heritage Fund X X Parks and Trails Legacy Fund X X Reinvest in Minnesota X Minnesota Department of Natural Resources General Operating Fund X X Game and Fish Fund X Local Parks and NaturalDraft Area Grant to ProgramConsider for XPublic ReviewX Natural Resource Fund X (20 specific-purpose accounts) Metropolitan Council Regional Parks Acquisition Opportunity Fund X Regional Parks Operation and Maintenance Fund X Regional Parks Bonding X Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Program X Dakota County Environmental Legacy Fund X X X
Page 46 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
Potential New County Funding Options The County could issue General Obligation Bonds for parks and natural area capital projects. For example, a $20 million bond would add $1.3 million to the county’s annual debt service and cost the owner of a median-valued home in the County an average of $11 per year in property taxes for ten years. Voter approval is required.
The County could issue Capital Improvement Bonds for parks and natural area capital projects. For example, a $20 million bond would add $1.3 million to the County’s annual debt service and cost the owner of a median-valued home in the county an average of $11 per year in property taxes for ten years. Adoption of a Capital Improvement Plan and approval by at least four members of the County Board is required.
The County could increase its Property Tax levy through the standard budget process or by seeking voter approval. Revenue could be used for capital projects as well as operations and maintenance. For example, a $10 million levy increase would cost the median household $42 per year in property taxes. Alternatively, a voter-approved $10 million levy increase (levied against referendum market value instead of tax capacity) would cost the median homeowner $55 per year in property taxes. In both cases, the tax could have a sunset after a certain number of years or continue in perpetuity.
The County could seek authority from the state Legislature to impose a local Sales Tax. For example, a 0.15 percent sales tax would generate more than $7.6 million annually and cost the typical household $30 per year. Visitors would also pay a sales tax. While there is no limit on the number of years this tax can be in effect, in most cases, the duration of the tax is determined by the time necessary to generate enough revenue to finance general obligation bonds for a project and will terminate upon raising that amount. Voter approval is required after the County receives taxing authority from the state.
4. Funding Policy As Plan implementation proceeds, cost-sharing formulas will be explored to match the needs of various project types (e.g., wetland restoration or upland habitat protection and improvement). In general, the preferred policy option for land protection is to use County-available funding to maximize the use of non- County funding.
Funding for short- and long-term natural resource management will also consider the ability to leverage outside funding and protect public investments. Formulas for restoration, enhancement, and maintenance will be developed for both private and non-County public lands. Draft to Consider for Public Review Program Operation 1. Land Protection Tools The Program seeks to continue offering multiple options for land protection and is considering new options to increase landowner participation and awareness of the program’s benefits. Determining which protection scenario is the best option will be determined by:
• Individual landowner wishes • County authority, interest and purpose • Funding sources/requirements • Funding availability
Expanding the mechanisms for land protection to include the tools available from all project partners can contribute to the success of land conservation efforts and reduce participation barriers for willing
Page 47 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
landowners. The Program’s current land protection tools and potential new opportunities are identified below:
Park Dedication Park dedication is a powerful tool available to municipalities in securing land protection. It is typically used in conjunction with city parks at the time of surrounding development to fulfill a neighborhood’s recreation needs. In some situations, it is used to meet the shared vision of a greenway system. In other situations, park dedication can be used to protect land for conservation purposes in addition to the recreation benefit that city parks offer. In some cases, dedicated land becomes publicly owned parks, where the municipality would be the primary agent of stewardship. In other cases, neighborhood or Homeowner Associations may be the property owner. In any case, the conservation collaborative would exist to offer support for land stewardship.
Comprehensive Planning and Zoning Municipal land use guidance and zoning could define and help protect high priority or ecological value lands by designating them in comprehensive plans and zoning codes. Establishing special zoning designations such as overlays and coupling land conservation areas with otherwise protected lands such as floodways and bluffs.
Official Mapping Conservation areas could be officially mapped by government entities as public record of their intent to acquire land for conservation that has a public benefit. Dakota County adopted an Official Mapping Ordinance, Ordinance No. 130, in 2008.
Acquisition There are several approaches to acquiring land, each of which has its own set of activities, advantages and limitations. The major approaches are described below. There are numerous potential conservation partners, both public and private, that may be able to assist in acquisition. Potential new options include phased acquisition, life estate, restoration easement, and land registry.
Fee Title The County can acquire fee title or assist another public entity in acquiring fee title from a willing seller. Another option may be to “Buy-Protect-Sell” where an entity acquires the entire property, places restrictions on all or portions of the property and then sells the entire or portions of the property.
Land Donation/Bargain Sale Landowners may chooseDraft to togift allConsider or part of their forland orPublic reduce the Review value below the appraised value. The landowner may be able to receive tax benefits for donation of land or land value to a qualified public or conservation partner.
Phased Acquisition (Proposed) A voluntary transaction between a landowner and a purchaser in which acquisition of land or an easement is completed through more than one transaction over a specified period of time – months or years – resulting in a complete acquisition by a specified time.
Option and First Right of Refusal These options may be useful if the landowner is not willing to sell at the time but is willing to work with the County or other conservation entity at a future time prior to selling the property to another party. Terms and potential payment are variable.
Page 48 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
Life Estate This option allows the landowner to continue to live on the land after selling the fee title. Life estates can be structured in numerous ways (e.g. the landowner can live on the land for the rest of their life or any mutually agreed upon timeframe). Life estates will reduce the value of the property in amounts proportional to the length of the life estate.
Permanent Conservation Easement A voluntary legal transaction between a landowner and a qualified buyer (governmental unit or private land conservation organization) to protect the natural, scenic, cultural, historic or open space values of the property to achieve specified conservation purposes. The seller owns the underlying fee title to the still private property and continues to pay all or reduced property taxes. The easement determines both allowed and prohibited activities. Most easements are unique, reflecting individual landowner needs and property characteristics.
Conservation Easements are valued based on the difference between the fee title value of the property without any restrictions and the value of the property with the easement restrictions in place. The seller can sell the easement at the full value or partial value or donate the entire value (Bargain Sale). Land with a conservation easement provides additional potential benefits to the landowner by making the easement area eligible for public investments towards restoration and management at no or significantly reduced cost to the landowner.
There are many different types of conservation easements that can be used for conservation purposes:
Agricultural Easement A permanent easement that allows agricultural activities and requires a Stewardship Plan with a NRMP, as appropriate. This type of easement can be used for lands adjacent to protected natural areas on public and private land, and model improved agricultural practices and provide additional public benefits beyond basic land protection.
Buffer Easement A permanent easement that restricts certain types of non-compatible residential, commercial or industrial develop adjacent to existing public land.
Flowage Easement (Proposed) A permanent easement that allows new surface water to flow across private property. This type of easementDraft has been to used Consider by the County for for transportation Public andReview other types of development projects but has not been used for conservation purposes. It is anticipated that large-scale wetland restoration projects will require these types of easements to address hydrologic changes to the landscape. It would allow the County and its contractors to perform restoration, management and maintenance activities within existing or proposed natural portions of easement at no or significantly reduced cost to the landowner.
Greenway Corridor Easement A permanent easement on a linear corridor that provides a combination of habitat, water quality and recreational benefits. The easement would allow for the future development of a recreational trail and amenities such as rest areas, kiosks and benches, but no other non- recreational development. A jointly developed NRMP would be required. It would allow the
Page 49 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
County and its contractors to perform restoration, management and maintenance activities within the easement area at no or significantly reduced cost to the landowner.
Greenway Trail Easement A permanent easement on a narrow, linear corridor that allow for the future development of a recreational trail and amenities such as rest areas, kiosks and benches, often associated with specific funding source.
Natural Area Easement A permanent conservation easement focused on protecting and improving the natural resources and conservation values of the property. No residential, commercial, industrial or new utility- related development is allowed. Temporary agricultural use may be allowed. NRMP is required. It would allow the County and its contractors to perform restoration, management and maintenance activities within existing or proposed natural portions of easement at no or significantly reduced cost to the landowner.
Park Easement A permanent easement within existing County park boundaries that preserves the natural features of the property but restricts future development which could negatively impact the park’s natural resources or recreational experiences of park users. It would allow the County and its contractors to perform restoration, management and maintenance activities within the easement area, at public expense, requiring no landowner contribution.
Restoration Easement (Proposed) A voluntary transaction between a landowner and the County (in this case), through which a landowner agrees to convey a permanent restoration easement in a defined area to the County at no cost, agrees to conservation purpose restrictions on the easement area, and agrees to allow the County and its contractors to perform restoration, management and maintenance activities within the easement area, at public expense, requiring no landowner contribution.
Land Registry (Proposed) A voluntary action taken by a landowner who agrees to register all or a portion of their land for conservation purposes. A Land Registry Program is a unique, flexible option to assist private landowners in managing the natural resources on their property. The program would provide general information and technical assistance to landowners in developing and implementing long-term plans for restoring, enhancing or maintainingDraft their to propertyConsider and could for lead toPublic permanent Review protection. A County Land Registry Program would request that a landowner:
A. Manage and conserve the land to the best of their ability B. Notify the program of significant planned changes or natural changes that occur C. Notify the program of intent to sell the registered property
Page 50 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
2. Annual Work Planning Process Due to the voluntary nature of participation in conservation activities, it is not possible to estimate landowner response to the Land Conservation Program’s opportunities, partner involvement, or the number of conservation projects the Program will receive or implement each year.
Annual budgeting and program-level work planning will begin with the implementation timeframes attached to the Plans actions – goals, strategies, and tactics – such as outreach to all CFA landowners in 2020 and initiating one to three CFA pilot studies in 2021. These and other new priority initiatives will be facilitated through annual budgeting processes, subject to County Board approval.
Public Information and Education 1. Program Information The Land Conservation Program has relied on direct communication with landowners and potential project partners, and it will be important to maintain a contemporary Communications Strategy for the program moving forward. The strategy will need to use a variety of accessible outreach media and have clear information on the Program for its primary audiences. The Communications Strategy should address the following needs: a. Audiences -- who would be interested and how they prefer to receive information b. Media – how information should be shared, e.g., web, social media, print, news releases c. General Program information, eligibility, contacts, events, and landowner opportunities d. Current project information e. Annual reporting on Program activities f. Information referrals and links to other webpages for natural resources information
2. Engagement Activities In addition to providing accessible information for the public and specific audiences, the Program will consider adding interactive events, such as tours, speaking engagements, and volunteer activities. Volunteer activities could include assistance in natural resource restoration, data collection, vegetation and wildlife monitoring and sharing observations, seed collection, photographing sites.
Draft to Consider for Public Review Progress Measurement and Reporting Progress measurement and reporting will be based on the following three sets of outcomes:
a. Plan implementation: Dakota County will annually track and report implementation progress against the proposed timeframes included in this plan.
b. Land protection outcomes: Dakota County and partners will track and report progress on the priorities established by CFA landowners and stakeholders for protection of priority natural areas and connection corridors.
c. Natural resource management outcomes: Dakota County and partners will track and report progress on the priorities established by CFA landowners and stakeholders for the restoration and long-term management of priority natural areas and connection corridors.
Page 51 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
The following table includes examples of performance measures for the three sets of outcomes, packaged by three questions used in Dakota County’s Program and Service Inventory: 1) How much did we do? 2) How well did we do it? and 3) Was anyone better off?
Example Performance Measures for Implementation of the Land Conservation Plan Natural Resource Plan Implementation Land Protection Management • CFA Landowners • Applications received • Acres of protected contacted from within and outside private land restored • Number of CFA profiles of CFAs • Acres of non-County completed • Projects initiated public lands restored • Program Guidelines • Acres of wetland • Miles/acres converted to (Criteria, funding, protected pollinator habitat application process) • Acres of natural area • Acres of protected updated protected private land enrolled in How much • City County Conservation • Acres of critical long-term management did we do? Collaborative organized infiltration areas • Property Tax Study Group protected recommendations • Number of CFA landowners interviewed/convened • Natural Resource Restoration Standards established • Implementation • Establishment of CFA • Ecosystem recovery How well timeframes met priorities indicators did we do it? • CCCC participation rates • Transactions completed • Use of non-County in a timely manner funding • Landowner satisfaction • Number of • Public feedback surveys new/expanded public use • Number of enhanced Is anyone better off? • Partner satisfaction areas public use areas surveys Draft to Consider for Public Review
Page 52 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
APPENDIX 1. PLANNING PROCESS AND BACKGROUND
Planning Process Summary
The plan development process occurred over three phases:
PROJECT ORGANIZATION: late 2018 • Identify scope of plan • Identify stakeholders and interests and develop the Public Engagement Plan • Identify and organize research topics • Coordinate with County Groundwater Plan effort on research and public engagement • Present project intro and scope to County Planning Commission • Present project intro and scope to County Board
RESEARCH AND VISIONING: 2019 • Conduct research on land conservation and natural resource management topics • Conduct stakeholder and public engagement on interests, opportunities, and program needs • Synthesize research and engagement findings with preliminary opportunities and recommendations • Identify draft goals and potential strategies • Review findings and preliminary recommendations with County Planning Commission • Review findings and preliminary recommendations with County Board • Post findings and recommendations for public
DRAFT PLAN REVIEW AND ADOPTION: 2019-early 2020 • Develop and refine draft goals and strategies based on Planning Commission and County Board comments • Conduct targeted stakeholder engagement on priorities and program refinements • Refine plan outline and prepare draft Plan chapters • Review draft Plan with County Planning Commission • Review draft Plan with County Board, request release for public review (30 days) • Thirty-day public review period with Plan posted online and stakeholder engagement, per engagement plan • Compile comments from stakeholder input and complete plan modifications, as needed • Review commentsDraft with Planning to ConsiderCommission, seek recommendationfor Public on ReviewPlan adoption • Review comments with County Board, request adoption
Page 53 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
County Land Conservation Overview The Dakota County Park System marked the County’s first effort at permanently protecting natural
resource lands, starting in the late 1960s. The Dakota County Farmland and Natural Areas Program began to take shape 30 years later, in response to accelerated residential growth in Dakota County over the 1980s and 1990s when more than 4,000 new homes were being constructed each year. Farms and natural areas were rapidly giving way to expanding suburbs and residents consistently expressed concern about the loss of open space in County surveys.
A regional study in the 1990s was exploring relocation of the Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport (MSP) to a site in south central Dakota County. A new airport would further reshape the Twin Cities, drawing hotels, restaurants, warehousing, 1970 Dakota County Park System Plan and airport-supported businesses to a largely rural area. Investments in new freeway, sewer, and water improvements would likely attract more residential development.
A citizen group, “The Dakota County Agricultural Protection Task Force,” organized in opposition to the airport move and met regularly on protecting farmland and farming as a way of life in the County. Although the MSP didDraft not relocate, to anConsider for Public Review organized farmland protection effort was underway. The County began to evaluate potential farmland protection tools, including “Purchase of Development Rights” (PDR), which uses conservation easements to permanently protect land while allowing the land to remain in private ownership and stay in agricultural production.
Recognizing shared interest in land protection between urban and rural residents, the County worked with land protection groups and agencies on a plan to Publicly-Protected and Privately-Owned Natural Areas, 2002
Page 54 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
protect natural areas and farmland, with a grant from the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR). The County’s first Farmland and Natural Area Protection Plan was adopted in early 2002 with the goal of protecting 42,000 acres of priority farmland and 36,000 acres of priority natural areas. In November of that year, County voters approved a $20 million non-binding bond referendum for farmland and natural area protection, with 57 percent support. The Farmland and Natural Area Program (FNAP) was underway by the following year and held its first application round by November 2003.
Since 2003, the County has completed 121 projects totaling more than 11,500 acres and including 95 miles of shoreland. In 2005, the program was one of six recipients from across the country to receive an inaugural County Resident-Identified Natural Areas to Protect, 2002 Conservation Leadership Award from the National Association of Counties and the Trust for Public Land. It has also received awards from the American Planning Association, Minnesota Association of Counties, and the Minnesota Environmental Initiative. In 2009, the FNAP received a Governor's Award for Pollution Prevention.
Over time, program priorities were adjusted in response toDraft new to Consider for Public Review information, shifts in available funding, and emerging issues of concern. The following map shows the status of land protection in the County as of 2019.
Refined Priority Natural Areas, 2010
Page 55 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
Draft to Consider for Public Review
Page 56 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
Refining the Direction of Land Conservation Over two decades of operation, the FNAP and Land Conservation Program priorities have evolved to reflect concerns related to surface and groundwater quality, groundwater recharge, non-native invasive species, and the loss of native species diversity. Changes to external funding also have contributed to greater emphasis on improving countywide environmental quality.
Research and public engagement on natural resource issues and concerns now and for the future provided a foundation for formulating new land conservation approaches. Key findings are presented in this section, with more detailed information provided in the Plan Appendices.
1. Research Conclusions Broad research on countywide conservation topics produced the following key conclusions:
Research Conclusions: 1. A more integrated approach is needed to protect water quality and supply, mitigate climate impacts, support declining native species, and control invasive species and address public concerns in these areas 2. Natural resource needs are shared: Plans from state, federal and other entities identify similar needs, presenting opportunities to collaborate on protection and natural resource management 3. Participation barriers can be reduced for private landowner conservation and management
A. MORE INTEGRATED APPROACH IS NEEDED
Environmental Needs Key indicators of environmental quality provide a snapshot of water quality, natural vegetation status, wildlife populations and biodiversity, and County residents concern.
14.3% Remaining Wetlands Native Wetlands (1981) Wetlands are critical to overall water quality andDraft to Consider for Public Review flood control. More than Drained/Destroyed 85 percent of Dakota Wetlands 85.7% County’s settlement-era wetlands have been lost.7
7 Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Plan, Version 1.02, 1997, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Page 57 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
Pre-settlement Natural Areas Natural Areas Lost Despite having a highly diverse mix of landscapes and ecosystems in the mid- 1800s, only an estimated Natural Areas Remaining three percent of Dakota County’s natural landscapes 97% from the pre-settlement era remain.
Water Quality
Monitoring and assessment 2018 Water Quality Impairments of Minnesota’s water Chlorid quality produce updated e, 1 PCB in fish Turbidity, 4 Dissolved listings of impaired waters oxygen, 3 that no longer provide for tissue, 2 their designated uses, such as fishing, swimming or drinking. The number of impaired waters in the Eutrophication County has increased over bio-indicators, Bacteria, 19 time. In 2018, testing found 15 at least one impairment for Nitrates, 3 every tested water body, for a total of 81 documented impairments.8 Mercury, 21 Fish and The number of quality macroinvertebrate issues has also grown, as assessments, 13 new problems emerge, and new impairments are defined. Draft to Consider for Public Review
Oheyawahe or Historic Pilot Knob, Mendota Heights
8 https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/2018-impaired-waters-list
Page 58 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
Species and Biodiversity Bird Species Loss in the US Habitat loss and other issues have contributed to a Western Forest decline in wildlife populations as well as the Eastern Forest number of species found in Habitat Generalist Minnesota and Dakota Forest Generalist County. Bird populations dramatically illustrate this Boreal Forest decline, with declines in Grasslands grassland bird populations of more than 50 percent Wetland 9 since the 1970s. -60.0% -50.0% -40.0% -30.0% -20.0% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0%
Resident Opinions 2019 Survey, Percent identifying preserved land management as “Essential” Scientific surveys of County or “Very Important” residents consistently show Approach Percent strong support for land 1. Protecting and improving water quality 92% protection and 2. Protecting and improving wildlife habitat 84% management, with the 3. Protecting and improving natural areas 83% strongest support for water 4. Increasing access for outdoor recreation 73% quality, wildlife habitat, and 5. Protecting and improving land used for agriculture/specialty crops 71%
natural areas.
Land Protection Status Although many significant natural resource areas in the County have been protected, additional significant opportunities exist and include enhanced natural resource management. Nine percent (33,875 acres) of Dakota County’s total land area is currently protected for natural resource value and/or public use, including parks, natural resource management areas, and private easements. These protected lands represent some of the best of the best natural areas in the County, including federal, state, and local parks, reserves and other natural resource areas. Of the protected lands that are publicly-held, roughly 73 percent allow public access and use.
Summary of ProtectedDraft Lands to Consider for Public Review PROTECTION TYPE ACRES Federal Lands (National Wildlife Refuge, Waterfowl Production Areas) 1,643 State (Park, Wildlife Mgmt. Areas, Scientific and Natural Areas, Aquatic Mgmt. Areas, Zoological Gardens) 12,297 Dakota County Parks and Park Conservation Areas 6,136 Other Agency Regional Parks 404 City Park Natural Areas and other City Conservation Areas 4,215 Private Permanent Easements, through Dakota County 8,874 Private Permanent Easements, MN Board of Water and Soil Resources’ Reinvest in Minnesota, Minnesota Land Trust 76 Total 33,875 Total for Public Lands with Public Access (73 percent of total) 24,836
9 Decline of the North American Avifauna, Science, Sept. 2019
Page 59 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
For context, roughly 24 percent of Dakota County Land Use, 2016 land in the State of Minnesota is publicly protected, excluding private Open Water Undeveloped 3% easements. At a national level, 14 Land percent of land nationally is publicly 15% Commercial protected, also excluding private Residential 2% easements. Wide variation in 17% Industrial protected land percentages across 3% Institutional counties in one state or across states 2% is expected, reflecting dominant land Agricultural Park and uses and the extent of urbanization. Land Recreational 49% 8% Major Protected Lands in Dakota County Roadways 1%
Draft to Consider for Public Review
Page 60 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
Critical Protection Elements Additional protection opportunities for the County and partners include:
A. Unprotected natural areas, representative plant communities, and landscapes of Dakota County Dakota County originally had some of the richest ecological diversity in the state, due to its location within five major ecological subsections. The subsections and pre-settlement conditions are:
• Big Woods: predominantly forested • Blufflands: bluff prairies, steep bluffs, river valleys • Oak Savanna: Bur oak savanna, some tallgrass prairie, and forest • Rochester Plateau: riverine with tallgrass prairie and oak savanna • St. Paul Baldwin Plains and Moraines: Oak and aspen savanna, some tallgrass prairie and forest
Only three percent of the original pre-settlement native plant communities remain intact, with many already publicly protected. Outside of these rare places, other unprotected natural areas of varying quality remain and represent fourteen major communities once found throughout the County. Scenic landscapes shaped by topography, water, and natural communities are culturally valued and present another protection opportunity. Representative Native B. Connecting corridors between natural areas Plant Communities Protected lands in the County typically are physically separate and function in Dakota County ecologically as islands, as shown in the preceding map. Even relatively large ”islands” need interconnectivity to other areas to sustain wildlife health and Wetlands diversity. County greenways are planned and designed to provide connectivity Wet Meadow (Sedge and Fen) between natural areas for recreational and ecological benefits. Additional Shallow Marsh connection corridors and corridors of an ecologically optimal width should be Deep Marsh Shallow Open Water considered to allow greater species movement between natural areas. Swamp (Shrub, Alder, Hardwood) C. Natural area buffers to improve ecological functions and habitat The publicly protected lands in the County ecologically often represent the Grasslands “best of the best.” However, the boundaries used in protecting these lands Dry Prairie have been based on parcelDraft (ownership) to Consider boundaries rather for than Public natural Review Mesic Prairie features. Because of this, boundaries of some protected areas are not always Wet Prairie adequately protecting the resources. Land conservation tools to permanently protect appropriate buffers should be considered. Oak Savanna
Woodlands D. Wetlands and shorelines for surface and groundwater quality Wetlands form when hydric soils, aquatic/wetland plants, and wetland Forest hydrology are present. Wetland provide many benefits, including: Oak Forest . Storage for excess stormwater water during flooding and wet cycles Maple-Basswood Forest . Filtering out pollutants before they enter lakes, rivers and streams Hardwood Forest (Lowland, . Infiltration and groundwater recharge (depending on wetland type) Aspen) . Fish and wildlife habitat Floodplain Forest . Public recreation
Page 61 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
Wetlands can take a wide variety of forms, ranging in appearance from shallow lakes to meadows to woodlands. The following map shows existing wetlands (green) as well as hydric soil areas showing where wetlands likely once existed (orange). An estimated 85 percent of the County’s original wetlands have been drained or filled, but in many cases, would be restorable as functioning wetlands.
According to the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Plan10, restoration should be the primary wetland management strategy in Dakota County. This will require detailed analysis and close coordination and partnerships with agencies, organizations, and adjacent landowners. In addition to the County’s wetland banking program, the County’s Land Conservation Program has unique land protection tools that can assist in permanent wetland protection and restoration.
Wetlands and Wetland Soils/Drained Wetlands, 2011
Draft to Consider for Public Review
10 Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Plan, Version 1.02, 1997, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Page 62 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
E. Source water protection and recharge areas Dakota County is updating its Groundwater Protection Plan, which will identify opportunities for land protection to be used as a tool in improving the County’s groundwater quality and supply. Emerging issues for groundwater include quantity and quality.
Quantity: concerns are growing about groundwater withdrawal rates that exceed the rates at which some aquifers can recharge. Dakota County residents use more groundwater per capita than any other Metro county, and most residents are served by public supplies that pump groundwater.
Aquifer drawdown becomes more of a threat as development and overall Projected Groundwater Drawdown consumption rates increase. The adjacent map shows the Metropolitan Council’s forecast areas for significant drawdown by 2040, which include communities projected to have significant population growth (e.g., Lakeville, Apple Valley). Protection of significant recharge areas and water conservation will continue to be essential.
Quality: Drinking water safety is a concern due to contaminants in groundwater, including compounds related to land use activities (e.g., nitrogen fertilizers, pesticides, de-icing salt, and perfluorochemicals) and naturally- occurring elements (e.g., Manganese and Arsenic). Agricultural chemical use in eastern Dakota County has been linked to increasing nitrate and pesticide levels in well water. Adoption of chemical best management practices has not always been effective with the coarse, highly permeable soils and fractured bedrock in these areas. Draft to Consider for Public Review
F. Climate Adaptation Climate change is requiring society to re-evaluate its notion of “normal” conditions and adapt to some consequences that are reasonably certain and others that are largely unknown. A primary challenge will be building resilience into natural systems in the face of changing precipitation, temperature, and severe weather regimes. As climate shifts to warmer and wetter with more frequent severe weather events11 in Dakota County, the concept of “native” species also will likely change over time. Land protection with natural resource management can help efforts to mitigate climate change and lessen its impacts.
11 Minnesota State Climatology Office, https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/climate_change_info/climate-trends.html
Page 63 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
2. Natural Resource Needs are Shared In addition to land protection opportunities, long-term natural resource management was a recurring theme heard from a variety of stakeholders throughout the planning process. The idea that land is not fully protected unless its natural resources are managed over time also guided the development of Dakota County’s 2017 Natural Resources Management System Plan. Long-term efforts to improve and stabilize natural resource quality can protect the public’s investments in land protection.
A broad range of local, state and federal plans speak to land protection and natural resource management needs for geographic areas that include Dakota County: • Plans identify many overlapping areas of interest and need related to habitat protection, conservation efforts for targeted species, and approaches to protect biodiversity • Current focus areas include Species in Greatest Conservation Need, pollinators, and invasive species • Climate uncertainty is recognized in some of the more recent plans, although how to address this uncertainty is still evolving • Most plans speak to the need for interagency and partnership approaches that engage the public
Plans and reports specific to water resources (e.g., Soil and Water Conservation District, watershed, other agencies) also cover geographies that include Dakota County and illustrate the need for partnership approaches:
• The general plan focus is on water quality and quantity, although some of the newer plans also discuss wildlife habitat and climate resilience • The plans make limited reference to land protection and easement acquisition, but the needs exist, and most watershed management organizations historically have not protected land • Sub-watershed analyses will help identify specific areas for enhanced conservation practices specific to sediment and phosphorus loading within sub-watersheds
Progress has been made in managing natural resources on park lands in recent years, but the County recognizes a need to do more and sustain efforts over time. Interviews and surveys with city, state and federal agencies indicated a similar interest in doing more natural resource management on their lands to protect long-term resource quality. Constraints they identified include lack of staffing, time, and budget to do more. The most commonly cited natural resource management needs on public lands include invasive species, water quality,Draft and the impactsto Consider of altered hydrology, for Public such as increased Review and repetitive flooding. City park land in Dakota County includes roughly 8,100 acres of land. City Park Directors interviewed in 2019 about their natural resource management efforts expressed strong interest in partnership approaches to expand their resource management efforts (e.g., share knowledge, skills, and equipment).
City Park Natural Resource Management TOTAL CITY PARK NATURAL AREAS ACTIVELY PLANNED RESTORED PARK AND CONSERVATION MANAGED NATURAL NATURAL AREAS TO NATURAL AREAS, ACRES ACRES AREAS, ACRES AREAS, ACRES MANAGE, ACRES 8,100 4,215 1,279 556 757 28% 12% 18%
of park natural areas of park natural areas of park natural areas
Page 64 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
3. Participation Barriers Can Be Reduced Land owners are ultimately responsible for long-term natural resource management on their land. A 2019 survey of rural agricultural landowners (with 20 acres or more of cultivated land in the county) received 245 responses (26 percent response rate) and reflected the diversity of the County’s farm operations, owner interests in their farms, and preferred types of conservation incentives and natural resource management assistance.
Respondents rated the importance of a range of potential County roles in land conservation and natural resource management, summarized in the following table. The most important roles were in cost sharing for water quality and flood control and purchasing permanent easements for wellhead and groundwater protection.
Importance of Potential County Roles in Conservation 1=Very 2= 3= 4=Very Not Weighted Potential County Roles in Conservation unimportant Unimportant Important important sure Total Average a. Cost-share contracts to implement water quality and flood control 28 12 87 58 27 212 2.57 practices (structural) b. Permanent easements to protect well head protection areas and 32 21 86 52 19 210 2.57 groundwater c. Permanent easements that protect existing natural areas such as 39 22 74 59 20 214 2.53 woodlands or wetlands d. Cost-share contracts to implement native plantings or cover crop 29 27 88 42 24 210 2.45 practices (non-structural) e. Permanent easements to restore drained agricultural land to wetlands 41 25 76 43 27 212 2.32 primarily for flood control purposes f. Permanent easements to convert cultivated land to native perennial 58 55 50 19 30 212 1.86 vegetation
A majority of respondents cited the ability to generate an income, continued farming, and family farming traditions as the most important features of their property to protect. Soil health, which is linked to farm profitability, was cited by 63 percent of respondents. The most-favored typeDraft of conservation to Consider incentive was afor reduction Public in property Review tax, followed by incentive payments for a range of different practices. Incentive payments for soil health received the most support (roughly 50 percent), with slightly lower degrees of support for water-protective practices.
Page 65 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
New Recommendations From targeted research and stakeholder engagement, several new recommendations emerged that refine priority areas for protection, facilitate landowner participation in the program, and improve management of natural resources on a countywide basis:
Refine Land Protection Priorities with Preliminary Conservation Focus Areas Land protection priorities will be based on natural features, connectivity, hydrology, and land ownership with renewed emphasis on water. The resulting 24 Preliminary Conservation Focus Areas total 82,000 acres, of which 22,874 acres are already protected, and provide a framework for landowner outreach, collaborative landscape conservation and public investments.
Develop a City-County Conservation Collaborative Form a City-County collaborative to more effectively protect critical undeveloped areas, increase natural resource restoration and management, and share information and financial and staff resources within all incorporated areas.
Establish a County Conservation Private Funding Partner Continue evaluating models for raising and distributing private funds for natural resource restoration, enhancement and maintenance on protected private lands.
Restore Large-Scale Wetlands and Assist in Implementing the new Dakota County Groundwater Plan Strategically protect and restore existing and former wetlands, recharge areas and sensitive groundwater resources.
Improve Conservation in Agricultural Use Areas Assist the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District as they work with rural land landowners and agricultural operators to improve management practices and convert marginal farmland to natural vegetation.
Draft to Consider for Public Review
Chub Creek, Eureka Township
Page 66 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
APPENDIX 2. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT HIGHLIGHTS As part of the planning process, a public engagement plan was developed to gain insight from the public and specific stakeholders on a range of issues related to the Plan, including: • Continued land conservation efforts in Dakota County • Emerging land and natural resource issues to address • Priorities and focus areas for the next five to ten years • Partnership approaches • Funding, fiscal tools and incentives • Draft Plan vision and goals
Six public events, surveys and agency meetings were conducted as part of the project research: • Online public survey and written version sent to all program participants - 125 responses • 2019 Residential survey questions, and previous years • Two open houses (held jointly with the Groundwater Plan effort) - 80+ participants • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge staff meeting • MN DNR Central Region Managers meeting • Two Land Conservation Workshops in a Rural Setting -21 participants • Two Countywide Conservation and Natural Resources Management Workshops - 16 participants • Survey of City park directors on natural resources management and land protection - 10 participants • Agricultural Landowner questionnaire – 250 participants
General promotion of the online survey, open houses, and workshops occurred through media releases, County webpage, social media, and targeted mailings to past Land Conservation Program participants. Direct invitations to participate in workshops were sent to past Land Conservation program participants; local, state, and federal agencies; and environmental and agricultural organizations.
From surveys, open houses, and dialogues with various stakeholders, several themes emerged:
1. Dakota County’s land conservation efforts are supported by residents. Over successive statistically representative residential surveys, residents have supported efforts to protect open space and natural areas in the County. The following table of relative importance scores calculated from residential surveys in 2011, 2013, and 2016, shows a trend of increasing importance in public opinion over the years.
2011-2016 ImportanceDraft of investing to Consider in open spaces for and Publicparkland (adapted Review to a 1-100 scale) How important is it to invest County funds for each of the following? 2011 2013 2016 1. Protect lakes, streams and wetlands from pollution 72 79 80 2. Protect the highest-rated natural areas 63 75 79 3. Protect farmland from future development 50 65 N/A
2. The location, associated goals and prioritization of different land conservation efforts has become increasingly important. Residents and stakeholders have expressed concern about several environmental issues and see an important role for the County’s Land Conservation Program in mitigating some of these issues, such as improving water quality by retaining water on the land and providing habitat for declining wildlife species.
Page 67 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
While not considered statistically representative, the Land Conservation Planning 2019 online survey results mirror the County’s Residential Survey results and further emphasize the importance of land protection to improve water quality. Lands that improve water quality and quantity and unique/high quality natural areas were the most important types of land protection efforts, followed by land protection for wildlife benefits (habitat and movement corridors). Although ranking lower in importance, all other types of land protection still scored well above the rating scale’s midpoint value (2.5), indicating that respondents regarded all land protection purposes as having some importance.
Importance of protecting different types of land (weighted average scores on 1-5 scale) Type of Land to Protect Score Natural areas that can improve surface water quality or groundwater quality/availability 4.4 Shoreland along lakes, rivers and streams to improve water quality 4.3 Unique and high-quality natural areas 4.3 Wetlands to improve surface water quality, recharge groundwater, provide wildlife habitat, and reduce flood impacts 4.3 Wildlife habitat for species with declining populations 4.1 Connecting corridors for wildlife movement 3.9 Agricultural lands that are adjacent to waterbodies and natural areas 3.8 Larger (65+ acres) natural and/or restorable areas 3.8 Lower quality natural areas that could be restored to improve their quality 3.7 Open space or undeveloped land 3.7 Small natural areas in more densely populated areas 3.7 Scenic landscapes 3.4
3. Long-term management of natural resources is vitally important. Ongoing natural resource management will require assistance and incentives to protect public interests and investments. The following table from the 2019 Residential Survey shows that residents identified water quality, followed by habitat and wildlife as the most important reasons for managing protected (preserved) lands.
2019 percent rating preserved land management as “Essential” or “Very Important” Approach Percent 1. Protecting and improving water quality 92% 2. Protecting andDraft improving to wildlife Consider habitat for Public Review 84% 3. Protecting and improving natural areas 83% 4. Increasing access for outdoor recreation 73% 5. Protecting and improving land used for agriculture/other specialty crops 71%
Long-term natural resource management for public and private lands likely will be different and may be addressed through different funding streams. The 2019 online survey, while not statistically representative, demonstrated 50 percent or greater support for County program funding and/or incentives for: • Private landowners to restore and manage natural resources on their property • Restoration and management of natural resources on permanently protected private lands
Page 68 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
4. Collaboration among agencies and organizations is needed. A key finding from city and agency interviews is that inter-agency partnerships will continue to be important in protecting and improving the natural resource base throughout the County. Public agencies identified constraints (time, staff, and budget) as the greatest limitation on their ability to do the level of natural resource management they believe would be beneficial.
5. More comprehensive incentives for agricultural land stewardship are needed. A questionnaire designed to gain insight from agricultural landowners on their preferences and interests in land conservation received 250 responses in late 2019. The overall response rate was just over 26 percent. The responses represented a wide diversity of farm types, acres operated, land rentals, concerns for the future, environmental interests, and best practice adoption. Farm sizes ranged from under 50 acres to more than 1,000 acres, with 63 percent of respondent farms comprising less than 180 acres. Sixty percent of respondents rent out farmland to other farmers of operators.
Highlights from Agricultural Landowner questionnaire include:
How important is Dakota County’s role in the following land conservation options? Cost shares and easements to protect water quality were the most strongly supported roles. The only potential Dakota County role deemed relatively unimportant was “Permanent easements to convert cultivated land to native perennial vegetation,” with an average weighted score below the midpoint of 2.0.
How important is Dakota County’s role in the following land conservation options? 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Cost-share Permanent Permanent Cost-share Permanent Permanent contracts to easements to easements that contracts to easements to easements to implement water protect well head protect existing implement native restore drained convert cultivated quality and floodDraftprotection to Consider areas natural areas for such plantingsPublic or cover Reviewagricultural land to land to native control practices and groundwater as woodlands or crop practices wetlands primarily perennial (structural) wetlands (non-structural) for flood control vegetation purposes Very unimportant Unimportant Important Very important
Page 69 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
Local issues that create challenges: Respondents checked off their top three challenges from a list. Property tax was the only issue cited by a majority of respondents (65 percent). Soil loss and erosion followed at 47 percent.
Challenge Responses Property taxes 65% Soil loss and erosion 48% Flooding or weather (repeated or delayed planting) 30% Land availability or loss of agricultural land due to development 27% Irrigation and water appropriation regulations 26% Crop pests, diseases, and pesticide resistance 23% Fertilizer or pesticide regulations 22% Lack of profitable alternative crops 20% Lack of programs for marginal crop land 18% Soil health incentives that not available or profitable 15% Other (please specify) 7%
What kinds of voluntary conservation incentives would you be most interested in? The most-favored type of conservation incentive was a reduction in property tax, followed by all types of incentive payments for different practices. Incentive payments for soil health received the most support (roughly 50 percent), with lesser degrees of support for water-protective practices. Easement purchase was the least supported form of incentive payment, with the strongest support for natural area easements (24 percent).
Voluntary Incentives Responses Reduced property taxes for landowners that protect land or implement 73% conservation practices Incentive payments for soil erosion control projects 50% Incentive payments for soil health practices such as reduced tillage or cover crops 48% Incentive payments for setting aside marginal cropland 40% Incentives for reduced fertilizer or chemical management 38% Incentives for irrigationDraft or groundwater to Consider management for programs Public Review 37% Easement for protecting natural areas 23% Easement for wetland restoration 13% Easement for flood control 10% Other (please specify) 5%
Page 70 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
In general, what are the greatest barriers to adopting conservation practices? Although no single answer choice was selected by a majority of respondents, the most frequently cited barrier was a lack of financial incentives for installing conservation practices, followed by a lack of information on available programs. Least cited barriers include the notion that practices are already well adopted and provide no benefits to the land or farm operation.
Barriers to Conservation Practice Adoption Responses Lack of financial incentives to install conservation practices 46% Lack of information about what programs are available and appropriate 38% Compatibility of conservation practices with current farming systems 36% Conservation practices take land out of production 28% People often prefer to manage their property year to year and conservation 26% practices would be too restrictive Need for specialized equipment (e.g. no-till planter or reduced tillage equipment) 26% Programs are too complicated or time consuming 26% Conservation practices add to the complexity of farming with today’s technology 20% and equipment Lack of interest in conservation practices 20% Conservation practices are already well-adopted 19% Conservation practices do not have a direct benefit to one's land or operation 18% Other (please specify) 6%
Draft to Consider for Public Review
Page 71 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
This page intentionally left blank
Draft to Consider for Public Review
Page 72 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
APPENDIX 3. PLAN RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS This section summarizes key findings from research conducted as part of the planning process.
1. Economic and other benefits of conservation To identify benefits associated with land protection, studies on the economic value of benefits provided by natural systems were reviewed. The degree to which these types of benefits can be described and quantified can help advance public investments in land protection and natural resource management. Economic benefits related to land protection and natural resource management are often categorized and discussed as ecosystem services (ES), and generally appear in this context.
Ecosystem services are the benefits people receive from nature. They encompass nature’s contributions to the production of food and timber; life-support processes, such as water purification…; and life fulfilling benefits, such as places to recreate or to be inspired by nature’s diversity. 12
ES are often categorized according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,13 created by an international scientific assessment. The four overlapping categories are: • Regulating services - benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes • Supporting services - services necessary for the production of all other services • Provisioning services - the products obtained from ecosystems • Cultural services - nonmaterial benefits obtained from ecosystems
Economic Services Often Cited in Research Regulating services: benefits obtained from regulation of ecosystem processes • Air quality maintenance • Climate regulation, e.g., carbon sequestering; local change to temperature and/or precipitation • Water regulation, e.g., aquifer recharge; flood control; timing and/or magnitude of runoff • Water purification and waste treatment • Erosion control • Regulation of human disease, e.g., cholera and vectors and biological control of pests and diseases Supporting services: services necessary for the production of all other services • Soil formation and nutrient cycling • Primary production • Oxygen production • Water cycling • Habitat for wildlife • Photosynthesis Draft to Consider for Public Review • Decomposition of waste • Pollination of crops and plants • Seed dispersal Provisioning services: products obtained from ecosystems • Fresh water • Clean air • Agricultural and forestry products (food, fiber, fuel, and wood)
12 Olander, L. P., D. Urban, R. J. Johnston, G. Van Houtven, and J. Kagan. 2016. “Proposal for Increasing Consistency When Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Decision Making.” National Ecosystem Services Partnership Policy Brief 16-01. Durham, NC: Duke University, www.nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/publications. 13 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. “Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis”. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Page 73 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
• Fertile and productive soil • Biodiversity and wild genetic material Cultural services nonmaterial benefits obtained from ecosystems, more difficult to quantify • Recreation (e.g. hiking, fishing, hunting) • Educational value (formal and informal) • Aesthetic value (beauty) • Cultural heritage • Physical and mental health
That ecosystem services have economic value is not questioned, but the methods of value identification, valuation estimates, and local factors to consider can vary widely. Interest in ES quantification has grown among national and international governing bodies and agencies, as well as some local government entities and non-profits active in conservation. ES quantification may provide the metrics to improve project prioritization, such as prioritizing wetlands restoration. While technically complex, technological advances and ongoing research are making ES approaches a more relevant component to consider. Research, case studies, toolkits, and software continue to be developed by the scientific and academic community.
While the research conducted for this report did not involve quantification of ES economic benefits or define the best methods for doing so, example findings from ES quantification studies may have relevance for Dakota County:
Middle Cedar River Watershed, Iowa, 201114 A valuation study of ecosystem service benefits in the Middle Cedar River Watershed in Iowa identified 14 categories of ES across eight land cover classes in the 1.5 million-acre (~2,400 square miles) watershed. The study estimated that the ES generated between $548 million and $1.9 billion in goods and services. Wetlands constitute only 2.3 percent of the land cover in the watershed but were found to contribute 16.5 to 30.1 percent of the total ES value. The top-ranking ES provided by wetlands was flood risk mitigation, valued at $2,544 to $3,651 per acre per year.
Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units, 201215 An international study team analyzed more than 320 publications over 300 case study locations around the world to yield an overview of ecosystem service values for ten major biomes. Their analysis showed that the value of ecosystem services is considerable, although values are variable due to the contextual nature of studies and inherent uncertainties in valuation. Comparative ranges ofDraft values for to each Consider biome are shown for in inPublic the followin Reviewg chart. Values are expressed in “international dollars” (Int. $), a hypothetical unit of currency that standardizes monetary values across countries by correcting to the purchasing power of the US dollar at a given time (2007). Benefits are stated in Int. $ / hectare (2.47 acres) / year. The numbers of studies reviewed are provided in parentheses with each of the ten biomes. Of note, inland wetlands were the most studied of the ten biomes, with 168 valuation case studies reviewed.
The reviewed studies calculated the highest ES economic values for coral reefs, coastal wetlands and coastal systems, followed by inland wetlands, which had an ES mean value of Int. $25,682/hectare/year, or
14 Kocian, M., Traughber, B. Batker, D. (2012). “Valuing Nature’s Benefits: An Ecological Economic Assessment of Iowa’s Middle Cedar River Watershed.” Tacoma: Earth Economics 15 deGroot, R., Brander, L., van der Ploeg, S., Costanza, R., Bernard, F., Braat, L., Christie, M., et. al. (2012). “Global Estimates of the Value of Ecosystems and their Services in Monetary Units.” Elsevier B.V
Page 74 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
Int. $10,397/acre/year. Comparing ES valuations among biomes present in Dakota County, the reported mean ES valuation for inland wetlands was higher than for rivers and lakes, temperate forest, grasslands, and woodlands.
Range of Valuations for Ten Biomes in International$ per Hectare per Year
Summary • A well-established body of research has established consensus that natural resources and systems provide significant societal and economic benefits • ES valuation methods, contexts, and metrics vary • Based on several studies, wetlands may provide more relative economic benefits than forest and grasslands
2. Context provided by related plans and programs A. COUNTY PLANS Dakota County’s activities related to land protection and natural resource quality are mostly governed by the following plans:
Dakota County 2040 ComprehensiveDraft to Consider Plan (DC2040): adoptedfor Public 2019. DC2040 Review identifies high-level goals and strategies for protection of natural resource quality on a county-wide basis, such as natural area protection and surface- and groundwater protection and enhancement. DC2040 also addresses natural resources protection and management in the County Park System and the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area.
Dakota County Natural Resources Management System Plan: adopted 2017. Addresses long-term management needs and actions in the Dakota County Park System and on private land conservation easements held by the County. Greater detail is provided in individual park and greenway natural resources management plans as they are developed or updated.
Dakota County Park System Plan: adopted 2008. The Plan identifies high-level land protection and natural resources management needs and priorities for parks and greenways in the Park System. Greater detail is provided in master plans and natural resources management plans as they are developed or updated for individual parks and greenways.
Page 75 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
Dakota County Farmland and Natural Area Protection Plan: adopted 2002. The Plan identified 36,000 acres of priority natural areas and 42,000 acres of priority farmland for voluntary protection by landowners, and established protection tools and strategies. The Farmland and Natural Areas Program has prepared individual natural resource management plans for easements enrolled in the program.
B. STATE, FEDERAL, AND REGIONAL CONSERVATION AND WILDLIFE PLANS AND PROGRAMS Existing plans authored by state and federal agencies and conservation organizations address conservation and wildlife issues that are relevant to the County’s Land Conservation Planning efforts. The following table highlights the reviewed plans, key recommendations or goals, notes on how the plan relates to County planning, and the potential for a County collaborative role in implementing the plan.
Conservation and Wildlife Plans and Programs Reviewed Relevance to County Plan Key Conservation and Wildlife Recommendations and Goals the County Role? MN Statewide 1. Protect priority land habitats (native prairie, savanna, old-growth forest, Y Y Conservation and connections) Conservation Contributor Preservation 2. Protect critical shorelands of streams and lakes planning and Plan, MN DNR, 3. Improve connectivity and access to outdoor recreation implementation 2008 4. Restore and protect shallow lakes 5. Restore land, wetlands, and wetland-associated watersheds 6. Protect and restore critical in-water habitat of lakes and streams 7. Keep water on the landscape 8. Protect large blocks of forested land Minnesota's 1. Ensure the long-term health and viability of Minnesota’s wildlife, with a Y Y Wildlife Action focus on species that are rare, declining, or vulnerable to decline. Recommended Vermillion Plan, MN DNR, 2. Enhance opportunities to enjoy Species in Greatest Conservation Need actions for each River 2015 and other wildlife and to participate in conservation County Watershed 3. Acquire the resources necessary to successfully implement the Minnesota Conservation Conservation Wildlife Action Plan Focus Area Focus Area Minnesota 1. Prairie core area–based conservation: areas of at least 10,000 acres are Limited N Prairie most functional Western MN is Conservation 2. Corridor-based conservation: between core areas allows species the Plan focus Plan, MN DNR, movement 2011 3. Local conservation: is essential and a minimum of 10% of the terrestrial lands in each major watershed outside the core areas, corridors and strategic habitat complexes should be set aside for soil, water and wildlife conservation purposes Strategic Habitat 1. Start with ecologically meaningful scales: larger vs smaller, may cross Y Potential Conservation. jurisdictional boundaries Plan applies to Working to Our Conservation 2. DraftWork in partnership to Consider to maximize effectiveness for Public and efficiency: Review involve a the MN Valley reduce Approach, US diversity of partners National stormwater Fish and Wildlife 3. Use Adaptive Management Framework: with biological planning, Wildlife Refuge reaching the Service (USFWS), conservation design, monitoring and research, science and tools MN River 2016 4. Use Surrogate Species to Implement Strategic Habitat Conservation: focus on outcomes for a limited number of species Scientific and 1. The state’s natural heritage is not lost from any ecological region of Y Y Natural Areas Minnesota, including: Analyses on Future SNA Strategic Land • Plant and animal communities Biodiversity additions as Protection Plan, • Rare species (endangered, threatened, special concern, and Species in Significance opportunities MN DNR, 2008 Greatest Conservation Need) and supporting habitat Ranking, specific occur • Places of biodiversity significance SNAs in County. • Geological features (significantly illustrate geological processes, are of Source of statewide significance, and significant fossil remains) parallel metrics for the County
Page 76 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
Relevance to County Plan Key Conservation and Wildlife Recommendations and Goals the County Role? • Other natural features of state or regional significance (illustrating succession of plant communities, relict flora or fauna persisting from an earlier period, and seasonal havens for wildlife) 2. The SNA system provides the people with opportunities for scientific purposes and compatible nature-based recreation and education. Managing Increase grassland and wetland restoration and protection of native habitats in Limited N Minnesota’s the direct contributing catchment basins of shallow lakes. County has few Shallow Lakes for • Shallow lakes provide important habitat to many environmentally shallow lakes as Waterfowl and sensitive species, including over 20 species listed as a species of greatest identified by the Wildlife, MN conservation need (SGCN) Plan DNR, 2010 Metro 1. Establish priorities, coordinate work by the partner organizations and Y Potential Conservation focus on areas with greatest regional importance as core habitat, habitat Areas in County Depends on Corridors corridors, buffers for existing protected land, and increase public access to identified by Program Program, MN nature-related recreation. Program status in the DNR, to 2006 2. Protect and restore priority natural lands in focus areas: future • Restore habitat on up to 1,700 acres of private and public land. • Protect land by acquiring fee title and conservation easements from willing landowners on about 600 acres. Note: Program is currently not active and has not been funded since 2011 Federal Species Dakota County is home to several species on the federal threatened and Y Y Listing, USFWS, endangered species list: Areas of County County owns- 2016 • Northern Long-Eared Bat provide habitat manages land • Higgins Eye Pearly Mussel for these that could • Rusty Patched Bumble Bee species provide • Prairie Bush Clover (potential) habitat for Plans provide guidance for protection and management of these species these species MN White-Tailed Plan Goals most relevant to Dakota County Y Y Deer 1. Healthy Habitat: Maintain natural wildlife habitat by protecting, As manager Management enhancing and restoring habitat and by managing for an appropriate of public Plan, MN DNR, number of deer. lands in 2019 2. Impact of Deer on Other Resources: Reduce negative impacts of deer to County the land, resources and other species, including people. Urban Bird The guide draws on expertise of agencies, municipalities and conservation Y Y Conservation for organizations to ensure that: Identifies mgmt. As manager the Twin Cities • key habitats are protected or enhanced goals and of public and Surrounding • threats and hazards to birds are identified and reduced habitat in lands in Area, Audubon • residents and citizens are engaged in conservation action County, includes County Minnesota, 2012 • scientific monitoring needs are identified and supported Important Bird Area Blueprint for IdentifiesDraft target tobird conservationConsider species andfor outlines Public habitat protection Review and Y Y Minnesota Bird management goals for these species in the MN Prairie Hardwood Transition Identifies As manager Conservation, Region, including Forster’s Tern, Red-Headed Woodpecker, Wood Thrush, habitat in of public MN DNR, 2014 Louisiana Waterthrush, Prothonotary Warbler, Cerulean Warbler, Eastern County lands in Meadowlark, Yellow-Headed Blackbird, Loggerhead Shrike, Black Terns, County Trumpeter Swans, Henslow’s Sparrows, and Wood Ducks Birds of Identifies the migratory and non-migratory bird species (in addition to federally Y Y Conservation threatened or endangered) that represent the Service’s highest conservation Helps determine As manager Concern, USFWS, priorities. land protection of public 2008 and restoration lands in goals County Specific Bird A number of species-based plans prepared by organizations and agencies Y Y Species address habitat protection and management for the Upland Sandpiper, Helps determine As manager Conservation Grasshopper Sparrow, Loggerhead Shrike, Red-Headed Woodpecker, Cerulean land protection of public Plans, various Warbler, and Henslow’s Sparrow.
Page 77 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
Relevance to County Plan Key Conservation and Wildlife Recommendations and Goals the County Role? and restoration lands in goals County Long-Range Duck Increase breeding population of waterfowl Y Y Recovery Plan, 1. Importance of protection and restoration of wetlands Contributor MN DNR, 2006 2. Importance of protection and restoration of adjacent grasslands The Wisconsin 1. Expand the quality and quantity of habitat for managed and wild Y N Pollinator pollinators (includes road right-of-way) Specific Protection Plan, 2. Minimize stressors on managed and wild pollinators methods apply WI DATCP, 2016 3. Increase managed bee hive health and survival to the County 4. Outreach (Spread the word on pollinator friendly practices) Pollinator Plan, 1. Protect pollinator habitat through wetland protection and restoration. Y Y MN Board of 2. Incorporate pollinator habitat protection and restoration planning into In the Water and Soil conservation easement projects. selected goals Resources, 2019 3. Incorporate pollinator habitat into agricultural conservation practices. listed 4. Incorporate pollinator habitat into urban water quality projects Mid-America Presents approaches to increase Monarch Butterfly in the Upper Midwest- Y Y Monarch Great Plains and identifies supporting programs and funding sources. Potential As manager Conservation Minnesota goal is to add 187,200,000 milkweed stems in the Core habitat is of public Strategy, Conservation geography of the state by 2038. MN strategies include: present in the lands in Midwest Assn. of • Conduct pollinator habitat inventory and analysis to identify existing County County Fish and Wildlife habitat for conservation and high-priority areas for protection, agencies, 2018 restoration, and enhancement. • Maintain, restore and enhance monarch habitat on permanently protected lands. • Maintain, restore, and enhance monarch and pollinator habitat in rights- of-way. • Maintain, restore, and enhance monarch and pollinator habitat on agricultural lands. • Maintain, restore, and enhance monarch and pollinator habitat on urban and developed lands and other private, non-agricultural lands.
Summary • Plans identify many overlapping areas of interest and need • Current focus areas include Species in Greatest Conservation Need and pollinators • Climate uncertainty is recognized in some of the more recent plans, although the best way to address this uncertainty is still evolving • Most plans speak to partnership opportunities and needs Draft to Consider for Public Review C. WATER PLANS IN DAKOTA COUNTY The purpose of the inventory and assessment was to research existing comprehensive planning documents as it relates to developing long term land protection goals for water or wildlife management purposes. The following plans were reviewed:
Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) The SWCD Comprehensive Plan (2016-2025) identifies a number of objectives and strategies county-wide to protect and restore surface water quality, groundwater quality and supply, restore wildlife habitat and improve soil health. Specifically, the Plan indicates it will work with Dakota County to:
• Develop a conservation easement program for wetland restorations to reduce flood impacts • Develop a conservation easement program for riparian areas to reduce flood impacts
Page 78 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
• Establish conservation easements over designated floodplain areas currently in either agricultural production or urban use to reduce flood impacts • Collaborate on easement programs to install pollinator plant communities to restore habitats. The SWCD is responsible for assisting the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources to implement State easement programs such the Reinvest in Minnesota, Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program and Wetland Banking easements under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. The SWCD Plan identified the need to develop individual sub-watershed analysis (SWA) whereas water quality improvement projects are identified at a smaller watershed scale to prioritize projects with the highest estimated cost/benefit. Four SWAs will be completed by the end of 2019. The SWAs primarily look at soil loss and phosphorus loading since current modeling tools are most appropriate for those pollutant indicators.
Black Dog Watershed Management WMOs in Dakota County Organization (BDWMO) The BDWMO Comprehensive Water Management Plan (2012-2022) has multiple water quality initiatives, identifies priority resources and seeks to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat. However, it does not specifically identify locations or land areas to pursue long-term protection options. Rather it includes more general statements such as it will preserve and enhance the quality of open space, protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and protect and increase recreational opportunities.
North Cannon River Watershed Management Organization (NCRWMO) The NCRWMO Comprehensive Water Management Plan (2013-2023) has multiple water quality initiatives, identifies priority resource areas and seeks to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat. It identifies the goal of wetland restoration projects within the Chub Creek Watershed but Draftdoes not specifyto Consider a method for Public Review of protection such as easements, acquisition or cost share contracts. The NCRWMO Plan also identifies working with the DNR to develop a management plan for the Chub Lake Wildlife Management Area and to advocate with Dakota County the preservation and protection of critical natural areas, farmland and wetlands in the watershed for wildlife, habitat and recreation.
Eagan-Inver Grove Heights Watershed Management Organization (E-IGHWMO) The E-IGHWMO Comprehensive Water Management Plan (2016-2025) has multiple water quality initiatives, identifies priority resources and seeks to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat. However, it does not specifically identify locations or land areas to pursue long-term protection options. Rather it has more general statements such as it will protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities.
Page 79 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
Lower Minnesota River Watershed District (LMRWD) The LMRWD Comprehensive Water Management Plan (2018-2027) has a number of water quality initiatives. Namely, it has listed strategies to develop a mechanism for identifying and acquiring high value natural area conservation easements and encouraging wildlife connectivity projects that achieve multiple goals such as water quality improvements, fen and steep slope protection. Of note, it also includes a strategy to develop vegetation management standards. Since the LMRWD Plan also includes significant portions of Hennepin, Scott and Carver counties, it is unknown what opportunities exist within the Dakota County portion of the watershed.
Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization (LMRWMO) The LMRWMO Comprehensive Water Management Plan (2011-2021) has multiple water quality initiatives, identifies priority resources and seeks to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat. However, it does not specifically identify locations or land areas to pursue long-term protection options. Rather it has more general statements such as it will evaluate and pursue locations to conduct wetland restoration projects or reduce future flood potential. The LMRWMO does not identify a specific method of protection.
Vermillion River Watershed Management Organization (VRWJPO) The VRWJPO Comprehensive Water Management Plan (2016-2026) has multiple water quality initiatives, identifies priority resource areas and seeks to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat. It identifies the goal of establishing wetland banks in the watershed which is a State sponsored easement program. The VRWJPO Plan does not identify specific locations or methods for the long-term protection of water and wildlife management purposes but does identify collaboration with others including Dakota County to evaluate long-term land and water protection opportunities. It was noted that the VRWJPO Plan also includes the development of SWAs mentioned above and has collaborated with the SWCD under this initiative.
Key Findings for Water Plans • The general plan focus is on water quality and quantity, although some of the newer plans also discuss wildlife habitat • The plans make limited reference to land protection and easement acquisition, but the need exists and most watershed management organizations do not acquire land • Sub-watershed analyses will help identify specific areas for enhanced conservation practices specific to sediment and phosphorus loading within sub-watersheds
D. CITY AND TOWNSHIPDraft PLANS to IN DAKOTAConsider COUNTY for Public Review Staff reviewed current 2018-2019 comprehensive plans prepared by the eleven large cities, several small cities, and twelve rural townships in Dakota County for land protection and natural resource goals.
City Plans Most of the larger cities in Dakota County have some staff dedicated to land protection and natural resources management, most typically in park departments.
Land Protection: the following themes were noted related to permanent land protection: • More than half of the city plans identified needs for open space/natural area protection not related to parks acquisition, and some referenced working with Dakota County on land protection. • Roughly half of the large city plans called for connecting habitat corridors linking natural areas, not necessarily greenways as defined by County plans.
Page 80 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
• Fewer city plans identified protection needs for wetlands and floodplain. At least one city seeks permanent protection of floodplain. • Six cities are with the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) and their Comprehensive Plans included a MRCCA component. Several city plans considered protection of bluffs, steep slopes, and floodplain within their MRCCA section. • Relatively fewer cities in Dakota County have farmland or are adjacent to farmland, and a few of the cities include a goal of protecting prime farmland or farming in their comprehensive plans. • Most city plans referenced land protection as part of their parks system chapter, either acquiring land for existing parks or adding new parks in response to population growth and development. • Most city plans also referenced working with the County Greenway Collaborative on protecting land for greenways in their cities. Natural Resources Management: Greater variability was seen among city plans related to natural resources management, in part related to the community’s vision, location, natural resource base, age and degree of development. Relatively few cities appear to have a stand-alone natural resources management plan for either their park systems or at a community wide level. Burnsville is an exception, with a citywide Natural Resources Management Plan and a citywide Wetland Management Plan. Several city comprehensive plans called for future development of either a park system natural resource management plan of a citywide environmental plan.
Common natural resource management goal areas presented in city comprehensive plans include: • Invasive species management • Native species enhancement (more commonly in parks) • Surface water quality • Sustainability (e.g., waste reduction, energy conservation) • Education to residents on range of environmental topics
Rural Collaborative Plan Most townships in Dakota County (with the exception of Eureka and Sciota townships) participated in the Rural Collaborative Comprehensive Planning process. The Collaborative Plan’s land protection and natural resource management policies are highly consistent with County’s, as the following excerpt shows:
Environmental Resources Policies: • Work cooperativelyDraft with Dakota to ConsiderCounty and other for organizations Public that Review support the goals of protecting natural areas and corridors in southern Dakota. • Develop and implement a protection and management plan for natural areas that includes: - A cohesive system of natural areas connected by natural corridors - Areas identified and prioritized for preservation, protection, or restoration - A functional classification of natural areas based upon appropriate use, including recreation, preservation, hunting, agricultural, private - Land protection strategies for targeted areas, including voluntary conservation plans, donation or purchase of conservation easements, transfer of development rights, purchase of development rights, acquisition - Strategies and standards for the long-term management of natural areas - A description of partnerships with other units of government to protect shared natural areas - Innovative and appropriate natural area agricultural practices
Page 81 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
- Funding and funding sources • Work with Dakota County and Dakota SWCD to identify, evaluate, and map locally important natural areas. • Enforce provisions in local ordinances that provide for and promote the protection of regionally and locally-important natural areas, including: - Protection of undisturbed natural areas in southern Dakota County - Protection of natural areas with scientific, cultural, or local significance - Protection and enhancement of the ecological diversity of southern Dakota County • Involve citizens and stakeholders in the planning process and in programs for managing and restoring natural areas • Use park dedications or cash-in-lieu donations in new cluster developments to acquire high quality natural areas • Encourage permanent set-aside programs to create and protect open space, create wildlife habitat, protect surface and ground water quality, and reduce erosion and sedimentation in streams • Encourage the use of native species in plantings where soil disturbance requires long-term erosion control, through local ordinance regulation and WMO standards, on public lands, reclamation projects on private land, natural areas, and similar projects • Actively seek funding to acquire priority areas • Support education of residents to increase the knowledge, skills, motivation, and commitment to work individually and collectively toward protecting natural resources
3. Program Opportunities Program refinements to assist participating landowners were explored. Known gaps to address include: • Adequately addressing the long-term natural resources management needs on private easements. Most funding sources currently used by the Program do not cover long-term management costs.
• Seeking greater tax equity for easement lands that no longer generates income. Land enrolled in the program continues to be taxed at its pre-enrollment rate, typically the tax rate for agricultural land. At the same time, local governments depend on existing tax base.
E. POTENTIAL LANDOWNER INCENTIVES As noted in discussing program gaps, landowners are ultimately responsible for long-term natural resource management on their land protected by easements, and funding to assist them is often limited to initial restoration. The gap occurs when ongoing maintenance of restored areas continues beyond a required three-year period, afterDraft which fundingto Consider assistance may forno longer Public be available Review to landowners. In addition, landowners often continue to pay the same level of property tax on land in easements, whether or not the land is in agricultural production and generating income. Staff from Dakota County’s Office of Performance Analysis explored two potential means of reducing tax burden to encourage residents to participate in conservation easement or transfer of fee title for conservation easements:
A. Targeted reduction in property taxes for those with conservation easements B. County tax credits for residents participating in the conservation easement program, similar to federal income tax deductions for charitable contributions
Reduction in Taxes: Minnesota Statutes 2018, section 273.117, Conservation Property Tax Valuation, rules out property tax reduction for conservation easement purposes, but subsection (b)(2) provides Dakota County a unique exception as the county adopted the Farmland and Natural Area Program (FNAP) via
Page 82 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
referendum. As a result, Dakota County has the option and authority to reduce valuations of property subject to a conservation restriction or easement. Dakota County makes some use of this, re-classifying the property tax of parts of some private lands with conservation easements in order to reduce the fee title owner’s associated property taxes and provide a financial incentive to landowners to participate in the conservation easement program.
Property taxes assessments are based on the “highest and best use” of a parcel, and the restrictions placed on parts of a property by a conservation easement reduce the potential “highest and best use” of that given parcel. Assessing staff noted that property tax reductions that are granted result in a de mimimis shift of the tax burden to the rest of Dakota County taxpayers. In other words, the difference between the assessed highest and best use property tax valuation prior to the conservation easement and following a conservation easement will be shared and paid by the other county taxpayers.
Potential Tax Credits: Like other charitable contributions, the donation of a conservation easement may allow the landowner to claim a federal income tax deduction for the value of the easement.16 Perpetual conservation easements can be used to gain up to a 50% federal income tax deduction off of adjusted gross income in a given year, with a carry-forward of an additional 15 years, and up to a 100% federal tax deduction for the 16 years in the case of agricultural lands. 17
Minnesota is not one of the 15 or so states that provide landowners with state income tax credits for gifts of land or easements.16,18 Attempting to change Minnesota state law is not likely to be successful at this time, but is an area to keep an eye on for the future as a number of other states do have relevant state statutes in place.
There is precedent for offering tax credits at a county-level, but no examples were found of counties that offer such credits that were not located in states with state-level income tax credits for such a purpose. For example, of the 24 counties in Maryland, 10 counties offer county property tax credits for perpetual conservation easements.19 These vary in their terms, with lengths ranging from 1 to 5 years and amounts of the credit ranging from a set percent of associated county property tax obligations (e.g. 75%-100%) to a set dollar amount cap (e.g. up to $500). As a result, it appears there is no precedent for a county offering tax credits for easements when there is not a related state income tax credit in place.
Summary • Tax credits may be the most feasible option that would not impact tax base for LGUs or shift taxes to other payers. Draft to Consider for Public Review
16 Helland, J. Conservation Easements. Information Brief. (2005). Minnesota House of Representative Research Department. 17 Hendrickson, V.L. What are the tax perks of donating land in the U.S.? Mansion Global. January 3, 2019. 18 The history of Colorado’s state income tax credit, as well as unintended consequences such as the fragmentation of property by landowners to maximize eligibility for the tax credit and the creation of pass through LLCs by non-Colorado residents for the sole purpose of qualifying for the credit, is described in: Jay, J. Changes to Colorado’s Conservation Income Tax Credit Law. Real Estate Law Newsletter. 2003. 32(2). 19 County Property Tax Credits. Maryland Environmental Trust Fund. September, 2015. http://dnr.maryland.gov/met/Documents/PDFs/County%20Tax%20Credit%20Embedded%20Links9.14.15.pdf
Page 83 Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County
Pine Bend Bluffs State Scientific and Natural Area, protected with assistance from Dakota County
Draft to Consider for Public Review
Page 84 DAKOTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION February 27, 2020: Update on 2020 Transportation Capital Improvement Construction Projects
PURPOSE Provide Planning Commission: 1. Receive an update on the 2020 Transportation Capital Improvement Program (CIP) construction projects.
BACKGROUND To provide a safe and efficient transportation system. Dakota County annually invests in the County transportation system through various construction projects. Several construction projects identified in the adopted 2020-2024 Transportation CIP budget are slated for the 2020 construction season. Staff will provide the Planning Commission with an overview of these transportation construction projects at the February 27, 2020 Planning Commission meeting.
ATTACHMENTS 2020 Construction Project Update
QUESTIONS This item is presented for information only. Staff will be pleased to respond to any questions or comments.
Efficient, Effective, Responsive
2020 Construction Project Update
Jeannine Briol Transportation Construction Engineer
February 27, 2020 2020 Construction Projects
Efficient, Effective, Responsive 2020 Construction Projects
Pavement Preservation Projects Efficient, Effective, Responsive Overlays – 3 overlay packages • Remaining overlays from 2019 (McNamara Contr.) • 2020 overlay package (bids late spring) • County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 42 from CSAH 5 to CSAH 11 (bids July) Crack-sealing - Approximately 15 miles Gravel Resurfacing - 16 centerline miles Dust Control - 2 applications of 54 centerline miles CSAH 9 (Dodd Boulevard)
at Icenic Trail, Lakeville Efficient, Effective, Responsive
CP 09-55
Adding a ¾ turn median on Dodd Blvd Medians on Icenic Trail and Heritage Drive
Bid date June 16, 2020 CSAH 9 (Dodd Boulevard)
at Icenic Trail, Lakeville Efficient, Effective, Responsive + CSAH 23 (Foliage Ave) CP 23-76
Eveleth to CSAH 86, Greenvale Township Efficient, Effective, Responsive Reconstruction – 207th St to Eveleth Ave Paved shoulders Right turn & Bypass Lanes 3 Bridges (box culverts) CSAH 23 (Foliage Ave) CP 23-76
Eveleth to CSAH 86, Greenvale Township Efficient, Effective, Responsive CSAH 26 (Lone Oak Rd) CP 26-52
@ Lexington Ave, Eagan Efficient, Effective, Responsive
Intersection Improvements Double Left Turn Lanes both NB & SB Right Turn Lanes both NB & SB
Bid August 20, 2019 (Eureka Construction) CSAH 26 (Lone Oak Rd) CP 26-52
@ Lexington Ave, Eagan Efficient, Effective, Responsive CSAH 50 (202nd St) CP 50-23
(Holyoke Ave to Cedar Ave) Lakeville Efficient, Effective, Responsive Reconstruction Roundabout at Holyoke Ave (done) Signal at Cedar Ave (done) Highview Ave to Cedar Ave (remains to be done) RL Larson Excavating, Inc. $9.18 million CSAH 50 (202nd St) CP 50-23
(Holyoke Ave to Cedar Ave) Lakeville Efficient, Effective, Responsive CSAH 62 (190th St) CP 62-26
@ CSAH 47 (Northfield Blvd), Vermillion Township Efficient, Effective, Responsive
Intersection Realignment
Bid January 28, 2020 Mathiowetz Construction Co $1.88 million Construction starts spring 2020
Construction Phasing • No closures until July 6th • CSAH 62 closed – CSAH 47 open • CSAH 47 closed CSAH 62 (190th St) CP 62-26
@ CSAH 47 (Northfield Blvd), Vermillion Township Efficient, Effective, Responsive CSAH 70 (215th St) CP 70-23
Kensington Blvd to Cedar Ave, Lakeville Efficient, Effective, Responsive CSAH 70 (215th St) CP 70-23
Kensington Blvd to Cedar Ave, Lakeville Efficient, Effective, Responsive
Reconstruction - 4-lanes, medians, right and left turn lanes Bids April 1, 2020 (2-year project) Must be constructed under traffic CSAH 73 (Akron Ave) CP 73-19
Bonaire Path to North City Limits, Rosemount Efficient, Effective, Responsive
Bid February 5, 2020 Northland Grading & Excavating, Inc. $5.82 Million CSAH 73 (Akron Ave) CP 73-19
Bonaire Path to North City Limits, Rosemount Efficient, Effective, Responsive CSAH 78 (240th/245th St) CP 78-10
Trunk Highway 3 to Blaine Ave, Castle Rock Twp Efficient, Effective, Responsive
Roadway Realignment – to meet design speed and safety requirements
Bids April 7, 2020 CSAH 78 (240th/245th St) CP 78-10
Trunk Highway 3 to Blaine Ave, Castle Rock Twp Efficient, Effective, Responsive Robert Street Trail CP 98-013
Wentworth Ave to Crawford Dr, WSP Efficient, Effective, Responsive Efficient, Effective, Responsive
Questions? DAKOTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION February 27, 2020: Authorization To Release Draft Of River To River Greenway Natural Resource Management Plan For Public Comment (information)
PURPOSE Provide Planning Commission: 1. Update of Management Plan Findings and Recommendations 2. Copy of Draft Plan being considered for release to Public
BACKGROUND
The River to River Greenway connects the Big Rivers Trail in Lilydale to the Mississippi River Greenway at Kaposia Landing on the Mississippi River along the 7.6 mile paved trail through Dodge Nature Center and parks within the Cities of Mendota Heights, West Saint Paul and South Saint Paul. A study area encompassing 830 acres of greenspace open to the public along the River to River Greenway was evaluated as part of a draft Natural Resource Management Plan (NRMP).
Recommendations for natural resource restoration projects will be presented based upon the findings of the natural resource inventory that were presented in the October 2019 PLANC meeting. The prioritization of approximately $1.9 million dollars of natural resource restoration projects will be discussed, along with recommended guidelines for cost-share for projects in partnership with public landowners. Expectations of County and landowner Partner roles regarding contributions for grant match, project management, ongoing maintenance of restored lands, and additional supporting projects will be determined by Joint Powers Agreements and Supplemental Maintenance Agreements made with project partners prior to project implementation.
ATTACHMENTS [Executive Summary] [Draft of the River to River Greenway NRMP]
QUESTIONS The following questions are intended to help assist in review of the packet materials.
1. Do you have specific interests or concerns regarding the prioritization of natural resource projects within the Greenway Corridor? 2. Are you supportive of the proposed County roles for assisting with natural resource management on non- County lands within the Greenway Corridor? 3. Would you be willing to give a recommendation to the County Board that this Plan be released to the public?
Executive Summary
Background
The River to River Greenway encompasses 7.6 miles of paved trail from Kaposia Landing along the Mississippi River in the east, to the northwest at Lilydale where the Mississippi flows downstream of the confluence of the Minnesota River. The Greenway is adjacent to 830 acres of publicly accessible lands owned by cities of Mendota Heights, West Saint Paul and South Saint Paul, Dodge Nature Center, and Independent School District 197. Originally named the North Urban Regional Trail, this Greenway was made contiguous in 2015 when many pre- existing trails through city parks were linked with a continuous paved path, but adjustments will occur in the next few years with additional trailhead parking, grade separated crossings, and new alignment opportunities.
Prior to European settlement, the area was covered by hardwood forest, oak savanna and prairies, with wetlands occupying small depressions on the landscape. Farming practices and subsequent development eliminated any native prairie that once occupied open areas. The steep slopes of ravines leading to floodplain forest along the River encompassed maple basswood hardwood forest. With the onset of post-WWII development, many wetland depressions became ponds or small lakes with increased runoff from upland impervious surfaces. Subsequently, many of these were altered (excavated) for increased stormwater- holding capacity as development expanded.
Within the current urban and suburban landscape, many of the lands remaining with native plant cover are highly degraded due to the introgression of invasive species, the expansion of impervious cover from surrounding development, and the disruption of corridors conducive to the movement of wildlife. Current opportunities to ameliorate these challenges include the removal of invasive vegetation, enhancement of forests with native forbs and shrubs, addressing ravine erosion issues, and conversion of underutilized turf lawns to prairies and native plantings with high pollinator value. Some existing prairie restorations and native plantings within the Greenway Corridor contribute to its natural resource quality. These plantings could be expanded and enhanced with additional funding. Future long-term projects could address degraded wetlands to facilitate the return of native wet meadow and pond shoreline plantings to bring in more diversity and facilitate improvements in water quality for hydrologically connected systems within the Greenway.
This Natural Resource Management Plan aims to provide a foundation for future natural resource restoration and enhancement projects on the public lands outlined along this greenway. Additionally, this document aims to provide structure and precedent with guiding principles governing future partnerships for natural resource projects and management on non- County owned lands adjacent to County Greenways that involve public lands owned by municipalities, non-profits, and school districts. Recommendations for structuring future collaborations around cost share for obtaining extramural funding are presented.
Natural Resource Management Plan Recommendations
Restoration projects within public lands along the River to River Greenway Corridor amount to approximately $1.9 million in project costs. Table 7 (pg. 93) illustrates the Restoration Priorities and site-specific restoration sequencing of all major sites within the Greenway Corridor. Briefly, the biggest priority for all woodlands and forests along the River to River Greenway is to remove invasive shrubs such as buckthorn and honeysuckle. Secondarily, additional native trees and shrubs could be removed from oak woodlands and former grasslands currently experiencing woody encroachment. The highest priority for grasslands is to restore prairie in currently unrestored areas and determine the best underutilized turf areas for smaller prairie restorations and pollinator plantings. Finally, the highest wetland priorities are those that will have the greatest impact on water quality or public visibility, such as stormwater pond shoreline restorations (concurrent with buckthorn removal, but challenges exist with establishing emergent vegetation due to fluctuating water levels) and isolated wetlands proximal to trails (Marthaler Park). Next priority wetlands include those with the ability to control hydrology via water control structures (Valley Park), while the larger tracts of wetlands on Dodge’s Lilly Property are a longer-term management consideration.
The implementation of natural resource projects outlined in Table 7 of the Plan is subject to external grant funding. In the case of restorations occurring on non-County Lands, the County would seek to establish Joint Powers Agreements and Supplemental Maintenance Agreements with project Partners to define roles in restoration, enhancement and maintenance activities. State grant opportunities for funding natural resources related work require initial financial investment in the form of grant match. As a typical scenario, Dakota County would seek partnership contributions amounting to half the grant cash match associated with restoration on non-County lands. Thus, for a hypothetical $100,000 restoration project funded by a state grant, a 20% cash match contribution ($20,000) would be shared 50/50 between the County and project Partners ($10,000 each). Partner contributions could deviate from this default scenario and would depend on the site’s position relative to the Greenway (see Executive Figure 1 and Executive Table 1 below). Greenway Corridors of 100-300 feet are defined based upon Greenway Guidebook (County Board Resolution No. 10-487), and Natural Lands are defined as public lands immediately outside this Greenway Corridor that form continuity with respect to natural vegetation and wildlife habitat. Ongoing maintenance of the native plantings on non-County lands would be the responsibility of the Landowner.
Executive Figure 1: River to River Greenway Corridor Terms Defined
Executive Table 1: Greenway Roles and Responsibilities Greenway Roles / 100 – 300-foot Natural Lands Beyond 30-foot Easement Location Corridor Corridor County/Landowner County and have 25/75 cost share. Grant Match Cost Landowner have County County may assist Share equal cost share more in high value (50/50). areas. Restoration Project County. Landowner Landowner. County County Management may assist. may assist. County. Landowner Maintenance County Landowner. may assist.
Given the above Greenway Roles and Responsibilities, Executive Table 2 (below) exhibits Funding Scenarios for natural resource restoration activities based upon the cost estimates presented in Table 7 and were constructed with the following assumptions:
• Dakota County assumes 100% of the costs associated with Easements (~3% of total Greenway Study Area of 830 acres) and with restoration in Thompson County Park (either internally or grant funded, depending on the scenario); • The County assists in 50% cost share for grant match within 100 ft Urban Greenway Corridor (11% of total Greenway Study Area), or 50% of total costs if no grant is obtained; • The County assists with 25% cost share for grant match outside the 100 ft Urban Greenway Corridor (~86% of the Greenway Study Area), or 25% of total costs if no grant is obtained; • All other restoration costs not described above are the responsibility of the respective Landowner and are summed as Implementation Cost Estimate for Partners.
The following Table outlines potential cost scenarios for initial restoration implementation (Table 7), assuming the roles and responsibilities above:
Executive Table 2: Restoration Implementation Funding Scenarios Implementation Implementation Grant Funds Total Cost Grant Funding Cost Estimate for Cost Estimate for Estimate Scenario County Partners No Grant $ - $1,870,000 $950,000 $920,000 Funding 50% Grant $750,000 $1,870,000 $570,000 $550,000 Funded 100% Grant $1,500,000 $1,870,000 $190,000 $180,000 Funded
This initial Greenway NRMP seeks to establish general parameters for cost share roles and responsibilities between Dakota County and landowner partnership organizations. The guiding principles determining County contributions for initializing implementation of natural resource restoration projects on non-County owned land within established Greenway Corridors will establish a preferred policy approach, directed by the County Board’s approval of the Plan and future Joint Powers Agreements during implementation of the Plan’s activities.
Natural Resource Management Plan
for the River to River Greenway
prepared by Dakota County
February 2020
Table of Contents
List of Tables ...... 4 List of Figures ...... 4 I. Executive Summary ...... 5 II. Purpose of the Natural Resource Management Plan ...... 8 Contacts ...... 9 III. Introduction ...... 10 IV. Vision and Goals ...... 11 A. Vision ...... 11 B. Maximize Biodiversity and Increase Community Resilience ...... 11 C. Conserve and Promote Species of Greatest Conservation Need ...... 11 D. Enhance Water Quality ...... 11 E. Restore Degraded Landscapes to Native Plant Communities ...... 12 F. Remove Invasive Species ...... 12 V. Natural History and Current Conditions ...... 12 A. Landscape Context ...... 12 i. Location ...... 12 ii. Historic and Existing Land Use ...... 15 iii. Adjacent Land Use ...... 25 iv. Rare Features ...... 29 B. Physical Conditions ...... 33 C. Vegetation ...... 57 VI. Wildlife ...... 72 A. Historical ...... 72 B. Existing Populations ...... 74 C. Indicator Species ...... 75 VII. Priority Features and Recommendations ...... 76 A. Oak Savanna ...... 77 B. Oak Woodlands ...... 77 C. Mesic Hardwood Forests ...... 78 D. Prairies ...... 79 2
E. Wet Forests ...... 80 F. Wetlands and Shorelines ...... 80 VIII. Implementation ...... 92 A. Previous and Ongoing Restoration Efforts ...... 92 B. Work Plans ...... 93 C. Future Restoration Implementation Schedule ...... 103 IX. Strategic Partnerships for Implementing Greenway Natural Resource Projects ...... 105 A. Precedent of County Policy Supporting Natural Resources Improvements of County Greenways ...... 105 B. Guidelines for Cost-Share ...... 109 C. Continued Natural Resource Management ...... 110 X. Monitoring and Adaptive Management ...... 111 A. Methods ...... 111 XI. References ...... 113 APPENDICES ...... 114 Appendix A: Landowner Visioning of Future Cover ...... 114 Appendix B: Potential Ecological Impacts ...... 119 Appendix C: List of Noxious and Invasive Plants ...... 124 Appendix D: Methods for Controlling Exotic, Invasive Plant Species ...... 136 Appendix E: Suggested Native Shrubs for Replacing Common Buckthorn ...... 142 Appendix F: Description of Target Plant Communities ...... 145 Appendix H: Acceptable Source Origin of Native Seed for Dakota County ...... 163
3
List of Tables
Table 1: Rare Features ...... 30 Table 2: Soil Type Descriptions ...... 37 Table 3: Summary of Land Cover Management Unit Quality ...... 67 Table 4: Indicator Species Observed in Dakota County ...... 75 Table 5: Existing Land Cover and Recommended Target Community ...... 81 Table 6: Historic Land Management Activity ...... 92 Table 7: Restoration Sequence Work Plan for Natural Resource Projects ...... 93 Table 8: Twenty-Year Work Plan for Long-Term Maintenance ...... 100 Table 9: Proposed Management Activities and Responsibilities ...... 109
List of Figures
FIGURE 1: Location of Greenway and Biodiversity Corridors ...... 13 FIGURE 2: Sub-Regional Landscape Context ...... 14 FIGURE 3: Local Landscape Context ...... 15 FIGURE 4: Earliest Historical Aerial Photographs ...... 17 FIGURE 5: Historic Aerial Composite ...... 21 FIGURE 6: Current Aerial Photo ...... 26 FIGURE 7: Rusty Patched Bumblebee Zones of Occurrence ...... 32 FIGURE 8: Bedrock Geological Strata - Excerpted from Mossler 2008...... 34 FIGURE 9: Bedrock Geology ...... 35 FIGURE 10: Surficial Geology ...... 36 FIGURE 11: Soils ...... 40 FIGURE 12: Percent Slope and Topography ...... 46 FIGURE 13: Sensitivity of Groundwater to Pollution ...... 52 FIGURE 14: National Wetland Inventory Features ...... 54 FIGURE 15: Pre-Settlement Vegetation of the Greenway Corridor and Surrounding Region ...... 59 FIGURE 16: Ecological Subsections ...... 61 FIGURE 17: Existing Landcover – MLCCS Classes ...... 69 FIGURE 18: Future Cover ...... 83 FIGURE 19: Dakota County Parks and City of West Saint Paul Partnership Restoration Project ...... 105 FIGURE 20: Greenway Corridor Scenarios ...... 107 FIGURE 21: Particular Greenway Corridor Example Along the River to River Greenway ...... 108 FIGURE 22: Adaptive Natural Resource Management ...... 112
4
I. Executive Summary
Background
The River to River Greenway encompasses 7.6 miles of paved trail from Kaposia Landing along the Mississippi River in the east, to the northwest at Lilydale where the Mississippi flows downstream of the confluence of the Minnesota River. The Greenway is adjacent to 830 acres of publicly accessible lands owned by cities of Mendota Heights, West Saint Paul and South Saint Paul, Dodge Nature Center, and Independent School District 197. Originally named the North Urban Regional Trail, this Greenway was made contiguous in 2015 when many pre-existing trails through city parks were linked with a continuous paved path, but adjustments will occur in the next few years with additional trailhead parking, grade separated crossings, and new alignment opportunities.
Prior to European settlement, the area was covered by hardwood forest, oak savanna and prairies, with wetlands occupying small depressions on the landscape. Farming practices and subsequent development eliminated any native prairie that once occupied open areas. The steep slopes of ravines leading to floodplain forest along the River encompassed maple basswood hardwood forest. With the onset of post-WWII development, many wetland depressions became ponds or small lakes with increased runoff from upland impervious surfaces. Subsequently, many of these were altered (excavated) for increased stormwater-holding capacity as development expanded.
Within the current urban and suburban landscape, many of the lands remaining with native plant cover are highly degraded due to the introgression of invasive species, the expansion of impervious cover from surrounding development, and the disruption of corridors conducive to the movement of wildlife. Current opportunities to ameliorate these challenges include the removal of invasive vegetation, enhancement of forests with native forbs and shrubs, addressing ravine erosion issues, and conversion of underutilized turf lawns to prairies and native plantings with high pollinator value. Some existing prairie restorations and native plantings within the Greenway Corridor contribute to its natural resource quality. These plantings could be expanded and enhanced with additional funding. Future long-term projects could address degraded wetlands to facilitate the return of native wet meadow and pond shoreline plantings to bring in more diversity and facilitate improvements in water quality for hydrologically connected systems within the Greenway.
This Natural Resource Management Plan aims to provide a foundation for future natural resource restoration and enhancement projects on the public lands outlined along this greenway. Additionally, this document aims to provide structure and precedent with guiding principles governing future partnerships for natural resource projects and management on non-County owned lands adjacent to County Greenways that involve public lands owned by municipalities, non-profits, and school districts. Recommendations for structuring future collaborations around cost share for obtaining extramural funding are presented.
Natural Resource Management Plan Recommendations
Restoration projects within public lands along the River to River Greenway Corridor amount to approximately $1.9 million in project costs. Table 7 (pg. 93) illustrates the Restoration Priorities and site-specific restoration 5
sequencing of all major sites within the Greenway Corridor. Briefly, the biggest priority for all woodlands and forests along the River to River Greenway is to remove invasive shrubs such as buckthorn and honeysuckle. Secondarily, additional native trees and shrubs could be removed from oak woodlands and former grasslands currently experiencing woody encroachment. The highest priority for grasslands is to restore prairie in currently unrestored areas and determine the best underutilized turf areas for smaller prairie restorations and pollinator plantings. Finally, the highest wetland priorities are those that will have the greatest impact on water quality or public visibility, such as stormwater pond shoreline restorations (concurrent with buckthorn removal, but challenges exist with establishing emergent vegetation due to fluctuating water levels) and isolated wetlands proximal to trails (Marthaler Park). Next priority wetlands include those with the ability to control hydrology via water control structures (Valley Park), while the larger tracts of wetlands on Dodge’s Lilly Property are a longer-term management consideration.
The implementation of natural resource projects outlined in Table 7 of the Plan is subject to external grant funding. In the case of restorations occurring on non-County Lands, the County would seek to establish Joint Powers Agreements and Supplemental Maintenance Agreements with project Partners to define roles in restoration, enhancement and maintenance activities. State grant opportunities for funding natural resources related work require initial financial investment in the form of grant match. As a typical scenario, Dakota County would seek partnership contributions amounting to half the grant cash match associated with restoration on non-County lands. Thus, for a hypothetical $100,000 restoration project funded by a state grant, a 20% cash match contribution ($20,000) would be shared 50/50 between the County and project Partners ($10,000 each). Partner contributions could deviate from this default scenario and would depend on the site’s position relative to the Greenway (see Executive Figure 1 and Executive Table 1 below). Greenway Corridors of 100-300 feet are defined based upon Greenway Guidebook (County Board Resolution No. 10- 487), and Natural Lands are defined as public lands immediately outside this Greenway Corridor that form continuity with respect to natural vegetation and wildlife habitat. Ongoing maintenance of the native plantings on non-County lands would be the responsibility of the Landowner.
6
Executive Figure 1: River to River Greenway Corridor Terms Defined
Executive Table 1: Greenway Roles and Responsibilities Natural Lands Beyond Greenway Roles / Location 30-foot Easement 100 – 300-foot Corridor Corridor County/Landowner have County and Landowner 25/75 cost share. County Grant Match Cost Share County have equal cost share may assist more in high (50/50). value areas. Restoration Project County. Landowner may Landowner. County may County Management assist. assist. County. Landowner may Maintenance County Landowner. assist.
Given the above Greenway Roles and Responsibilities, Executive Table 2 (below) exhibits Funding Scenarios for natural resource restoration activities based upon the cost estimates presented in Table 7 and were constructed with the following assumptions:
• Dakota County assumes 100% of the costs associated with Easements (~3% of total Greenway Study Area of 830 acres) and with restoration in Thompson County Park (either internally or grant funded, depending on the scenario); 7
• The County assists in 50% cost share for grant match within 100 ft Urban Greenway Corridor (11% of total Greenway Study Area), or 50% of total costs if no grant is obtained; • The County assists with 25% cost share for grant match outside the 100 ft Urban Greenway Corridor (~86% of the Greenway Study Area), or 25% of total costs if no grant is obtained; • All other restoration costs not described above are the responsibility of the respective Landowner and are summed as Implementation Cost Estimate for Partners.
The following Table outlines potential cost scenarios for initial restoration implementation (Table 7), assuming the roles and responsibilities above:
Executive Table 2: Restoration Implementation Funding Scenarios Grant Funding Implementation Cost Implementation Cost Grant Funds Total Cost Scenario Estimate for County Estimate for Partners Estimate No Grant Funding $950,000 $920,000 $ - $1,870,000 50% Grant Funded $570,000 $550,000 $750,000 $1,870,000 100% Grant Funded $190,000 $180,000 $1,500,000 $1,870,000
This initial Greenway NRMP seeks to establish general parameters for cost share roles and responsibilities between Dakota County and landowner partnership organizations. The guiding principles determining County contributions for initializing implementation of natural resource restoration projects on non-County owned land within established Greenway Corridors will establish a preferred policy approach, directed by the County Board’s approval of the Plan and future Joint Powers Agreements during implementation of the Plan’s activities.
II. Purpose of the Natural Resource Management Plan
The purpose of the Natural Resource Management Plan (NRMP) is to describe the current and preferred natural resource conditions, goals, and activities for the protected portion of the landowner’s property included in the permanent natural area conservation corridor (Greenway Corridor or Study Area) held by Dakota County and other municipal and public lands. The NRMP includes information on the Corridor’s location; historic, existing, and adjacent land use; bedrock and surficial geology; soils; topography; hydrology, including groundwater and surface water; historic and existing vegetation cover, noxious and invasive plants, and land cover; ecological impacts, past and present, from fire suppression, diseases, wildlife, and climate change; plant community assessment; wildlife; target vegetation communities, including management priorities, methods, five year workplan, and long-term workplan. The NRMP also includes plant restoration goals and recommendations, a restoration process, schedule, and cost estimates.
Natural Resource Management Agreements (Management Agreements) are developed in conjunction with the NRMP and each include: a workplan for implementing jointly agreed on natural resource activities and priorities, the respective roles and responsibilities of the landowners (the County or Partners), project schedules, cost estimates and funding/in-kind sources.
8
The status of any approved activity under any Management Agreement will be monitored and assessed as part of routine ecological monitoring of the restored or enhanced areas by County staff, as allowed by the Management Agreement. The NRMP will be reviewed and updated every five years, or as needed to maintain its relevancy. Contacts
Dakota County Parks Department 14955 Galaxie Avenue, Apple Valley, MN 55124 Project Lead: Christian Klatt 952-891-7947 [email protected]
River to River Greenway PARTNERS: City of South Saint Paul City of West Saint Paul City of Mendota Heights Dodge Nature Center Independent School District 197
9
III. Introduction
Most of Dakota County’s 400,000 residents live in the highly urbanized northern one-third of the County, a rolling landscape bordered by major rivers to the north and east, and dotted with lakes, forests, wetlands and other natural areas. The southern two-thirds of the County are generally level and open where agriculture is the predominant land use. This portion of the County is dissected by many streams and tributaries, and includes the largest tracts of natural areas.
As a result of the County’s rich soils and close proximity and easy transportation access to St. Paul and Minneapolis, the combination of agricultural use and suburban development has resulted in the loss of most pre-settlement wetlands, prairies, savannas, and upland forests. Many of the remaining natural areas are degraded and fragmented, which make it increasingly difficult for these areas to function as healthy ecosystems. Moreover, many of the remaining natural areas are the most attractive undeveloped areas for future residential development. Despite being relatively few in number and extent, some of these natural areas include important plant and animal communities and are prime candidates for conservation. Residential surveys consistently indicate that the majority of County citizens think it is important that the County has an active role in protecting these areas.
To address citizen’s concerns over the loss of open space and natural areas throughout the County, and to determine how to protect these areas using incentive-based tools, the County Board adopted the “Dakota County Farmland and Natural Area Protection Plan” (Plan) in 2002. The Plan identified 36,000 acres of high quality natural areas as a priority for protection which overlapped with the nearly 60,000 acres of land eligible for farmland protection. The Plan identified the following public purposes for protecting natural areas:
• Increase property values and enhance neighborhood appeal • Provide close-to-home opportunities for people to enjoy and interact with nature • Provide critical habitat for plants and animals and preserve critical ecological connections between habitat areas • Provide environmental services, including filtering pollutants from soil and water, reducing soil erosion, and absorbing air pollutants and carbon dioxide • Provide natural flood control for area streams and rivers by retaining wetlands and vegetated corridors to absorb flood waters.
Citizen input was used to identify the desired characteristics for natural areas:
• Lands of biological significance • Lands adjacent to lakes, rivers, and streams to improve water quality • Lands that provide wildlife habitat • Lands that provide some level of public access
The Plan found that there were high quality natural areas worth protecting and identified three primary strategies to protect these areas:
10
Strategy 1: Protect priority natural areas in eligible areas and corridors using conservation easements and fee title acquisition from willing sellers and donors.
Strategy 2: Work with other agencies through their programs to protect County priority natural areas.
Strategy 3: Work with owners of large land tracts and agencies to protect natural areas on their properties with conservation easements and Natural Resource Management Plans (NRMPs).
IV. Vision and Goals
A. Vision Dakota County approaches conserving Natural Resources within the County with the following Vision Statement in mind: “The water, vegetation, and wildlife of Dakota County Parks [and Greenways] will be managed to conserve biodiversity, restore native habitats, improve public benefits, and achieve resilience and regionally outstanding quality, now and for future generations (Natural Resources Management System Plan, 2017).” Towards this end, the County has an interest towards improving the ecological value of the public lands outside but adjacent to the County’s land-holdings and easements.
B. Maximize Biodiversity and Increase Community Resilience A major goal of ecological restoration is to establish native plantings that support high biodiversity, including the highest numbers of species adapted to the physical conditions of each site. This high biodiversity ensures that multiple species are able to have some degree of overlap in their respective ecological roles, such that if some species were removed from the system, there is enough redundancy to ensure that the ecosystem continues to provide food, habitat, and perform the necessary ecological functions that keep the system healthy. This redundancy results in greater resilience to change due to climate or the influx of exotic species.
C. Conserve and Promote Species of Greatest Conservation Need
The conservation of species adversely impacted by human activity is a priority goal in Natural Resource management. Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCNs) are identified in the State’s Wildlife Action Plan for 2015-2025 and include species listed under Federal and State Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Species Lists. Additionally, this Plan identified rare or declining species and stewardship species whose populations are stable within the State but declining elsewhere, or migratory species whose congregations within the State represent significant proportions of total populations in North America.
D. Enhance Water Quality
Native plantings offer an advantage over turf grasses in that their roots penetrate into soils much more deeply (up to tens of feet), facilitating the infiltration of surface water into the soil. This not only
11
reduces overland surface water runoff, thus reducing the turbidity and nutrient loading of receiving water bodies, but it also assists with groundwater recharge.
E. Restore Degraded Landscapes to Native Plant Communities
Many of the landscapes identified in this Plan have low vegetative quality due to lack of continued maintenance in the form of prescribed fire or invasive species removal. Bringing back native plant communities to the landscape will significantly improve the habitat quality of these lands but will also work towards conserving disappearing plants and animals in an altered, urbanized landscape.
F. Remove Invasive Species
Invasive species can more be considered symptoms of a greater problem- lack of land management activities in general- as their removal from these landscapes are temporary without continued effort. However, by removing these species, we can take the most significant and impactful step to returning these landscapes to healthy, functioning natural communities.
V. Natural History and Current Conditions
A. Landscape Context
i. Location The River to River Greenway is a 7.6 mile trail that is proximal to 830 acres of public land within northern Dakota County (Figure 1). The Greenway connects regions designated as Metro Conservation Corridors (MeCC, a regional land protection plan of the DNR), highlighting the importance these greenspaces play in facilitating movement and providing contiguous habitat for pollinators and other wildlife (Figures 2 and 3). These lands comprise a corridor that connects with the Big Rivers Regional Trail along the Minnesota River in Lilydale on the west end and the Mississippi River Greenway in South Saint Paul on the east side. The Mendota to Lebanon Greenway connects with the River to River Greenway corridor near where Dodd Road crosses Highway 62 in Mendota Heights, whereupon it forms a north-south directed greenway adjoining the Dodge Nature Preserve and will eventually create a contiguous trail to Lebanon Hills Regional Park in Eagan.
The parks and greenspaces connected by the River to River Greenway vary in size from 5 acre stormwater ponds and 30 acre city parks to 190 acre preserves. Taken together, they form semi-contiguous linear corridors of natural land that range from 60 feet to over 4,000 feet in width. Some of these city park lands accommodate recreational uses such as picnic areas, disc golf, athletic fields and winter sledding hills. Dodge Nature Center is the largest landowner of natural spaces along the corridor, encompassing over 350 acres. These lands are managed to serve outdoor educational programs, including a working farm, and preserve natural landscapes from development.
In addition to city parks and public spaces, both Henry Sibley High School and Garlough Elementary Magnet School lie within the River to River Greenway corridor and are managed by Independent School District 197. 12
Both schools currently have native plantings on their property, and discussions with School District staff indicate there are opportunities to expand such plantings on their properties along the Greenway.
There are linear tracts of the River to River Greenway that pass through contiguous habitat up to a mile long, however, much of these greenspaces are dissected by roads and highways. In particular, US Highway 52 and Robert Street (State Highway 3) have the heaviest traffic, thus creating barriers to the movement of wildlife. Other prominent road crossings include Marie Ave, Wentworth Ave, Delaware Ave, Dodd Rd (State Highway 149), and Oakdale Ave. These roads fragment areas that have native plant cover or have the potential to be restored, and this fragmentation affects the movement of wildlife and impacts hydrological conditions in these natural areas.
FIGURE 1: Location of Greenway and Biodiversity Corridors
13
FIGURE 2: Sub-Regional Landscape Context
14
FIGURE 3: Local Landscape Context
ii. Historic and Existing Land Use
European settlement significantly changed the County landscape. Native prairies were plowed, forests and woodlands cut, wetlands drained, fires suppressed, and intense agricultural practices introduced, including row cropping and livestock grazing.
Some of the best evidence of past land use is depicted in historic aerial photographs. Figures 4 and 5A-D are historic aerial photos for natural segments of the River to River Greenway and surrounding area from 1937 to 2017. The photos show extensive urbanization and development of farm fields into predominantly single family homes and commercial spaces. In areas where development did not occur, the cessation of farming resulted in extensive afforestation such that they consist largely of secondary growth forest predominated by fast-growing tree species such as boxelder and cottonwood. Protected pockets of forest or savanna are depicted in the earliest (1937) aerial photographs, and some of these forested areas persisted to the present day
The following comments address these issues in more detail:
1. Forested areas within ravines leading to the Mississippi River in Lillydale/Mendota Heights and Simon’s Ravine in South Saint Paul up to Kaposia Park and the southern portion of Thompson County Park were largely left intact due to the inability to farm steep slopes.
15
2. Low-lying wetlands along Valley Creek in what is currently Valley Park showed some evidence of cultivation or haying in the 1937 photos, but the lack of ditching and subsequent cultivation allowed for wetland communities to persist until extensive afforestation occurred beginning in the 1980s. 3. A copse of white and bur oak trees near the present location of Wentworth Library was evident in 1937, and many of these trees are still standing. 4. Oak savanna was also present within the undulating hills of Garlough and Marthaler Parks in West Saint Paul in 1937, and over time these areas became more densely forested. 5. While neighborhood developments existed to the north of Kaposia Park and Thompson County Park by 1937, large-scale developments of single-family homes were constructed to the south of these parks between 1962 and 1964. 6. Shallow wetland basins within the Main Dodge Nature Center property began to exhibit surface water year-round in the 1970s, concomitant with an increase in impervious surfaces associated with development of the surrounding area. 7. Areas of what is now the Lilly Property of Dodge Nature Preserve had trees, especially along streams and some surrounding hillslopes. These areas have since become much more densely forested. 8. The large wetland complex on the west side of Dodge Nature Preserve showed evidence of being ditched and farmed in 1937, but farming activity ceased in subsequent aerial photos, allowing wetland vegetation to reestablish. Historic ditches still remain and potentially contribute to an altered hydrologic state.
16
FIGURE 4: Earliest Historical Aerial Photographs
17
18
19
20
FIGURE 5A: Historic Aerial Composite, Valley Park
21
FIGURE 5B: Historic Aerial Composite, Dodge Nature Center, Lilly and Marie Properties
22
FIGURE 5C: Historic Aerial Composite, Dodge Nature Center Main Property, West Saint Paul
23
FIGURE 5D: Historic Aerial Composite, Thompson County Park and Kaposia
24
iii. Adjacent Land Use The adjacency of parkland, cultivated land, open areas, and residential sub-divisions can affect vegetation and wildlife management options, and may present opportunities to enlarge existing habitat areas, create corridors for wildlife movement, and determine the characteristics of local surface water hydrology.
Lands surrounding the Mississippi River and on the northern regions of the River to River Greenway Corridor were developed earlier than regions more distant from the River and regions further south. Subsequently, many of the impacts on natural features that come with development, i.e., fragmented habitat, altered hydrology, etc., affected different regions of this trail Corridor at different times. Today, the relatively high percentage of impervious surfaces surrounding this corridor significantly increases stormwater runoff and changes hydrological conditions of wetlands, streams and ponds within the Corridor (Figure 14).
Natural areas along this urbanized Greenway Corridor are subject to higher densities of invasive species due to their urban context. Many introduced species that are invading natural areas were once utilized in the nursery trade. Thus, surrounding residential areas could be the source of European buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), asiatic honeysuckle (Lonicera spp.), Amur maple (Acer ginnala) winged burning bush (Euonymus alatus), and other species that are impacting the ecological integrity of the Greenway Corridor.
25
FIGURE 6A: CURRENT AERIAL PHOTO – Valley Park
26
FIGURE 6B: CURRENT AERIAL PHOTO – Dodge Nature Center, Lilly and Marie Properties
27
FIGURE 6C: CURRENT AERIAL PHOTO – Dodge Nature Center, Main Property and West Saint Paul Parks
28
FIGURE 6D: CURRENT AERIAL PHOTO – Thompson County Park and Kaposia
iv. Rare Features
The Minnesota DNR has three statuses for rare species, classified as: endangered, threatened, and special concern. Endangered refers to species threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range within Minnesota; threatened refers to species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range within Minnesota; and special concern refers to species not endangered or threatened, but that are extremely uncommon in Minnesota, or have unique or highly specific habitat requirements and deserve careful status monitoring. Species on the periphery of their range that are not listed as threatened may be included in this category, along with species that were once threatened or endangered, but now have increasing or protected, stable populations.
A search was conducted on a DNR database within one mile of the boundaries of the River to River Greenway Corridor study area that revealed rare features. The following features were observed within the study area boundaries:
29
Table 1: Rare Features
Federal Taxon Scientific Name Common Name State Status Last Observed Status Amphibian Necturus maculosus Mudpuppy SPC 2016 Fish Cycleptus elongatus Blue Sucker SPC 2012 Fish Ictiobus niger Black Buffalo THR 2010 Fish Notropis anogenus Pugnose Shiner THR 1890 Fish Polyodon spathula Paddlefish THR 2012 Rusty-patched Insect Bombus affinis END 2018 Bumble Bee Mussel Actinonaias ligamentina Mucket THR 1905 Mussel Arcidens confragosus Rock Pocketbook END 2005 Mussel Cyclonaias tuberculata Purple Wartyback END 2001 Mussel Ellipsaria lineolata Butterfly THR 2005 Mussel Elliptio crassidens Elephant-ear END 2007 Mussel Eurynia dilatata Spike THR 2000 Mussel Leptodea leptodon Scaleshell extirpated 1820 Mussel Ligumia recta Black Sandshell SPC 2007 Mussel Obovaria olivaria Hickorynut delisted 2013 2004 Mussel Plethobasus cyphyus Sheepnose END END 2001 Mussel Pleurobema sintoxia Round Pigtoe SPC 2001 Mussel Quadrula fragosa Winged Mapleleaf END END 2001 Mussel Quadrula nodulata Wartyback THR 2011 Mussel Reginaia ebenus Ebonyshell END 2001 Mussel Theliderma metanevra Monkeyface THR 2001 Mussel Tritogonia verrucosa Pistolgrip END 2003 Mussel Truncilla donaciformis Fawnsfoot THR 2010 Plant Juglans cinera Butternut END 1884 Reptile Emydoidea blandingii Blanding's Turtle THR 2000 Reptile Pantherophis ramspotti Western Foxsnake 1993 Reptile Lampropeltis triangulum Milk Snake 2015
• Oak-Basswood Forest, Southeast Mesic Subtype (MHs38c) in Kaposia Park (Morley, 1995) • Three occurrences of Rusty-patched bumblebee (Bombus affinis) in 2017-2018 • Two occurrences of Blanding’s turtles (Emydoidea blandingii) in 1987 & 1992
Many other records of rare features were found to occur within one mile of the trail (Table 1). The fish and mussel species listed were found in the Mississippi River, and some of these records are early historical anecdotes.
Oak-Basswood Forest, Southeast Mesic Subtype (MHs38c)
30
The Southern Mesic Oak-Basswood Forest plant community MHs38c is defined by the DNR’s Native Plant Communities of Minnesota (MN DNR 2005) as being a mesic hardwood forest that has interrupted canopy cover to continuous cover (50-100%) of basswood, northern red oak and sugar maple, with bur oak, green ash, and white oak as subdominant species. This particular subtype ‘c’ is deemed a ‘Red Oak – Sugar Maple – Basswood – (Bitternut Hickory) Forest’ and has northern red oak and sugar maple as the most dominant canopy members, while ironwood and sugar maple are most abundant in the subcanopy and shrub layers of the forest. This forest type is found on steep, north facing slopes on thin silt over bedrock, and the most prominent example within the study area has persisted in Simon’s Ravine. Disturbance due to catastrophic fire was rare in these forests, with light surface fires occurring approximately every 35 years, and catastrophic windthrow would happen on intervals of ~360 years. This community subtype faces structural changes due to invasion of the shrub layer by exotic species such as buckthorn and asiatic honeysuckles, forest floor invasion by garlic mustard, soil alteration due to the presence of exotic earthworms, and forest compositional changes in the face of present and emerging forest pests and diseases such as emerald ash borer, oak wilt, bur oak blight, oak decline, and Dutch elm disease.
Rusty Patched Bumblebee
The Rusty Patched Bumblebee (Bombus affinis) was the first bee in the continental United States to be listed on the Federal Endangered Species List after long-term declines were observed within its range in the Midwest and Eastern U.S. Its decline is attributed to widespread loss of habitat due to conversion of native prairie and open grasslands with nectar sources into commercial agriculture, and increased use of pesticides are also thought to contribute to its disappearance. This species of bumble bee is dependent upon reliable nectar resources throughout much of the growing season (April-September), and adequate nesting sites such as abandoned rodent cavities or bunch grasses. The bee has been observed within Thompson County Park as recently as 2018, and the Greenway Corridor lies entirely within the High-Potential Zone as demarcated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Figure 7).
31
FIGURE 7: Rusty Patched Bumblebee Zones of Occurrence
Blanding’s Turtle
Blanding’s turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) sightings occurred over 25 years ago and have occurred within Dodge Nature Center and a West Saint Paul wetland. It is possible that these turtles occupy wetlands throughout the Greenway Corridor, especially those that are in closer proximity to undeveloped upland areas for nesting
Blanding’s turtles face many threats to their populations, including habitat loss and fragmentation, predation, and road mortality. Blanding’s turtles are long lived and don’t reach sexual maturity until after 12 years. These turtles breed during spring and early summer in wetlands where there are abundant food sources of invertebrates and small amphibians (Oldfield and Moriarty 1994). Females choose nesting sites in sandy upland areas with sparse vegetation up to a mile away from their resident marshes (Piepgras and Lang 2000). Turtle nests are generally raided by predators to a high degree, and Blanding’s turtles have been documented to experience nest predation rates as high as 93% (Congdon et al., 1983). For those nests that survive, the hatchlings that emerge in August and September must face hazards such as predation and road mortality as
32
they seek shelter in wetland habitats. Their low reproduction and high predation rates limit the degree to which their populations can rebound from disturbance. Priorities for assisting Blanding’s turtle recovery include restorations of wetland habitats adjacent to suitable nesting sites, turtle nest protection, and transportation planning that allows for safe turtle crossings separated from vehicle traffic.
B. Physical Conditions
The natural resources within the Greenway Corridor are affected by a number of physical conditions that influence their origin, current status and future condition. These features include bedrock and surficial geology, soils, topography, and local and regional hydrology.
i. Geology Bedrock formed as a result of ancient oceans, beaches, reefs or mudflats that once existed. Sand and clay and marine animals became compressed and formed a variety of sedimentary rock layers, with different depths and characteristics. The position and substrate types of underlying rock layers are important because these layers support underground aquifers where groundwater is stored. As the primary source of drinking water for County residents, it is critical that the quantity and quality of this water is managed and protected.
The major bedrock units found in the River to River Greenway Corridor include the Decorah, Platteville, Glenwood Sequence, underlain by St. Peter Sandstone and limestone and dolomite in the Prairie du Chien Group. These layers were formed from deposits within shallow ancient seas during the Ordovician period 480 to 440 MYA.
The Decorah Shale is the most recently formed (Upper Ordovician) and highest formation of bedrock within the River to River Greenway corridor (Figure 8), and it is up to 90 feet thick where uneroded. The Platteville and Glenwood Formations (Upper Ordovician) underlie much of the Study Area of the River to River Greenway (Figure 9). These layers together can be up to 34 feet thick in the Twin Cities Basin area and consist of limestone (Plateville) and shale (Glenwood). The Saint Peter Sandstone formation was deposited during the Middle to Upper Ordovician and consists primarily of fine to medium-sized quartz sand and has the capacity to act as an aquifer when submerged below the water table. The Saint Peter Sandstone forms the bedrock of the lower-elevation regions of the Corridor, including the lower portions of the Valley Park and Simon’s Ravines. The Decorah, Platteville, Glenwood, and upper part of the Saint Peter formations are exposed in outcrops along the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers in this region. The dolomite and limestone formations of the older Prairie du Chien Group formed during the Lower Ordovician Period make up the bedrock southwest of the study corridor. The fine- to very fine-grained Shakopee Dolomite that makes up the majority of the Prairie du Chien Group forms an aquifer due to its capacity for groundwater storage.
33
FIGURE 8: Bedrock Geological Strata - Excerpted from Mossler 2008.
Dakota County has very diverse surficial geology that created a scenic and ecologically diverse landscape. The most recent glaciers extended south into the northern portion of the County and the resulting terminal moraines are characterized by a typical “knoll and basin” topography. South of these moraines, the rock surface is quite irregular. In some places, the softer rock was worn down and is much lower than the more resistant rock layers. This has created areas with isolated, mesa-like uplands, 100 to 200 feet above the surrounding land. Glacial deposits have partially concealed these uplands and covered their surfaces with only a thin layer of glacial drift. In some areas, especially the Minnesota and Mississippi River valleys, level alluvium and terrace deposits were formed by glacial rivers and contemporary floods. More level outwash plains, south of the moraines and north of the uplands, formed from melting glaciers and characterize much of the central portions of the County.
The surficial geology of a site is important because it is a highly influential factor in determining site characteristics, such as topography, soil type, soil drainage, and floral structure and community composition.
This site has two distinct landscapes: Upland moraines comprised of glacial deposits from the Superior lobe, and dissected ravines resulting from streams cutting through glacial till, outwash, and river terraces deposited by the River Warren that now define the Mississippi and Minnesota River Valleys (Figure 10). These landscapes each contain features with topographical relief that, within the last 10,000 years since glacial
34
retreat, influenced the hydrology, vegetation types, and soil development that will be discussed in the next section.
The upland areas contain glacial terminal moraines, whereupon sand, gravel and unsorted till were deposited in small, undulating hills and ridges. The streams draining these upland areas travelled through a 300-foot elevation drop down to the surrounding river floodplains. This erosional force eventually dissected the material left behind by glaciers to form steep ravines.
FIGURE 9: Bedrock Geology
35
FIGURE 10: Surficial Geology
36
ii. Soil Descriptions
Extensive work in identifying and classifying soils has been undertaken because of its importance to management and restoration of the Greenway Corridor. The “Soil Survey of Dakota County Minnesota,” issued April 1983 and updated in May 1994, provides a generalized depiction and description of soils in the County. Soil formation is the result of the interaction of five soil-forming factors: parent material, climate, organisms, topographic position or slope, and time (Foth, 1990). Taken collectively, these factors can help determine the dominant plant and animal communities that helped form soils. There are ten general soil units based on formation, relief, and drainage. Soil units/types are important, because they affect the vegetative and hydrologic features of the Greenway Corridor, and they suggest the most appropriate use and management of the land. Table 2: Soil Type Descriptions Soil Description Percent Taxon Drainage Area Unit Slope (ac) 39C2 Wadena loam 6 to 12 Fine-loamy over sandy or sandy- Well 0.1 skeletal, mixed, superactive, mesic drained Typic Hapludolls 49B Antigo silt loam 1 to 8 Coarse-loamy over sandy or sandy- Well 7.4 skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid drained Haplic Glossudalfs 98 Colo silty clay loam 0 to 2 Fine-silty, mixed, superactive, mesic Poorly 19.6 Cumulic Endoaquolls drained 100A Copaston sandy clay 0 to 2 Loamy, mixed, superactive, mesic Lithic Somewhat 0.8 loam Hapludolls excessively drained 150B Spencer silt loam 2 to 6 Fine-silty, mixed, superactive, frigid Moderately 5.3 Oxyaquic Glossudalfs well drained 155B Chetek sandy loam 3 to 8 Coarse-loamy, mixed, superactive, frigid Somewhat 4.3 Inceptic Hapludalfs excessively drained 155C Chetek sandy loam 8 to 15 Coarse-loamy, mixed, superactive, frigid Somewhat 12.1 Inceptic Hapludalfs excessively drained 155E Chetek sandy loam 15 to 25 Coarse-loamy, mixed, superactive, frigid Somewhat 16.5 Inceptic Hapludalfs excessively drained
37
189 Auburndale silt loam < 1 Fine-silty, mixed, superactive, frigid Poorly 52.5 Mollic Epiaqualfs drained 250 Kennebec silt loam < 1 Fine-silty, mixed, superactive, mesic Moderately 4.2 Cumulic Hapludolls well drained 313 Spillville loam, < 1 Fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, mesic Moderately 13.9 occasionally flooded Cumulic Hapludolls well drained 342B Kingsley sandy loam 3 to 8 Coarse-loamy, mixed, superactive, Well 49.9 mesic Mollic Hapludalfs drained 342C Kingsley sandy loam 8 to 15 Coarse-loamy, mixed, superactive, Well 108.3 mesic Mollic Hapludalfs drained 342E Kingsley sandy loam 15 to 25 Coarse-loamy, mixed, superactive, Well 42.2 mesic Mollic Hapludalfs drained 344 Quam silt loam < 1 Fine-silty, mixed, superactive, frigid Poorly 30.5 Cumulic Endoaquolls drained 411A Waukegan silt loam 0 to 2 Fine-silty over sandy or sandy-skeletal, Well 0.6 mixed, superactive, mesic Typic drained Hapludolls 415C Kanaranzi loam 6 to 12 Fine-loamy over sandy or sandy- Well 0.1 skeletal, mixed, superactive, mesic drained Typic Hapludolls 449B Crystal Lake silt loam 1 to 8 Fine-silty, mixed, superactive, frigid Moderately 16.6 Oxyaquic Glossudalfs well drained 463 Minneiska loam, Coarse-loamy, mixed, superactive, Moderately 0.4 occasionally flooded calcareous, mesic Mollic Udifluvents well drained 539 Palms muck < 1 Loamy, mixed, euic, mesic Terric Very Poorly 77.1 Haplosaprists drained 540 Seelyeville muck < 1 Euic, frigid Typic Haplosaprists Very Poorly 7.3 drained 611E Hawick loamy sand 8 to 25 Sandy, mixed, mesic Entic Hapludolls Excessively 9.7 drained 857B Urban land‐ 1 to 8 Fine-silty over sandy or sandy-skeletal, Well 8.0 Waukegan complex mixed, superactive, mesic Typic drained Hapludolls 861C Urban land‐Kingsley 3 to 15 Coarse-loamy, mixed, superactive, Well 104.1 complex mesic Mollic Hapludalfs drained
38
861E Urban land‐Kingsley 15 to 25 Coarse-loamy, mixed, superactive, Well 2.9 complex mesic Mollic Hapludalfs drained 895B Kingsley‐Mahtomedi‐ 3 to 8 Loamy, mixed Alfisols/Entisols Well 11.6 Spencer complex drained 895C Kingsley‐Mahtomedi‐ 8 to 15 Loamy, mixed Alfisols/Entisols Well 49.8 Spencer complex drained 896F Kingsley‐Mahtomedi 25 to 40 Loamy sand, Typic Udipsamments Excessively 39.3 complex drained 1027 Udorthents, wet < 1 Poorly 44.2 drained 1029 Pits, gravel 3.6 1055 Aquolls and Histosols, < 1 Poorly 12.6 ponded drained 1824 Quam silt loam, < 1 Fine-silty, mixed, superactive, frigid Very Poorly 0.6 ponded Cumulic Endoaquolls drained 1898F Etter‐Brodale 25 to 60 Loamy mesic Hapludolls 4.1 complex 1902B Jewett silt loam 1 to 6 Fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, frigid Well 41.7 Typic Hapludalfs drained W Water 0 30.9 Total 832.8
39
FIGURE 11A: Soils - Valley Park
40
FIGURE 11B: Soils – Dodge Nature Center – Lilly Property
41
FIGURE 11C: Soils - Dodge Nature Center – Main/Marie
42
FIGURE 11D: Soils - West Saint Paul
43
FIGURE 11E: Soils - Thompson County Park and Kaposia
Most of the soils within the River to River Greenway study corridor consist of two groups that are associated with each other due to their proximity and landscape relationship, such that the soils within each of these groups developed together as a complex.
A large proportion (72%) of the Study Area is comprised of soils associated with the Kinglsey-Mahtomedi complex that formed on loamy and sandy glacial till as well as sandy, pitted outwash plains associated with the Superior Lobe. Due to their generally sandy texture, the upland soils such as Kingsley and Chetek sandy loams and Mahtomedi loamy sand are typically well drained and historically supported hardwood forest vegetation (Alfisols) adapted to dried conditions, such as oak savannas and woodlands maintained by periodic fire. Most notably, the steepest (>15% slope) Kingsley soil units (Units 342E) correspond to areas that contain white and bur oaks that are present in the earliest (1937) historic aerials (Figures 4A-D). Precipitation typically drains to lower lying areas with less permeability, and many of these depressions contain natural lakes or wetlands with Quam, Palms, Kennebec or Auburndale silt loams that developed as floodplain alluvium. These soils range from being moderately well drained to poorly drained and supported wetland or forested vegetation.
44
A second important soil complex include the Wadena loam, Waukegan silt loam, and Hawick loamy sand soils that formed on level outwash plains and terraces. These soils are Mollisols that formed under tallgrass prairie vegetation. This soil complex occupies the uplands surrounding Valley Park within the outwash from the Des Moines glaciation.
Other soils of note are the Minnieska loam, Copaston sandy loam, and Etter-Brodale series loams that developed within the Mississippi and Minnesota River floodplains and terraces. These soils can be found within the Valley Park drainage and likely supported prairie openings where fire was frequent; low lying areas in this valley supported the development of Colo silty clay loam, which is poorly drained and likely supported wet meadow and wetland vegetation.
iii. Topography Topography and the orientation of slopes (aspect) relative to north, south, east, and west, are an important factor in the development and formation of soil, potential for soil erosion, and the type and stability of vegetation that will grow in a given location. In general, more topographic variation will result in more complexity and diversity of vegetation communities and hydrologic features. Generally, south and southwest facing slopes will be drier and support less vegetation than north and north-east facing slopes.
Aspect can have a strong influence on soil temperature and moisture. In the northern hemisphere, north- facing slopes are often shaded, while south-facing slopes receive more solar radiation for a given surface area, because the slope is tilted toward the sun and is not shaded directly by the earth. The slope aspect can significantly influence its locational climate (microclimate). Soil temperatures and soil moisture on south- facing slopes are typically warmer and drier than those on north-facing slopes, due in part to the increased solar radiation and direction of the prevailing winds in the summer. Likewise, soils on north-facing slopes tend to be cooler and wetter, due to diminished solar energy.
Erosion on steep slopes was apparent in Simon’s Ravine, where scouring and incising of the creek channel was observed. The amount of water flowing through this ravine has increased since development encompassed the surrounding upland areas, and stormwater conveyance was directed down the ravine towards the Mississippi River.
Together with soils, topography had significant impacts on the species distributions and community associations of vegetation on the landscape. Simon’s Ravine in particular exhibits distinct directional slopes, such that more mesic-adapted species such as sugar maple were likely (and continue to be) in higher abundance on northerly and easterly aspects. Similarly, areas near wetland depressions or in uneven terrain had a higher likelihood of escaping exposure to fire, such that protected pockets of trees likely persisted within a patchy matrix of vegetation. Maps illustrating slope percentage and detailed elevation are illustrated in Figures 12A-D.
45
FIGURE 12A: Percent Slope and Topography – Valley Park
46
FIGURE 12B: Percent Slope and Topography – Dodge Nature Center
47
FIGURE 12C: Percent Slope and Topography - West Saint Paul
48
FIGURE 12D: Percent Slope and Topography – Thompson County Park and Kaposia
49
iv. Hydrology The two, key, interrelated hydrologic components of the Greenway Corridor are groundwater and surface water.
1. Groundwater Groundwater accumulates below the surface of the land and is stored in aquifers: complex, underground geologic layers of sand, gravel and porous rock. If groundwater exists in suitable quantity and quality, and can be delivered for human use, it is of great economic value. Private wells in Dakota County typically draw water from either the sand and gravel aquifer, the Prairie du Chien dolomite or the Jordan sandstone aquifer. Most public water supplies obtain water from the Jordan aquifer.
Due to its relative abundance, quality and reasonable access, groundwater provides drinking water for the majority of County citizens, irrigation water for agricultural crops (especially on the sandier soils in the eastern part of the County), and process and cooling water for industrial and manufacturing companies. There is concern about the long-term supply of groundwater, due to increased residential and agricultural irrigation, municipal water use, changing climate, and the need to protect groundwater-dependent ecological systems like trout streams. Furthermore, most of the County’s groundwater is “highly sensitive” to surface contamination. Once an aquifer is polluted, it is very expensive or prohibitive to improve its quality to drinking water standards.
Given groundwater’s importance and potential vulnerability, it is important to be aware of the potential for groundwater contamination from activities at the surface. In rural parts of Dakota County, the greatest risk to drinking water health is pesticide and nitrate as nitrogen contamination. Naturally occurring manganese and arsenic are a concern county-wide. Factors to consider during natural resource management activities are depth to groundwater and the ability of the overlying geologic materials to protect the groundwater aquifer.
The DNR defines groundwater sensitivity as an area where natural geologic factors create a significant risk of groundwater degradation through the migration of waterborne contaminants. Migration of contaminants dissolved in water through unsaturated and saturated sediments is affected by many things, including biological degradation, and contaminant type and density. General assumptions include:
• Contaminants move conservatively with water • Flow paths are vertical • Permeability of the sediment is the controlling factor
Infiltration rates are based on the soil type (Figure 11) and the texture of surficial geology (Figure 10). The travel time varies from hours to approximately a year. The pollution sensitivity of buried sand and gravel aquifers and of the first buried bedrock surface represents the approximate time it takes for water to move from land surface to the aquifer.
Five relative classes of geologic sensitivity are based on overlapping time of travel ranges (Very High, High, Medium, Low, and Very Low). The pollution sensitivity is inversely proportional to the time of travel.
50
• In areas of higher sensitivity contaminants may reach the groundwater within hours to months. • In areas of lower sensitivity there is time for a surface contamination source to be investigated, and possibly corrected, before serious groundwater pollution develops.
The Dakota County Geologic Atlas classifies uplands as “Moderately Sensitive,” because the Platteville Limestone is a locally unused aquifer, and the Glenwood Shale offers some protection to the St. Peter Sandstone aquifer. Hillslopes and lowlands are classified as either High or High-Moderate sensitivity due to the shallow depth to the St. Peter Sandstone aquifer, and because this appears to be a groundwater recharge area where infiltration reaching the water table will move deeper into the groundwater system.
Relatively high sensitivity does not mean that water quality has been or will be degraded. If there are no contaminant sources, pollution will not occur. Low sensitivity does not guarantee protection. Leakage from an unsealed well for example, may bypass the natural protection, allowing contamination to directly enter an aquifer.
In much of the area surrounding the Greenway Corridor, the Prairie du Chien limestone aquifer is protected by the overlying, less permeable Glenwood Shale formation. Residences in this area are connected to municipal water services such that domestic wells are not a consideration. Water tests from local wells in the Jordan Sandstone aquifer have very low levels of nitrate. There are older water tests from nearby wells that have nitrate levels as high as 10.0 ppm; they are likely from shallower wells, and verify the sensitivity of shallow aquifers to nitrate pollution. See Figure 13.
51
FIGURE 13: Sensitivity of Groundwater to Pollution
52
2. Surface Water One of the unique and attractive features of Dakota County is the amount and diversity of its surface waters. Major riverine systems, including the Mississippi, Minnesota, Cannon, and Vermillion rivers demarcate the major watersheds within the County. Numerous small lakes are found in the northern and western portions of the County as a result of previous glaciation. Different types of wetlands are scattered throughout the County and several unique wetlands, known as fens, are found in the Minnesota River Valley.
Within the Greenway Corridor, the majority of wetlands existing in landscape depressions are classified by the National Wetland Inventory as being palustrine forested wetlands consisting of temporarily flooded areas with hardwood forest cover (PFO1A) or wetlands exhibiting persistent emergent vegetation consisting of reed canary grass or hybrid cattail (PEM1A), sometimes with intermittent shrub cover (scrub shrub, code PSS1A) (See Figures 14A-D). Another typical class of wetlands include small pods for use as retaining stormwater on the landscape (palustrine intermittently flooded basins with unconsolidated bottom substrates, PUBG), some of which have been excavated for the purpose of increased stormwater-holding capacity (PUBGx).
Over time, most of these surface waters have been significantly degraded, due to agricultural and municipal stormwater run-off. Entire wetland complexes have been lost that were important for filtering and retaining water, which was critical for recharging groundwater levels. Pollution often includes excess bacteria, sediment and nutrients (such as nitrogen and phosphorous from fertilizer), and lack of dissolved oxygen that affects the ability of fish and other aquatic organisms to live and reproduce. Although regulations and voluntary efforts have improved water conditions, protection and management of natural areas, especially those adjacent to water bodies, is an important strategy for achieving these water quality goals.
53
FIGURE 14A: National Wetland Inventory Features – Valley Park
54
FIGURE 14B: National Wetland Inventory Features – Dodge Nature Center
55
FIGURE 14C: National Wetland Inventory Features – West Saint Paul
56
FIGURE 14D: National Wetland Inventory Features – Thompson County Park and Kaposia
C. Vegetation The vegetation found within the Greenway Corridor is determined by a number of factors including, but not limited to: physical site conditions, such as topography; soils and hydrology; historic and current land use; climate; invasive species; and wildlife. Vegetation is also affected by natural processes, such as succession or natural events that create change and variation. Abrupt changes (disturbances), including wildfires, high winds and floods, can change the vegetation structure and composition very quickly and for long time periods. Human-induced changes, such as farming, pasturing, and tree cutting, can have the same effects. Natural succession, or the gradual change in structure and species composition, occurs as the vegetation changes and naturally modifies in response to changes in various environmental variables (light, water and nutrients) over time. These modifications change the variety of species most adapted to grow, survive and reproduce in an area and create slow and broadly predictable changes in the vegetation.
The effects of disturbance and succession can vary widely. Different areas will be at varying developmental stages, due to diverse local histories – particularly since the time of any last major disturbance. These 57
conditions interact with inherent environmental variability (e.g., soils, climate, topography, etc.) to create a mosaic of vegetation in various conditions across the Greenway Corridor and the larger landscape.
i. Historic A major consideration for developing a comprehensive NRMP is to understand the types of vegetation found in the local area prior to European settlement. This information can be a helpful indicator of what plants may be found or thrive in the Greenway Corridor. Fortunately, field notes on vegetation were taken during original territorial surveys in the 1840s and compiled into a valuable information source called “The Original Vegetation of Minnesota,” compiled from U.S. General Land Office Survey Notes and published in 1974. These records provide information about the pattern of plant communities across the State at the time of European settlement, and are used in this NRMP to inform restoration goals.
In general, the northern and western portions of the County consisted of hardwood forests around many lakes. American basswood, sugar maple, elm, red oak, and an understory of shade-loving wildflowers made up the “Big Woods” in the moist areas protected from fire. Bur and white oak, aspen and black cherry were the dominant tree species in the drier areas. The southern part of the County consisted primarily of prairie and savanna. Depending on soils, topography and hydrology, tall grasses measuring eight feet in height would have been the prominent vegetation type, with a diverse mix of other grasses and wildflowers (forbs). Shorter grasses and a wide variety of other types of forbs were found on sandy or gravelly areas, or steeper slopes. Savannas, with scattered oak trees, formed a transitional plant community between grasslands and forests. Forested floodplains, with cottonwood, silver maple, willow, and American elm were found in wider river valleys. Near smaller rivers, prairie or savanna would often be found, even up to the water’s edge. A much larger number of wetlands existed in the southwestern portion of the County than are found today. In fact, only 12 to 15 percent of pre-statehood wetlands remain in Dakota County (Dakota County SWCD, November, 2013).
As shown in Figure 15, the predominant, pre-settlement plant communities of the Greenway Corridor consisted Oak Openings and Barrens in the upland moraine complex. These areas consisted of sandy, open prairies sparsely forested with interstitial savannas of bur oaks and shrublands in areas where the topography protected the vegetation from fire. The center of the Greenway Corridor graded to a more mesic, more heavily forested Big Woods hardwood forest, consisting of oak, maple, basswood, and hickory. This forest type also persisted in protected ravines leading down to the river floodplains. The River bottom forests along the Minnesota and Mississippi floodplains consisted of cottonwood and silver maple canopies with plant communities able to persist with periodic inundation during river flooding events. These river bottom forests were historically more open and less densely forested than they are today, possibly due to indigenous land management practices utilizing fire; these floodplain forests were further cut back significantly in the 19th century when steamboats began navigating these rivers and utilizing these trees for fuel.
58
FIGURE 15: Pre-Settlement Vegetation of the Greenway Corridor and Surrounding Region
59
ii. Ecological Communities Minnesota contains three major biomes. Moving roughly northeast to southwest across the State, they are: coniferous forest, deciduous forest, and prairie/grassland. While these regions still exist, they have been greatly altered by human activity since the mid-1800s, in physical character and extent. The metropolitan region of Minnesota, including Dakota County, falls within the deciduous forest biome; however, there was and is significant plant community diversity within each biome and the County has historically been mostly tallgrass prairie and oak savanna, with oak and maple-basswood forests restricted to areas sheltered from fires, such as steep ravine slopes. There are four ecological provinces in Minnesota (prairie parkland, eastern broadleaf forest, Laurentian mixed forest, and tallgrass aspen parkland), ten sections within the provinces, and 26 subsections. The River to River Greenway Corridor is classified as follows (see Figure 14): Ecological Province: Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province Section: Minnesota and Northeast Iowa Morainal Section Subsection: Saint Paul Baldwin Plains and Moraine Subsection
The Saint Paul Baldwin Plains and Moraine Subsection comprised of a mosaic of tallgrass prairie, oak savanna, and small interspersed clusters of Big Woods forest. The hilly terminal moraines created a poorly developed drainage network, except for ravines that had formed at the margins of the river valleys. This interrupted drainage network allowed for lakes and wetlands to occupy depressions within the prairie and oak savannas, and thus intercalating the open landscape with more heavily wooded areas that was otherwise maintained by periodic fire disturbance.
60
FIGURE 16: Ecological Subsections
61
iii. Plant Community Assessment The Greenway Corridor was divided into Land Cover Management Units (Units), based on: 1) the Minnesota Land Cover Classification (MLCCS) system; 2) a Greenway Corridor land cover site evaluation; 3) realistic restoration goals (taking into consideration cost); and 4) proposed restoration tasks.
1. Land Cover The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) developed a system called the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS), which integrates cultural and vegetative features of the landscape into one comprehensive land cover classification system. This information was used as a basis for the site evaluation, which was conducted by Dakota County Staff in July and August of 2018. Based on changes in land use and plant communities over time, some of the classifications were updated to reflect current conditions. Refer to Figure 15 (MLCCS Land Cover) for updated MLCCS classifications.
MLCCS consists of five hierarchical levels that are reflected in the five digit classification code. At the most general level, land cover is divided into either Natural/Semi-Natural cover types or Cultural cover types. The Cultural classification system is designed to identify built-up / vegetation patterns and an area’s imperviousness to water infiltration.
Level 1 - General growth patterns (e.g. forest, woodland, shrubland, etc.) Level 2 - Plant types (e.g. deciduous, coniferous, grasslands, forbs, etc.) Level 3 - Soil hydrology (e.g. upland, seasonally flooded, saturated, etc.) Levels 4 & 5 - Plant species composition, (e.g. floodplain forest, rich fen sedge, jack pine barrens, etc.)
The following outlines the MLCCS codes, plant communities, and description for each site within the Greenway Corridor:
2. Site Evaluation A site evaluation was conducted by Dakota County Natural Resources Staff in July and August 2019. The Greenway Corridor was divided into existing Land Cover Management Units, based on existing land cover, realistic restoration goals, and proposed restoration tasks. Land Cover Management Units are shown in Figure 17 and summarized in Table 3, are used to best describe the plant communities and restoration tasks for the regions within the Greenway Corridor, and do not necessarily align with the boundaries of the MLCCS polygons. Plant species lists for each unit are provided in Appendix A. Each of the land cover units are evaluated using criteria explained below and other site conditions to develop a general score for overall “ecological health”.
Valley Park The 94-acre section encompassed by Valley Park in Mendota Heights is largely dominated by forest, with open grassland areas below high voltage power lines and both open and forested wetlands at the valley bottom. The forested area within Valley Park is largely dominated by altered/non-native deciduous forest, (MLCCS cover class 32170, Figure 17A), interspersed with pockets of oak forest (32110) at higher elevations. Some of the oaks in these areas were present in 1937 aerials and exhibit extensive lateral branches, indicating they
62
once grew in a more diffuse, open canopy. At lower elevations near the creek, floodplain forest or lowland hardwood forest (32210 or 32220) consisting primarily of boxelder, Amur maple, cottonwood, and aspen occur. Higher elevation areas along the west end bordering the freeway exhibit oak woodland/brushland with bur oak, black cherry and northern pin oak, as well as altered non-native deciduous woodland (42120 and 42130, resp.) consisting of green ash, boxelder, black walnut, and American elm. Planted conifers such as white pine, Norway pine and spruce exist within the altered forest matrix throughout the park, and this cover type is most notable in the white pine plantation (33140) in the portion of the Park just north of Marie Ave. The understory of much of these forested areas is shaded by a dense shrub layer of buckthorn and honeysuckle. Native species persisting on the forest floor include vines such as woodbine, wild and wild cucumber, as well as shrubs such as raspberry and gooseberry. Common forbs were present such as false Solomon’s seal, stickseed, clearweed, jewelweed, bedstraw, avens, Pennsylvania smartweed and tall meadow rue. Other non-native plant cover includes reed canary grass smooth brome, chickweed, burdock, garlic mustard, and Japanese hedge parsley.
Upland open corridors under powerlines are classified as altered non-native dominated grasslands (61220) and shrubland (52130), where shrub encroachment is apparent. Open wetlands are dominated by reed canary grass (61530), with occasional willows (Salix spp.).
Dodge Nature Center
Lilly Property The Dodge Lilly Property is a 170-acre matrix of upland oak woodlands, altered deciduous forest (42130, Figure 17B), lowland hardwood forest (32220), tallgrass prairie restorations (23212 and 61110) and altered grassland/oldfields, with wetland complexes separated by ridges and comprised of altered/non-native wet meadows, emergent marsh (61530), and shrub swamp (32420 and 52440).
Some of the altered hardwood forest in upland areas, especially the northwest-to-southeast trending ridge that subdivides the western wetlands from the remaining Property, is composed of oak forest that has significant presence of buckthorn and honeysuckle and tree species that have more recently colonized the area (especially boxelder, green ash, cottonwood, and black walnut).
The southeast corner of the property exhibits some recent woody encroachment in an area classified as long grasses and mixed trees (13115), where previously open areas have been overgrown with sumac, green ash, and other native species. The south- and west-facing aspect of this higher elevation area has many larger bur and white oaks that are present in the earliest aerial photography.
Significant native tree and shrub plantings have been undertaken along the trail systems throughout the Dodge properties, and planted species include bur oak, sugar maple, ninebark, red osier dogwood, downy arrowwood and nannyberry.
Marie Property The Marie Property of Dodge Nature Center (Figure 17C) lies south of their Main campus on Marie Avenue. This 40-acre protected area is mostly forested, both with oak woodlands on upland knolls (32110), lowland
63
wet forest dominated by cottonwood, green ash, and box elder (32170). Areas in the map marked as altered grassland with sparse deciduous trees (62140) have significant encroachment of woody shrubs, including native elderberry as well as nonnative Amur maple and Siberian elm. Silver and Norway maples introduced to the site as part of old homesteads are present in higher abundance in the east side of these units and periodically within the deciduous forest (32170) units.
The South end of the Property contains a seasonally altered non-native dominated emergent wetland (61530) with reed canary grass and hybrid cattail cover. Willow shrubs and black willow trees grow in the periphery of the wetland. Interestingly, a single tamarack tree remains near the boardwalk on the northern portion of the wetland; its size suggests it was intentionally planted. The remnants of a poor fen were documented in a 2004 Management Brief (Harris, 2004), but Dakota County Staff did not evidence of sphagnum moss or other plants characteristic of poor fens during the field visit. Additional field work is needed to locate any remaining remnants of vegetation characteristic of poor fen.
A prairie reconstruction occupies a strip along the west edge of the property, and significant removal of exotic shrubs has occurred within 100 feet of the soft-surface walking paths throughout the property. Bur oaks and native shrubs have been planted in these clearings, but these planted oaks remain relatively shaded in the understory of the cottonwood-dominated canopy. Additional forb plantings occur along the pathways, some of which show evidence of deer herbivory.
Main Property The Main Property of Dodge Nature Center is comprised of natural areas juxtaposed with a farm, nature play area and preschool, and nature center programming areas. Discounting trails, program space occupies approximately 15.8 ac (13% of the land), with the remaining natural areas consisting open water ponds (93300, 15.6 ac), open cattail marsh wetlands (61520 and 61530), mixed hardwood forest, reconstructed prairies (61110, 4.8 ac), and altered grasslands. Within MLCCS landcover areas demarcated as Altered/Non- native deciduous forest (32170) are pockets of white oaks and planted sugar maples. The intact oak woodland in the northwest section of the Main property (42120) has an additional assortment of secondary-growth trees (Figure 17C).
West Saint Paul Parks Garlough Park Garlough Park’s developed infrastructure includes a picnic shelter and a disc golf course throughout an area with mature white and bur oaks (13114). This activity is compatible with the current vegetative structure as an altered oak savanna with turf grasses. The western portion of the park is an oak woodland (42120) with significant amounts of buckthorn. Additional trees have grown into the woodland, including box elder, cottonwood, and hackberry. Lower lying areas in the eastern portion of the Park are occupied by wet aspen forest (32160) and a shrub-carr wetland (52420). The disconnected northern unit of this aspen (32160) forest demarcated in Figure 17D is comprised of mature bigtooth aspen. While this wetland was not extensively surveyed, significant amounts of buckthorn and reed canary grass is present. Understory species are similar to those documented in Valley Park, with large amounts of burdock and poison ivy along the canopy gaps created by trails. 64
Marthaler Park Located in West St. Paul, the 34-acre Marthaler Park features open, grassy areas, a small lake, and a forest matrix categorized by the MLCCS as an oak woodland-brushland (42120). The oak woodland section of the park is the most ecologically intact area of the park, as most other areas are altered and dominated by turf grass. Common trees observed in the oak-woodland brushland include aspen, bur oak, and red oak , while red maple, green ash, black cherry, and cottonwood are present but less abundant. A number of bur oaks appear to have an open-grown appearance, indicating that this forest is in the intermediate stages of transitioning from a fire-dependent oak savanna to an oak forest. This section of the park is heavily dominated by shrubs and understory trees, including mountain ash, alder buckthorn, sumac, and heavily abundant common buckthorn. Gooseberry, raspberry, woodbine, and wild grape are also present while less common understory forbs include jack-in-the-pulpit, Solomon’s seal, and sensitive fern. Small sections of aspen forest (32160), and native dominated disturbed upland shrubland (52120) are present in and adjacent to the oak woodland section.
The lower section of the park, near the parking lot, is characterized by the MLCCS as dominated mostly by short grasses and mixed trees, with 26-50% impervious surfaces (13134). Trees in this section include red oak, sugar maple, box elder, white oak, and green ash. Wooded edges in this section are heavily dominated by common buckthorn.
Wentworth Library Wentworth Library is located along the River to River Greenway in a highly developed area of West St. Paul. There is a small amount of land surrounding the front and back of the library. In the front of the library is a small pollinator garden that includes species such as anise hyssop, woodland sunflower, goldenrods, and bottle brush grass as well as large white oak trees. On the back side of the library, there is a turf grass lawn, large, open-grown white oak and silver maple trees, as well as small native vegetation plantings that include species such spotted joe-pye weed and goldenrods.
Thompson Oaks Golf Course While the golf course grounds are predominantly covered with turf grass and landscaping trees, this section is slated for development and subsequent stormwater basin re-shaping with native prairie and woodland restorations (See Future Cover Figure 18G for proposed map).
Thompson County Park Thompson County Park has a Natural Resource Management Plan (Adopted by County Board 21 January 2020, County Board Resolution No. 20-037). In summary, the 58-acre Park was cleared of the few trees that might have been there pre-settlement, as much of the Park was cultivated. The two areas that remained uncultivated included the wetland basin now containing Thompson Lake, and the southern sloped portion of the Park that forms the beginning of Simon’s Ravine. The Thompson Lake basin did not exhibit any open water in the 1937 aerial photography (Figures 4D, 5D), suggesting that the drought of the 1930’s resulted in the basin to be a shallow wetland with vegetative cover. Due to lack of aerial photography pre-dating 1937, it is difficult to determine how often this basin flooded, and whether it was dominated by either (wetter) emergent marsh or (drier) wet meadow vegetation. The beginning of the Ravine area in the south had much 65
sparser tree cover in the earliest aerial photography, but has since succeeded into an Oak-Basswood Forest (32110; Figure 17D).
Much of the remaining cleared agricultural area has since become forested with black walnut, box elder, cottonwood, green ash and black locust (32170 and 42130). One area east of the Dakota Lodge parking area remains unforested – designated as cover type 61220 this open area is dominated with smooth brome with 30% cover of sumac. The invasive species leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) was found within one acre of this grassy knoll, such that Aphthona sp. flea beetles were released by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture as a biocontrol in June 2019.
Kaposia and Simon’s Ravine Kaposia Park encompasses 85 acres spanning from Highway 52 down to Kaposia Landing and the Mississippi River in South St. Paul. The western part of the park, near Highway 52 is characterized by areas of oak forest (32110), lowland hardwood forest (32220), turf grass lawns, and a wet meadow (61420). Common trees in this upper section of the park include bur oaks, black locust, green ash, and silver maple. The understory in this section of the park is largely cleared and planted with turf grass, and is used as a disc golf course. Near the paved trail that leads down to Simons Ravine, the understory is dense with shrubs including sumac and white mulberry. This part of the park also contains a degraded wet meadow, which is dominated by cattail and smaller populations reed canary grass around the periphery of the wetland.
Moving down the paved trail towards Simon’s Ravine, the forest canopy transitions to an oak forest mesic subtype (32112). Trees in the canopy include red oak, white oak, sugar maple, American elm, green ash, and black cherry. This section has a dense shrub and tree understory, including sumac, white mulberry and black cherry trees. Grasses in this section include reed canary grass, Canada wild rye, and barnyard grass. Native forbs commonly encountered include woodland sunflower, woodbine, black snakeroot, raspberry, early meadow rue, cutleaf coneflower, joe-pye weed, and clearweed. Non-native forbs and shrubs encountered include garlic mustard, burdock, bittersweet nightshade, and motherwort. Slopes on either side of the trail are steep, and there are several instances of erosion. Downslope of the Park into Simon’s Ravine exists one of the more intact and biologically diverse stands of native vegetation along the River to River Greenway Corridor. There are landscaped terraces along either side of the trail under the 19th Avenue North overpass. For approximately 200 feet, the vegetation is highly disturbed, with a border of Siberian elm on the south east side of the trail. It opens up to an oak forest mesic subtype (32112) with oak forest (32110) higher on the slopes to the east as you move down the trail. The canopy composition is similar to that higher on the trail including red and white oak, with box elder, black locust, American basswood, and sugar maple. Shrubs and understory include white mulberry, Amur maple, American basswood, garlic mustard, wild geranium, crown vetch, virginia waterleaf and tall meadow-rue. Moving north, the trail transitions to an altered grassland with sparse deciduous trees (62140) and into Maple-Basswood forest (32150) on the south side of the trail. Canopy includes American basswood, sugar maple, black locust, black walnut, red oak, green ash, and cottonwood. The mid-canopy and understory varies, but includes buckthorn, chokecherry, pagoda dogwood, ironwood, bitternut hickory, American elm, sugar maple, wild ginger, garlic mustard, black snakeroot, cutleaf coneflower, carrion flower, Canada moonseed, bloodroot, jack-in-the-pulpit, wood anemone, virginia waterleaf and Canadian honewort. The entrance to the
66
trail from the Simon’s Ravine parking lot is flanked by impervious cover, short grasses and a mix of deciduous trees including oak forest (11220, 13144, 32110). Canopy includes sugar maples, American basswood, American elm, paper birch, red oak and ironwood. The midstory was mostly invasive buckthorn and honeysuckle, but it was not dense. A variety of forbs were in the groundcover and invasives did not dominate; little-leaf buttercup, sweet cicely, golden alexanders, jack-in-the-pulpit, bloodroot, wild sarsaparilla, false Solomon’s seal, zigzag goldenrod, Virginia waterleaf, woodbine, Japanese hedge parsley and both Pennsylvania and Sprengel’s sedges.
Table 3: Summary of Land Cover Management Unit Quality
Site Land Cover Units MLCCS Classifications Area Quality (ac) Index* Valley Park Oak Forest 32110 11.9 C Wet Forest 32210, 32220, 10.1 C Deciduous Forest 11210, 32170, 42130, 43110, 52120, 52130 38.1 NA/NN Conifer Plantation 33140 4.3 C Oak woodland 42120, 42130 3.8 C Grassland 13125, 13212, 13221, 52120, 52130, 61220, 12.8 C/NA/NN 62140 Wetland 52430, 61330, 61520, 61530 11.3 C/NA Developed (>25% impervious) 11240, 13134, 13232 7.0 NN Dodge Nature Oak Forest 32110 1.9 C Center Wet Forest 32220, 32420 29.5 C Deciduous Forest 11210, 13114, 13115, 32170, 52130 72.2 NA/NN Oak Woodland 42120, 42130, 43110 40.3 C/NA/NN Grassland 13124, 13125, 13211, 13134, 23111, 23212, 84.7 C/NA/NN 24110, 61110, 61220, 62140, 62220 Wetland 52130, 52420, 52440, 61330, 61480, 61520, 67.8 C/NA/NN 61530, 61620 Developed (>25% impervious) 13124, 13125, 13134, 13135, 13241, 14123 10.7 NA Garlough & Oak Forest 32110 1.4 C Marthaler Park Oak Woodland 42120, 52120, 52130 17.8 C/NA Wet Forest 32160 7.5 C Deciduous Forest 32170, 42130 1.9 NA Grassland 13114, 13124, 13211, 23212 15.3 Wetland 52420 3.2 C Developed (>25% impervious) 13134, 13231, 14113, 14123 39.1 Wentworth Deciduous Forest 62140 2.5 NA Library Thompson Oak Forest 32110 2.1 C County Park Wet Forest 32160, 32220, 52220 1.5 C Deciduous Forest 21213, 32170, 42130 27.0 C/NA Grassland 13211, 23111, 23112, 23211, 23312 19.5 NA Wetland 52130, 52420, 52440, 61330, 61480, 61530, 0.7 C 61620 Developed (>25% impervious) 11230, 13134, 13144, 13230 29.9 67
Kaposia / Oak Forest 32110, 32112 39.1 Simon’s Ravine Maple-Basswood Forest 32150 2.4 A/B/0B C Deciduous Forest 11220, 32170, 42130 8.2 C Wet Forest 32160, 32220 4.5 Wetland 61420 1.2 C Developed (>25% impervious) 11230, 13134, 13144, 13230, 14122 32.6 C *Quality Index is based on the Element Occurrence Ranking Guidelines (http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/ecological_services/nhnrp/eoranks2001.pdfp/eoranks2001.pdf A=Excellent, B=Good, C=Moderate, NA = native species present in altered/non-native community, and NN = altered/non- native community
68
FIGURE 17A: Existing Landcover – MLCCS Classes, Valley Park
69
FIGURE 17B: Existing Landcover – MLCCS Classes, Dodge Nature Center
70
FIGURE 17C: Existing Landcover – MLCCS Classes, West Saint Paul
71
FIGURE 17D: Existing Landcover – MLCCS Classes, Thompson County Park and Kaposia
VI. Wildlife
A. Historical
Dakota County encompasses a variety of ecological subsections, including Big Woods, Oak Savanna, the Rochester Plateau, and the St. Paul Baldwin Plains and Moraines. Each subsection contains multiple habitats, and hosts an associated suite of wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN). Coupled with an abundance of water resources, these habitats supported diverse plant communities and associated wildlife. However, over time, European settlement brought many changes to the landscape. The deep, fertile soils of most prairies were converted to agricultural fields. Forests were logged, wetlands were drained and stream and river courses and flows were altered. Overhunting was also a major issue and many wildlife populations declined precipitously.
Large mammal species, including bison, elk, black bears, wolves, and mountain lions were once found in the County. In the 1800s, early explorers and settlers, from Radisson to Hennepin, documented bison grazing the prairie terraces near Fort Snelling. By 1860, bison were nearly extirpated from all of North America. During the 72
drought years in the 1930s, numerous elk antlers were retrieved from shallow lakes in southern Minnesota, evidence of their historical presence on the landscape. Black bears, among other predators, were common throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, demonstrating that the animal diversity in the state and the County could support a variety of large predators.
Smaller mammals were also likely more abundant in the County during the pre-settlement era. From fur traders’ records in the 1930s, it is evident that beaver, muskrat, and mink were killed for their furs; and populations of these species declined precipitously. Prairie species, such as Franklin’s ground squirrel, American badger, and a number of vole and mice species declined with the conversion of prairie and savanna to agriculture, though these declines are mostly anecdotal.
Hunting and land use changes also affected bird populations. The extinction of the passenger pigeon highlights the extreme pressure that hunting had on many of the County’s wildlife species, while species, such as prairie chickens, were locally extirpated as prairie was converted to agriculture. Waterfowl populations declined as well, due to hunting and wetland drainage for agriculture and development. During the mid-20th century, predators such as hawks, bald eagles and owls, were negatively impacted by hunting and human-caused pollution. Chemicals, such as DDT, caused declines in populations of species like bald eagles, as the chemical weakened egg shells and led to low brood success. This particular species was listed as threatened on the first state endangered species list published in 1984.
Largely anecdotal information exists regarding the decline of reptiles and amphibians in the County. Many reptiles, such as eastern racers and six-lined racerunners, depend on prairie habitat – particularly bluff prairies – and have likely experienced precipitous declines given historical habitat conversion. Wetland drainage and pollution by fertilizers and other chemicals has led to declines in wetland species, including amphibians, such as Blanchard’s cricket frog, and reptiles, such as Blanding’s turtles. These more amphibious species are not only tied to land and water habitats, but are also often sensitive to pollution of these habitats.
Soil erosion from agricultural operations and intense land use increased sediment loads to rivers and streams, negatively affecting aquatic ecosystems. Suburban development resulted in more warm water runoff into cool streams, which led to adverse thermal effects and stressed aquatic life. These land use changes had many negative effects on wildlife. Frog and salamander species, sensitive to chemicals and changes in hydrology, declined. As runoff and pollution flowed into rivers like the Vermillion, it resulted in declines in many types of aquatic species. Brook trout, for example, are sensitive to warm water; and rivers like the Vermillion saw declines in trout populations as runoff, pollution, and warm water from treatment plants flowed into the river. While there is conflicting evidence as to whether brook trout were native to the river, having potentially been stocked in the 1800s, trout decline throughout the 20th century is a clear example of the effects of development on wildlife. Brook trout are now restricted to only three streams in the entire County.
Importantly, the combination of research, public interest, education, changing attitudes, laws and regulations, and increased land protection and natural resource management have had a generally beneficial effect on wildlife during the last decades. Increased environmental regulation has benefitted wildlife populations. Beginning in the 1980s, the introduction of water quality rules at the federal and state levels has improved
73
water quality impacted by point source pollution (e.g., waste-water treatment plants), and is also providing a solid framework to quantify and limit non-point sources (e.g., field runoff), which should greatly benefit wildlife that relies on clean water. Other pollution regulations, like the ban on the use of DDT, have resulted in increases in bald eagle and other raptor populations in the County and in the entire region. A greater focus on land conservation has also ensured that there is available habitat for County wildlife. For example, the establishment and expansion of critical protected public and private lands has protected habitat for numerous SGCN and other wildlife. Ecological restoration of these and other habitats has also ensured that quality habitat exists for these populations. And finally, an increase in public involvement in conservation has benefited a number of species. For example, the rebound of the bluebird population, from its historical low in the mid-1900s, was due in large part to nest box campaigns involving local citizens.
Unfortunately, residential and agricultural development, invasive species and climate change continue to have significant impacts on County wildlife. Animals that require specific habitat types, or habitats adversely impacted by development, agriculture and pollution, have been most impacted. Invasive species have become one of the most significant issues for native species diversity in Minnesota. Invasive shrubs, like buckthorn, not only adversely affect native plant diversity, but have been shown to cause declines in shrub-nesting bird species and can negatively impact frog development. Invasive European earthworms have also been linked to declines in forest floor dwellers like salamanders and ovenbirds.
Looking forward, tree pests and diseases, like the emerald ash borer and oak wilt, have been shown to provide avenues for the introduction of invasive plant species, which could negatively affect wildlife in the future. Conversely, these tree maladies may also provide welcome habitat for species like cavity-nesting birds. Climate change effects on wildlife will depend on a number of factors, and are predicted to shift the range of many species northward and potentially out of Dakota County. Ultimately, climate change may either create or remove habitat for many native wildlife species.
B. Existing Populations
While no mammal species were observed during the field visits to these sites, there were indications of the presence of deer, such as tracks, rubs, and evidence of browsing/grazing. Particularly, some native plants showed evidence of deer herbivory, such as cup plant (Silphium perfoliatum) that had been planted on Dodge properties.
In order to better document the wildlife using the River to River Greenway, occasional landowner surveys could provide useful data. These surveys could be low intensity, low effort undertakings, and could be accomplished by walking portions of the Greenway Corridor. For example, taking pictures of animal tracks, whether in the mud or snow, is a good way of identifying many mammal species. If landowners are not familiar with tracks, photos can be sent to local wildlife officials for verification. Moreover, landowners can keep a log of the species that visit their feeders and garden plots, taking photos when necessary. Trail cameras are another good resource for capturing photos of wildlife. Positioning these cameras near water, known 74
feeding areas, or along paths and deer trails can capture a variety of animals using these areas. Cameras can be purchased by the landowner or borrowed from other agencies.
Bird surveys can be conducted by landowners if they have birding knowledge, especially during breeding season. These surveys can capture resident birds that use the Greenway year-round, as well as migrants that use the property as an important stop-over or breeding ground. For reptiles, the use of artificial refugia (pieces of corrugated metal or heat-trapping materials like roofing material or rubber car mats) can attract individuals seeking to warm their bodies. Springtime is the best for surveying, when species like snakes are most active. Surveys consist of establishing refugia and checking on and under them when conditions are right (cool, sunny days in early to mid-spring are best). Amphibians are best surveyed during the spring and summer, often by identifying their calls in the evening or at night. Recording unknown calls can also allow experts to help identify them. Lastly, keeping a list of bees, butterflies and other insects can help characterize the overall insect community. Refer to Section C for a list of species that can be monitored.
Establishing a network of parks, preserves, and private conservation easements may allow species to use restored areas that may otherwise be inaccessible. Protecting properties with this connectivity in mind will provide important benefits for the wildlife of Dakota County.
C. Indicator Species
The following are relatively common species that are largely dependent on grassland or prairie habitat for breeding. Not all of these species would be expected at any given site. Presence/ absence can depend on multiple factors, including: size and shape of grassland, proximity to woods or other habitat types, degree of isolation, and structural and species diversity. There are many additional species that would also be expected on prairies, but are not considered as prairie dependent.
Table 4: Indicator Species Observed in Dakota County MAMMALS American badger (requires large areas) Franklin's ground squirrel Plains pocket gopher (keystone species) Prairie vole (Species of special concern [SPC]) Thirteen-lined ground squirrel GRASSLAND BIRDS American kestrel Barn swallow Clay-colored sparrow (SCGN) Dickcissel (SGCN) Eastern bluebird Eastern kingbird Eastern meadowlark (SGCN) Field sparrow Grasshopper sparrow (SCGN) Henslow's sparrow (Endangered, SCGN) Horned lark Lark sparrow Loggerhead shrike (Endangered, SGGN) Northern rough-winged swallow (SGCN Savannah sparrow (SPC) Song sparrow Tree swallow TREE NESTING BIRDS
75
Note: These Species may be found along the edge of grassland and prairies because they require trees for nesting: American goldfinch Baltimore oriole Brown thrasher Chipping sparrow Indigo bunting Orchard oriole Ruby throated hummingbird REPTILES Bull snake (SPC) Eastern racer (SPC, SGGN) Plains (western) hognose snake (SPC) Prairie skink Six-lined racerunner (SGGN) Smooth Green Snake (SGGN) INSECTS Monarch butterfly Regal Fritillary Rusty Patched Bumblebee (Endangered)
The following are relatively common bird species that are largely dependent on woodland habitat. Not all of these species would be expected at any given site. Presence/absence can depend on multiple factors such as size and shape of the woodland, proximity to prairie or other habitat types, degree of isolation, and structural and species diversity. There are many additional species that would also be expected on woodlands, but are not considered as woodland-dependent.
WOODLAND BIRDS Cooper's hawk Eastern wood pewee Brown creeper Black-billed cuckoo Eastern phoebe Blue-gray gnatcatcher Great horned owl Least flycatcher Ovenbird Barred owl Great crested flycatcher Blue-winged warbler Red-bellied woodpecker Yellow-throated vireo Yellow-rumped warbler Yellow-bellied sapsucker Warbling vireo American redstart Downy woodpecker Red-eyed vireo Scarlet tanager Hairy woodpecker Black-capped chickadee Rose breasted grosbeak Pileated woodpecker White breasted nuthatch Baltimore oriole
VII. Priority Features and Recommendations
Priority features identified in this plan focus attention on the preservation, restoration, or enhancement of particular species, plant communities, or ecosystem processes. Restoration/conservation objectives are listed for each priority feature. For priority features that discuss community types, the suggested activities are recommended for all areas corresponding to those future cover types indicated in Figures 18A-I. Future cover types were determined after evaluating landowner preferences (See maps Appendix A), existing vegetation, and considering costs for restoration
76
A. Oak Savanna i. Eliminate cover of all exotic shrubs Exotic buckthorn and honeysuckle species exhibit the greatest extent of cover in the understory of most forests within the study area of this NRMP. Removing this layer of vegetation and following up with maintenance to suppress shrub sprouts from stumps and their seedbed would significantly increase the amount of light available to for the establishment of desired understory vegetation, including the recruitment of oak trees for future desired canopy cover. ii. Remove secondary growth trees and shrubs Native tree species such as box elder, cottonwood, green ash and black walnut have all grown into savanna areas since fire suppression began. To re-establish savanna, it is recommended that these species, in addition to any non-native (Siberian elm, homestead cultivar) trees should be removed to reduce the tree density to between 10 and 20 percent canopy cover, with a preference towards retaining white and bur oaks. iii. Establish prairie grasses and forbs as the dominant ground cover Native prairie grasses and forbs are the dominant vegetative cover within intact oak savannas. In areas where extensive tree and shrub removal has occurred, there is little likelihood for native seedbank establishment. Once the canopy has been thinned with tree removal (ii above), it is recommended to undergo a season of site preparation by way of herbicide application after an initial flush of weedy vegetation has expressed itself from the seedbank. Urban and suburban sites typified by the areas identified in this Greenway Corridor have a long history of human-mediated disturbance, such that weed pressure will be high and prioritizing initial weed control with prolonged site preparation will support better establishment of installed native species.
iv. Utilize fire as a management tool to control woody encroachment Native prairie grasses provide fuel for management by fire, a major missing historical process that maintained these areas as open savannas. The reintroduction of fire through prescribed burning in these areas will kill fire-intolerant seedling trees and shrubs. Selecting less frequent fire return intervals that allow initial establishment of young white/bur oak trees, or selectively protecting tree species from fire, would allow for some oak recruitment and ensure continued regeneration of savanna.
B. Oak Woodlands
i. Eliminate cover of all exotic shrubs As in oak savanna areas, these shrubs prevent the recruitment of younger oak trees and the establishment of native graminoids and forbs on the forest floor. Follow-up management of resprouts is recommended in the fall season after initial removal and prior to the onset of dormancy.
77
ii. Thin forest to promote future canopy composition The aforementioned tree species indicative of secondary growth can be thinned to achieve a 20 to 80 percent canopy cover, preserving oaks in general and white/bur oaks in particular, but thinning activities can fluctuate allowing for a naturalized mosaic grading to adjacent cover types. By thinning less desirable trees, the composition of future canopy cover can be directed to sustain the continued presence of oaks. iii. Establish dispersed native shrub layer Native shrubs offer greater habitat advantages to wildlife in terms of both food and structural complexity compared to the buckthorn and honeysuckle they replace. While use of competition and shading is an emerging strategy for buckthorn management, it is not meant to take the place of periodic maintenance sweeps to keep exotic shrubs from re-establishing within this matrix. Fire- tolerant shrubs would succeed in cases where woodland burns are also elected as a strategy for maintaining exotic species and woodland structure. iv. Establish native shade-tolerant forbs for increased pollinator value Woodland forbs, especially spring ephemerals such as bloodroot, Anemone spp., and Jack-in-the-pulpit support early emerging insects, some of which have developed specialized ecological roles in association with host plants (e.g., plants providing pollen to bees or inducing ant-mediated seed dispersal known as myrmecochory). Native woodland forb cover also helps to reduce erosion of bare forest soils, as leaves intercept rain drops and increase water infiltration rates, all contributing to greater water quality.
C. Mesic Hardwood Forests
i. Eliminate cover of all exotic shrubs As previously mentioned, this is the single greatest threat and first step in the restoration process. Some of the hardwood forests found in the Greenway Corridor differ in the extend to which exotic shrubs are problematic; namely, the Sugar Maple/ Basswood Forest in Simon’s Ravine has relatively low levels of introduced shrub layer due to the denser canopy and diminished sunlight, especially compared to some of the more recently afforested areas and mixed hardwood-oak stands with lower tree densities. ii. Establish dispersed native tree and shrub layer Planting native shrubs in the understory of these forests contributes to added complexity to the structure of these forests, competes with exotic shrubs, and provides enhanced wildlife habitat value.
78
iii. Diversify canopy species While some of these mesic hardwood forests are results of afforestation within the last 50 years, in some cases there would not be much public support for complete removal and replacement of existing tree cover with a prairie planting. In such cases where large degrees of effort would need to be made to convert to an existing altered forest to a documented Minnesota native plant community, a broader target community can allow for a more flexible approach to selecting future canopy species composition. Forests dominated by cottonwood, boxelder, ash and walnut can be transitioned to other forest types by selectively removing tree species. In particular, even mature specimens impacted by insects such as ash (due to Emerald Ash Borer) or disease will need to be selectively removed, and replacement plantings will consider species appropriate to various target communities. For example, replacing pioneering tree species with oaks or basswood would set a successional trajectory more closely resembling native plant communities such as Southern Dry-Mesic Oak Forest (MHs37) and Southern Mesic Oak Basswood Forest (MHs38). More mesic sites can be targeted for introducing species more common in SE forests, including bitternut hickory in Southern Wet-Mesic Hardwood Forests (MHs49) or Southern Terrace Forests (FFs59) found along streams. iv. Establish native ground cover Planting woodland sedges, grasses, and forbs (especially spring ephemerals) will create opportunities for slowing down erosion, controlling invasive species with competition and fire, and add pollinator resources to these altered forests. Continued management to remove garlic mustard will ensure diverse species composition on the forest floor.
D. Prairies
i. Convert turf and altered grasslands to native prairies Under-utilized park areas with maintained turf cover or former pastured lands dominated by exotic forage grasses can be converted to native shortgrass or tallgrass prairies, depending on soil type and hydrological conditions. A year of herbicide site preparation is recommended to exhaust the weed seed bank prior to seeding with native prairie vegetation.
ii. Remove encroaching woody species Prairie/woodland margins are succeeding to wooded secondary forest, thus shading out prairie grasses and forbs. Re-establishing prairie boundaries by removing encroaching shrubs such as sumac, gray dogwood and/or prickly ash will ensure fine fuel (grass) cover for continued management by fire. iii. Ongoing prairie management Prairie maintenance is dependent upon periodic burning, with three to four years as a typical burn interval depending on biomass accumulation. Spot mowing and herbicide treatments should be utilized to manage invasive species and promote native species diversity. In sites where burning may be prohibitive due to proximity to residential neighborhoods, alternative management techniques such as haying or grazing might be explored.
79
E. Wet Forests Management activities recommended for wet forests are similar to those of more mesic and dry woodlands, with a few exceptions. Canopy species composition is expected to be more highly dominated by tree species such as cottonwood and aspen. Maintenance by fire is less effective, such that these forests will continuously need to be managed to avoid encroachment of invasive shrubs.
F. Wetlands and Shorelines i. Manage invasive species Due to the large extent and highly altered state of the wetlands within the Greenway Corridor, a significant effort must be made to convert these altered wetlands to native plant communities. Efforts to restore these areas will require combinations of techniques such as herbicide application, prescribed fire, and manipulation of hydrological conditions. Some of these wetlands occur on the margins of stormwater ponds and creek banks, and the degree to which water level fluctuations occur with precipitation events is dependent upon upstream watershed connectivity and degree of impervious development.
For emergent wetlands, control of hybrid cattails would enable establishment of a native graminoid cover, including bulrushes (Scirpus spp.) and sedges (especially Carex lacustris), in addition to emergent forbs such as arrowhead (Sagittaria spp.) and bur reeds (Sparganium spp.). Adjacent upland areas currently dominated by reed canary grass can be restored native cover by way of herbicide application and/or mechanical removal, but they require significant (two growing seasons of) site preparation time to remove viable reed canary grass rhizomes and exhaust its seedbank.
80
Table 5: Existing Land Cover and Recommended Target Community
Existing Plant Community Restoration Process Long-Term Maintenance Oak-Basswood Forest • Invasive shrub removal • Periodic sweeps to remove • Remove ash, boxelder, invasive shrubs Target Community: cottonwood, hackberry, walnut • Continue long-term canopy Oak-Basswood Forest, • Plant white and bur oak saplings in management for oak persistence (MHs38) canopy gaps • Monitor for oak wilt, • Plant native shrubs removals/vibratory plowing when • Seed/plug native woodland necessary grasses, sedges and forbs • Reduce deer population Altered Oak Savanna • Invasive shrub removal • Prescribed burns • Remove ash, boxelder, • Spot treatment of invasive plants Target Communities: cottonwood, hackberry, walnut • Periodic sweeps to remove Southern Dry and Mesic • Seed/plug native prairie grasses invasive shrubs Savanna (UPs14 and UPs24) and forbs • Reduce deer population Oak Woodland • Invasive shrub removal • Prescribed burns • Remove ash, boxelder, • Spot treatment of invasive plants Target Community: cottonwood, hackberry, walnut • Periodic sweeps to remove Southern Dry-Mesic Oak • Plant white and bur oak saplings in invasive shrubs Woodland (FDs37) canopy gaps • Continue long-term canopy • Plant native shrubs management for oak persistence • Seed/plug native woodland • Monitor for oak wilt, grasses, sedges and forbs removals/vibratory plowing when necessary • Reduce deer population Altered Deciduous Forest • Invasive shrub removal • Prescribed burns where • Remove ash, other species appropriate Target Communities: dependent upon target • Spot treatment of invasive plants Southern Dry-Mesic Oak • Plant tree saplings in gaps, species • Periodic sweeps to remove Forest (MHs37), Southern dependent, southerly (hickory) invasive shrubs Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory • Plant native shrubs • Reduce deer population Woodland (FDs38), Southern • Seed/plug native woodland Mesic Maple-Basswood grasses, sedges and forbs Forest (MHs39), Southern Wet-Mesic Hardwood Forest (MHs49), or Southern Terrace Forest (FFs59). Altered Wet Forest • Invasive shrub removal • Spot treatment of invasive plants • Plant native shrubs • Periodic sweeps to remove Target Communities: • Seed/plug native woodland invasive shrubs Southern Wet Aspen Forest grasses, sedges and forbs • Reduce deer population (WFs55) or Southern Floodplain Forest (FFs68) Wetlands and Shorelines • Invasive shrub removal • Periodic prescribed burns 81
• Herbicide application in • Spot treatment of invasive plants Target Communities: combination with mechanical Northern Bulrush-Spikerush removal (cutting, burning, scrape, Marsh (MRn93), Northern hydrological manipulations) Wet Meadow/Carr • Seed/plug with wetland grasses, (WMn82) and Southern Wet sedges, and forbs Prairie (WPs54) • Plant appropriate wetland shrubs Conifer Plantations • Thin conifer stands by • Continue to thin conifers over approximately 30%, clear gaps of time, targeting maximum 75% Target Community: 30m x 30m for diversified tree canopy cover Southern Mesic White Pine – establishment • Periodic prescribed burns Oak Woodland (FDs27b) • Plant white, bur and red (Quercus • Spot treatment of invasive plants alba, Q. macrocarpa, and Q. rubra) • Periodic sweeps to remove oaks, bitternut hickory, and paper invasive shrubs birch in gaps • Reduce deer population • Plant native shrubs, especially American hazel (Corylus americana) • Seed/plug Pennsylvania sedge (Carex pensylvanica), woodland forbs
82
FIGURE 18A: Future Cover – Valley Park North Unit, Mendota Heights
83
FIGURE 18B: Future Cover – Valley Park South Unit, Mendota Heights
84
FIGURE 18C: Future Cover – Dodge Nature Center, Lilly Property, Mendota Heights
85
FIGURE 18D: Future Cover – Henry Sibley HS and Dodge Nature Center, Marie Property
86
FIGURE 18E: Future Cover – Dodge Nature Center, Main Property, West Saint Paul
87
FIGURE 18F: Future Cover – Garlough and Marthaler Parks, West Saint Paul
88
FIGURE 18G: Future Cover – Thompson Oaks, West Saint Paul
89
FIGURE 18H: Future Cover – Thompson County Park, West Saint Paul
90
FIGURE 18I: Future Cover – Kaposia and Simon’s Ravine, South Saint Paul
91
VIII. Implementation
Historic and existing conditions, and the relative effort versus anticipated benefits are weighed when determining the optimal target plant communities for restoration (see Table 5). These considerations govern the optimal and most suitable goals for restoration.
Based on the geology, soils, topography, hydrology, existing land cover and use, current and anticipated ecological conditions, and Landowner and County goals, target plant communities are recommended for each of the existing land cover types in Table 5 and as shown on Figure 18. Target plant communities are indicated consistent with the Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota: the Eastern Broadleaf Forest (DNR 2005), and detailed descriptions of these communities are found in Appendix G.
Implementation of these restoration projects are prioritized primarily by the ecological value gained in converting altered and non-native plant cover to native plant communities described in Table 5. Other factors that inform the prioritization include their adjacency to previously restored areas, contractor/equipment access, and cost of projects, availability of funding through grant and public funding sources, and staff capacity of parternship organizations to oversee implementation.
A. Previous and Ongoing Restoration Efforts Before addressing the specific priorities and activities for each land management unit, it is important to acknowledge the past efforts to restore sites within the Greenway Corridor undertaken by the landowner(s) and the County. Those efforts are listed in Table 6:
Table 6: Historic Land Management Activity Greenway Segment – Partner Habitat Type Acres Activities Dates
Valley Park – City of Mendota Heights, Prairie Restoration 2012-2020 Great River Greening, and Xcel Energy Forest Buckthorn removal 2012-2020 Dodge Nature Center Prairie Restoration, Rx burning 2015-2020
Forest Buckthorn Removal, Tree 2015-2020 and shrub planting Henry Sibley HS – ISD 197, Dakota County Prairie Restoration 2014 Garlough Park – City of West Saint Paul Forest Buckthorn removal 2018-2019 Thompson Oaks/Wentworth Library – Forest Buckthorn removal 2019 City of West Saint Paul, Dakota County Oak Savanna restoration 2017-2020 Thompson County Park – Dakota County Forest Buckthorn removal 2017-2020
92
B. Work Plans
i. Restoration Sequence Work Plan A Restoration Sequence work plan (see Table 7) was developed to provide guidelines toward achieving the target communities shown in Figure 17. This work plan was developed to focus on the natural resource management and restoration priorities for protecting and improving areas within the Greenway Corridor. The primary goals are listed in Table 7. The table includes a list of priorities, activities, schedules, responsibilities, and estimated costs. A general sequence for restoration activities at each site is described in Table 7, but note that, as an example, “3.1” denoting first year activities in Site 3 may have independent timing compared to 5.1, i.e., the first year activities in Site 5 (or in any other sites), although they may also coincide. Also note that the costs shown are estimates, based on similar work at other sites. Actual costs may be higher or lower, depending on multiple factors. Each management unit was prioritized for restoration need, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the highest.
Table 7: Restoration Sequence Work Plan for Natural Resource Projects SITE RESTORATION COST SITE PRIORITY SEQUENCE SEASON ACTIVITY ACRES COST/AC ESTIMATE [Site #] . [Year] HENRY SIBLEY HIGH AND GARLOUGH ELEMENTARY MAGNET SCHOOLS Site preparation herbicide sprayout, hand seeding, summer, cover with Type 3N 1.1 4.3 $4,500 $15,050 fall natural net erosion 1. Turf Grass to 3 control blanket on slopes Prairie >3:1, install 5,000 plugs Spring, Establishment 1.2 to 1.5 summer, management – mowing, 4.3 $1,200 $5,160 fall spot spraying, burn year 5 TOTAL $20,210
GARLOUGH AND MARTHALER PARKS fall, Control exotic shrubs in 2.1 18 $1,500 $27,000 winter woodlands Follow-up foliar herbicide 2.1 to 2.4 fall control of exotic shrub 18 $900 $16,200 resprouts 2. Oak Savanna, Seed with native Woodlands and Wet 1 woodland seed mix that Forest contains a high fall, percentage of 2.2 to 2.5 18 $1,600 $28,800 spring graminoids, to ensure that ground fires will carry in the future. This cost estimate includes 93
both material and labor costs.
SUBTOTAL $72,000 1,800 fall, Control exotic shrubs linear 3.1 $4.4/l.f. $8,000 winter along shorelines feet (l.f.) Plant and seed shoreline. For shrub plantings, fall (yr 2) obtain protective cages or 1,800 3.2 to 3.3 or spring fencing and stakes to $10/l.f. $18,000 3. Stormwater Pond l.f. Shoreline and 2 (yr 3) secure them. Include Wetland Type 3N natural net erosion control blanket. Control hybrid cattail & reed canary grass in fall, 3.1 to 3.3 wetland, plant native 0.3 $16,666 $5,000 spring sedge and emergent plugs, seed SUBTOTAL $31,000 Site preparation herbicide sprayout, hand seeding, summer, cover with Type 3N 4.1 8.4 $4,500 $28,000 fall natural net erosion 4. Turf Grass to control blanket on slopes 1 Prairie >3:1, install 5,000 plugs Spring, Establishment 4.2 to 4.5 summer, management – mowing, 8.4 ~$1,200 $10,000 fall spot spraying, burn year 5 SUBTOTAL $38,000 TOTAL $141,000
VALLEY PARK spring, Site preparation herbicide 5.1 summer, sprayout, 5. Prairie fall spring, 1 5.2 Seed and plug planting 7.9 $2,025 $16,000 fall spring, Establishment 5.3 to 5.5 summer, management fall Control exotic shrubs, 6.1 winter remove ash, cottonwood and walnut trees Follow-up foliar herbicide 6. Oak Savanna and 1 6.2 to 6.4 fall control of exotic shrub 34.3 $3,000 $102,900 Woodlands resprouts Seed with native fall, 6.2 woodland or prairie spring (savanna) seed mix to
94
ensure that ground fires will carry in the future.
7.1 winter Remove exotic shrubs Follow-up foliar herbicide 7. Deciduous Forest 3 7.2 to 7.5 fall control of exotic shrub resprouts 15.7 $1,530 $24,000 Plant native shrubs, seed fall, 7.2 and plug native woodland spring forbs winter Remove exotic shrubs Follow-up foliar herbicide fall control of exotic shrub 8. Wet Forest 3 8.1 resprouts 17.9 $2,000 $35,800 Plant native shrubs, seed fall, and plug native woodland spring forbs fall, Thin conifer stand, cut 9.1 winter gaps 9.1 winter remove exotic shrubs Follow-up foliar herbicide 9.2 to 9.5 fall control of exotic shrub 9. Conifer Plantation 1 2.8 $3,000 $8,400 resprouts Plant oak trees and native spring, shrubs, seed/plug 9.2 to 9.5 fall woodland sedges and forbs, burn year 4 Site preparation: water level manipulation, spring, mechanical removal 10.1 to 10.2 summer, and/or herbicide fall sprayout of hybrid cattail and reed canary grass, Rx 10. Wetlands 4 18.2 $4,500 $82,000 burn spring, 10.3 to 10.5 seed, plant plugs, shrubs fall spring, Establishment 10.3 to 10.5 summer, management – mowing, fall spot spraying, burn year 5 TOTAL $269,100
DODGE NATURE CENTER spring, Site preparation herbicide 11.1 summer, sprayout, fall spring, 11. New Prairie - Lilly 1 11.2 Seed and plug planting 4.6 $3,000 $13,800 fall spring, Establishment 11.3 to 11.5 summer, management fall fall, Control shrub $38,200 3 12.1 3 $1,000 winter encroachment on borders
95
Spot mowing/herbicide, spring, suppression of cool 12. Old Prairie 12.1 to 12.4 summer, season grasses (smooth 44 $300 Enhancement – Lilly fall brome) with grass- Property specific herbicide fall, Overseed with forb mix 12.2 to 12.5 44 $500 spring after Rx burn, plug tree and shrub removal, 13.1 winter chip/remove from site spring, Site preparation herbicide 13.2 13. Oak Savanna – fall sprayout, Rx burn 1 13.5 $6,000 $81,000 Lilly Property 13.2 fall Seed and plug planting spring, Establishment 13.3 to 13.5 summer, management fall fall, Control exotic shrubs in 14.1 winter woodlands Follow-up foliar herbicide 14.1 to 14.4 fall control of exotic shrub 14. Oak Woodlands – resprouts 1 20.8 $2,000 $41,600 Lilly Property fall, Plant woodland seed and 14.2 to 14.3 spring plug mix spring, Establishment 14.3 to 14.5 summer, management, Rx burn fall Siberian elm, boxelder, 15.1 winter shrub removal, chip/remove from site spring, Site preparation herbicide 15. New Prairie – 15.2 2 fall sprayout, Rx burn 3.3 $5,000 $16,500 Marie Property 15.2 fall Seed and plug planting spring, Establishment 15.3 to 15.5 summer, management fall fall, Control exotic shrubs in 16.1 winter woodlands Follow-up foliar herbicide 16.1 to 16.4 fall control of exotic shrub 16. Oak Woodland – resprouts Main and Marie 1 17.9 $2,000 $35,800 fall, Plant woodland seed and Property 16.2 to 16.3 spring plug mix spring, Establishment 16.3 to 16.5 summer, management fall fall, Control exotic shrubs in 17.1 winter woodlands Follow-up foliar herbicide 17. Maple-Basswood 17.1 to 17.4 fall control of exotic shrub Forest – Main 2 3.7 $2,000 $7,400 resprouts Property plant woodland seed, fall, 17.1 to 17.5 plug, sugar maple trees spring and shrubs fall, Control exotic shrubs in 3 18.1 101.3 $1,000 $101,300 winter woodlands
96
Follow-up foliar herbicide 18.1 to 18.4 fall control of exotic shrub resprouts 18. Mesic and Wet fall, Plant woodland seed and Forests – All Dodge 18.2 to 18.3 spring plug mix Properties spring, Establishment 18.3 to 18.5 summer, management fall Hybrid cattail spring, management on 19.1 summer, 15.2 $2,000 $30,400 emergent wetlands; fall herbicide, Rx burn Reed canary grass spring, management on wet 19. Wetlands – All 5 19.1 to 19.3 summer, meadows; 2 yrs site prep, 62.3 $4,000 $249,200 Dodge Properties fall herbicide, Rx burn, seeding final spring Establishment fall, management of wet 19.1 to 19.3 62.3 $1,000 $62,300 spring meadow plantings – spot mow/herbicide TOTAL $676,500 THOMPSON COUNTY PARK Removal of black locust, 20.1 winter ash, boxelder, silver maple and walnut trees; Site preparation, spring, 20. Future Oak seeding/plugging of mesic 1 20.2 to 20.3 summer, 10.2 $14,700 $150,000 Savanna Expansion prairie grass and forb fall cover spring, Establishment 20.3 to 20.5 summer, management – mowing, fall spot spraying, burn year 5 spring, Establishment 21. Current Oak 1 21.1 to 21.5 summer, management – mowing, 3.0 $1,670 $5,000 Savanna Maintenance fall spot spraying, burn year 3 22. Oak-Basswood Removal of ash, boxelder, 1 22.1 winter 10.4 $11,500 $120,000 Forest walnut trees; Removal of ash, boxelder, 23.1 winter silver maple and select walnut trees spring, 23.2 tree and shrub planting 23. Mixed Deciduous fall 2 4.5 $8,000 $36,000 Forest Follow-up foliar herbicide 23.3 to 23.5 fall control of exotic shrub resprouts spring, seed and plug woodland 23.3 to 23.5 fall grasses and forbs Removal of ash, boxelder, 24.1 winter walnut trees; 24.Stormwater Pond 4 spring, seed/plug with mesic 1.6 $3,125 $5,000 24.2 summer, prairie species, transition fall to wet meadow
97
community on shoreline. Install type 3N erosion control blanket on steep slopes >3:1. spring, Establishment 24.3 to 24.5 summer, management fall Winter, 25.1 Brush removal fall spring, 25.1 summer, Site preparation fall Spring, Cattail scrape and 25.1 summer reshape banks or fall Summer, 25.Thompson Lake 1 fall 2.0 $180,000 Shoreline (plugs); 25.1 to 25.2 Plant materials and labor spring or fall (seed) spring, Establishment 25.1 to 25.3 summer, management fall Spring or 25.3 Rx burn fall Sumac removal, site spring, preparation, 26. Prairie 3 26.1 summer, seeding/plugging of mesic 1.6 $5,000 $8,000 Restoration fall prairie grass and forb cover Removal of black locust, 27.1 winter willow trees spring, native tree and shrub 27.2 fall planting 27. NW Oak 3 follow-up foliar herbicide 5.0 $8,000 $40,000 Woodland 27.3 to 27.5 fall control of exotic shrub resprouts spring, seed and plug woodland 27.3 to 27.5 fall grasses and forbs TOTAL $544,000
KAPOSIA PARK AND SIMON’S RAVINE Control exotic shrubs in woodlands, remove fall, 28.1 secondary growth trees winter (box elder, Siberian elm, etc.) 28. Oak Savanna 1 Follow-up foliar herbicide 9 $5,000 $45,000 28.1 to 28.4 fall control of exotic shrub resprouts fall, Site preparation Seed 28.2 to 28.5 spring with native prairie mix,
98
establishment management fall, 29.1 Control exotic shrubs winter Follow-up foliar herbicide 29. Oak Woodlands 29.1 to 29.4 fall control of exotic shrub and Deciduous/Wet 2 20.5 $2,000 $41,000 resprouts Forest Seed with native fall, 29.2 to 29.5 woodland seed mix, Rx spring burn in Oak Woodlands Control exotic shrubs and fall, trees, remove select trees 30.1 winter for gaps (EAB ash, oak 30. Oak-Basswood wilt) and Maple-Basswood 3 Follow-up foliar herbicide 55.5 $540 $30,000 Forest 30.1 to 30.4 fall control of exotic shrub resprouts spring, Plant oak trees, native 30.2 fall shrubs in gaps Exotic plant summer, 31.1 management/site 31. Ravine Erosion fall preparation Stabilization/ 3 Native seed, plugs and Creekbank Wetlands 2,400 31.1 fall blanket w/ Type 3N $40 / l.f. $96,000 l.f. Natural Net fabric spring, Establishment 31.2 to 31.5 summer, management fall TOTAL $212,000 GGHGGGRAND TOTAL RESTORATION COSTS $1,863,610
99
i. Twenty-Year Work Plan A 20-year work plan (see Table 8) was developed to provide guidelines toward maintaining the target communities restored in the Restoration Sequence Work Plan. This 20-year work plan was developed to focus on the long-term goals for protecting and improving natural resource management and restoration within the Greenway Corridor. The table includes a list of maintenance activities, responsibilities, and estimated costs. Actual costs may be higher or lower, depending on multiple factors. For example, annual weed management will be higher in formative years immediately after restoration establishment, and these costs will decrease over time through the 20-year period.
Table 8: Twenty-Year Work Plan for Long-Term Maintenance ANNUAL SITE RESPONSIBILITY SEASON ACTIVITY ACRES COST/AC COST ESTIMATE HENRY SIBLEY HIGH AND GARLOUGH ELEMENTARY MAGNET SCHOOLS annual spot treatment spring, summer, Prairie ISD 197 of invasives, Rx burn 4.3 $250 $1,075 fall every 3 yrs TOTAL $1,075/yr
GARLOUGH AND MARTHALER PARKS spring, summer, Annual spot treatment 18 $150 $2,700 fall of invasives Survey and remove Oak Savanna, $150 every WSP fall buckthorn/honeysuckle 18 $900 3 yr Woodlands and Wet every 3 years Forest Savanna Rx burn every $300 every fall, spring 5 $500 3 yrs 3 yr SUBTOTAL $4,100 spring, summer, Annual spot treatment 5.4 $150 $810 fall of invasives Survey and remove $150 every fall buckthorn/honeysuckle 5.4 $280 Stormwater Pond WSP 3 yr Shoreline and Wetland every 3 years Rx burn every 3 yrs $1,350 fall, spring 5.4 $450 (~$250/ac per burn) every 3 yr SUBTOTAL $1,540 Annual spot treatment summer, fall 8.4 $150 $1,260 of invasives ~$250 WSP spring, fall Rx burn every 3 yrs 8.4 $700 Prairie every 3 yr late fall mow for sledding hill 0.7 $200 $200 SUBTOTAL $2,160 TOTAL $7,800/yr
VALLEY PARK MH Annual spot treatment Prairie summer, fall 7.9 $150 $1,200 of invasives
100
~$250 spring, fall Rx burn every 3 yrs 7.9 $700 every 3 yr SUBTOTAL $1,900 spring, summer, Savanna - annual spot 3.3 $150 $500 fall treatment of invasives Survey and remove $150 every fall buckthorn/honeysuckle 34.3 $1,700 3 yr every 3 years Oak Savanna and MH Savanna Rx burn every $300 every Woodlands fall, spring 3.3 $330 3 yrs 3 yr Woodland Rx burn $350 every spring 31 $2,170 every 5 yrs 5 yr SUBTOTAL $4,700 Annual spot treatment spring of invasives (garlic 15.7 $150 $2,400 mustard, burdock) MH Survey and remove Deciduous Forest $150 every fall buckthorn/honeysuckle 15.7 $800 3 yr every 3 years SUBTOTAL $3,200 Annual spot treatment spring of invasives (garlic 17.9 $150 $2,700 mustard, burdock) MH Survey and remove Wet Forest $150 every fall buckthorn/honeysuckle 17.9 $900 3 yr every 3 years SUBTOTAL $3,600 Annual spot treatment spring of invasives (garlic 2.8 $150 $420 mustard, burdock) Survey and remove $150 every MH fall buckthorn/honeysuckle 2.8 $140 3 yr Conifer Plantation every 3 years $2,000 periodically thin winter, spring 2.8 every 10 $560 conifers, plant oaks years SUBTOTAL $1,120 Annual spot treatment spring, summer, of invasives (esp. reed 18.2 $150 $2,730 fall canary grass) MH Rx burns every five Wetlands $130 every late spring years to control cool 18.2 $470 5 yr season grasses, RCG SUBTOTAL $3,200 TOTAL $17,720/yr
DODGE NATURE CENTER spring, summer, Annual spot treatment 61.9 $150 $9,300 fall of invasives DNC $200 every Prairies spring, fall Rx burn every 3 yrs 61.9 $4,100 3 yr SUBTOTAL $13,400 101
spring, summer, Savanna - annual spot 13.5 $150 $2,000 fall treatment of invasives Survey and remove $150 every DNC fall buckthorn/honeysuckle 13.5 $700 Oak Savanna 3 yr every 3 years Savanna Rx burn every $150 every fall, spring 13.5 $700 3 yrs 3 yr SUBTOTAL $3,400 Annual spot treatment spring of invasives (garlic 38.7 $150 $5,800 mustard, burdock) Survey and remove DNC $150 every Oak Woodlands fall buckthorn/honeysuckle 38.7 $1,900 3 yr every 3 years Woodland Rx burn $200 every spring 38.7 $1,500 every 5 yrs 5 yr SUBTOTAL $9,200 Annual spot treatment spring of invasives (garlic 105 $150 $15,750 mustard, burdock) DNC Deciduous Forests Survey and remove $150 every fall buckthorn/honeysuckle 105 $5,250 3 yr every 3 years SUBTOTAL $21,000 Annual spot treatment spring, summer, of invasives (esp. reed 62.3 $150 $9,360 fall canary grass) DNC Wetlands Rx burns every five $130 every late spring years to control cool 62.3 $1,640 5 yr season grasses, RCG SUBTOTAL $11,000 TOTAL $58,000/yr THOMPSON COUNTY PARK
spring, summer, Annual spot treatment 5.2 $190 $1,000 fall of invasives DC Prairie $170 every spring, fall Rx burn every 3 yrs 5.2 $300 3 yr SUBTOTAL $1,300 spring, summer, Savanna - annual spot 14.7 $150 $2,200 fall treatment of invasives Survey and remove $150 every DC fall buckthorn/honeysuckle 14.7 $750 3 yr Oak Savanna every 3 years fall, spring Savanna Rx burn every $150 every 14.7 $750 3 yrs 3 yr SUBTOTAL $3,700 Annual spot treatment spring of invasives (garlic 8.3 $150 $1,250 mustard, burdock) Oak Woodland DC Survey and remove $150 every fall buckthorn/honeysuckle 8.3 $400 3 yr every 3 years 102
Woodland Rx burn $200 every spring 8.3 $350 every 5 yrs 5 yr SUBTOTAL $2,000 Annual spot treatment $150 spring of invasives (garlic 11 1650
mustard, burdock) DC Deciduous Forest Survey and remove $150 every fall buckthorn/honeysuckle 11 550 3 yr every 3 years SUBTOTAL $2,200 Annual spot treatment spring, summer, of invasives (esp. reed 2 $400 $800 fall canary grass) DC Shoreline Rx burns every five $200 every late spring years to control cool 2 $130 3 yr season grasses, RCG SUBTOTAL $930 TOTAL $10,130/yr KAPOSIA PARK AND SIMON’S RAVINE spring, summer, Savanna - annual spot 9 $150 $1,300 fall treatment of invasives Survey and remove $150 every fall buckthorn/honeysuckle 9 $450 SSP 3 yr Oak Savanna every 3 years Savanna Rx burn every $150 every fall, spring 9 $450 3 yrs 3 yr SUBTOTAL $2,200 Annual spot treatment spring of invasives (garlic 5.8 $150 $870 mustard, burdock) Survey and remove $150 every SSP fall buckthorn/honeysuckle 5.8 $290 Oak Woodlands 3 yr every 3 years Woodland Rx burn $200 every spring 5.8 $240 every 5 yrs 5 yr SUBTOTAL $1,400 Annual spot treatment Deciduous Forests (Oak- spring of invasives (garlic 70.2 $150 $10,500 Basswood, Maple- mustard, burdock) Basswood, and Mixed Survey and remove Mesic Deciduous SSP $150 every fall buckthorn/honeysuckle 70.2 $3,500 Forests) 3 yr every 3 years Oak forest burn every 5 $150 every spring 53.1 $1,600 yrs 5 yr SUBTOTAL $15,600 spring, summer, Annual spot treatment 6 $200 $1,200 Prairie and Creekbank fall of invasives SSP Wet Meadows $200 every spring, fall Rx burn every 3 yrs 6 $400 3 yr SUBTOTAL $1,600 TOTAL $20,800/yr GGHGGGRAND TOTAL MAINTENANCE COSTS $115,525/yr 103
C. Future Restoration Implementation Schedule The Restoration Sequence work plans outline the priorities and staging for each individual natural resource project in each region of the Greenway Corridor, however, these implementation plans are specific to each project, where Year 1 responds to the first year of project implementation regardless of the timing of other projects. While the priority of each project is suggested in Table 7, the particular timing of implementation is dependent in part upon availability of grant funds and the capacity of Partnership members to carry out the project.
Adjacency to existing restoration areas are another important factor to consider for the staging of individual projects with respect to the implementation schedule of the entire Greenway. Due to the approval of the Thompson County Park Natural Resource Management Plan (County Board Resolution No. 20-037, 21 January 2020) and the availability of funds through an ML 2019 appropriation of the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council’s Outdoor Heritage Fund (ML19-OHF), the County will begin restoration of Thompson County Park in 2020. Furthermore, a partnership with the City of West Saint Paul has been initiated to use ML19-OHF grant funds to extend these restorations to Garlough and Marthaler city parks, commensurate with trail surface and infrastructure improvements within these parks and a trail re-alignment for a grade-separated tunnel under Robert Street. Future improvements to the former Thompson Oaks Gold Course will continue to work toward establishing native plantings between the County Park and these two city Parks, thus working to close the gap between the identified Metro Conservation Corridors in this region (Figure 19).
104
FIGURE 19: Dakota County Parks and City of West Saint Paul Partnership Restoration Project
Additional initial project areas that have existing or future restoration projects identified include Partnerships between Great River Greening and the City of Mendota Heights for ongoing work in Valley Park and with Dodge Nature Center for ongoing work on their properties (Table 6), such that the next future phases would likely occur in these areas.
IX. Strategic Partnerships for Implementing Greenway Natural Resource Projects
A. Precedent of County Policy Supporting Natural Resources Improvements of County Greenways Two County Documents illustrate the precedent for addressing natural resource management projects along the County Greenway System, namely the Natural Resources Management System Plan (NRMSP) adopted on May 23, 2017 (Resolution No. 17-274), and the Dakota County Greenway Collaborative Guidebook (henceforth the Greenway Guidebook) adopted September 28, 2010 (Resolution No. 10-487). These documents establish
105
the motivation and guidelines for the use of County resources to address natural resource management projects and improvements on non-County land.
The NRMSP acknowledged that natural resources are transboundary in nature and for the County to be effective at protecting and improving them, it must work with landowners and partners on lands outside of County ownership. The NRMSP states the following:
“To implement this system-wide plan, the County recognizes it will need to continue to pursue and secure state and other grants, capitalize on partnerships, collaborate with municipalities and other entities in the County, and commit additional internal County resources for staff, volunteer coordination, equipment, and external contractor work (NRMSP pg. 4).”
Goals for Greenways outlined in the NRMSP include the following:
10.3.4 Greenway Goals • The most highly invasive species should be controlled since greenways can contribute to the spread of invasive species. • Restoration and enhancement of high quality areas within County-owned lands and easements will improve visitor experience and can reduce long- term maintenance costs. • It will be important to work with a wide range of partners to restores and enhance non-County-owned lands and easements within regional greenway corridors and to identify opportunities for collaboration and increased efficiencies (NRMSP pg. 93)
To effectively manage greenways to intercept the spread of invasive species and ensure the quality of natural resource improvements, the following was determined:
11.3.4. Management of Greenways
Due to the multiple-ownerships in greenways and the County’s limited control, only priority investments should be made in greenways. The County, working with partners, should control the most highly invasive species, restore and enhance the most important greenway lands and easements, monitor wildlife indicator species, and develop NRMPs for each greenway (NRMSP pg. 108).
Furthermore, the Dakota County Greenway Guidebook established guidelines for typical cost-share structures and roles pertaining to different components of Greenways.
The County establishes 30-foot easements for Greenway trails and assumes all native vegetation maintenance within the easement. While a native planting within this easement provides some benefit, there is need to provide wildlife with wider contiguous corridors to establish any real habitat value. The Greenway Guidebook established 100 ft, 200 ft and 300 ft wide corridors depending upon whether the Greenway occurred within an 106
urban, suburban, or rural context, respectively (See Figures 20 and 21). The Guidebook specifically calls upon initiating natural resource restoration and enhancement efforts within these corridors, which necessitates working in partnerships in the frequent case that these corridors occur within public, non-County lands such as city parks and school properties.
FIGURE 20: Greenway Corridor Scenarios
(Taken from the Greenway Guidebook pg. 22)
107
FIGURE 21: Particular Greenway Corridor Example Along the River to River Greenway
Finally, outside of these 100 to 300 ft-wide Corridors, there may exist other Sensitive Lands such as stream buffers or the remaining areas within the boundaries of city parks or other public natural areas through which the Greenway passes. To maintain a holistic approach to managing natural resource projects with respect to the natural community and to exercise flexibility towards working in partnership with multiple landowners, the Greenway Guidebook offers the following guiding principles:
Greenway corridors: The first stewardship priority is restoring continuous native habitat in greenway corridors themselves. This continuous ribbon of varying widths will function as a wildlife corridor and buffer streams from damaging effects like runoff, pollution, and invasive species.
Adjoining Sensitive Lands: The next order of stewardship priority is habitat restoration and protection of the most sensitive lands, including uplands, which link greenways to the broader landscape. These landscapes perform vital functions of preserving habitat and species diversity and stormwater infiltration and cleansing. Prioritization of adjoining landscapes will be based on intrinsic sensitivities like erodibility, aquifer recharge, the presence of wetlands and the presence of native plant communities.
A Healthy Natural Framework: Stewardship of the first- and second-order landscapes will reestablish a stronger habitat network that will have greater 108
resilience and will provide a strong framework for future growth (The Greenway Guidebook, pg. 35-36).
The installation of natural plantings (i.e., native prairie grasses and forbs, trees and shrubs) and stormwater treatment best management practices (i.e., raingardens, infiltration and bioretention basins, bioswales, etc.) are commensurate with new Greenway trail design and implementation as much as possible, and the County is committed to continually maintaining and enhancing these plantings for high levels of biodiversity to sustain benefits to pollinators and water quality.
B. Guidelines for Cost-Share The Greenway Guidebook offers guidelines for assisting Partnerships for the implementation of Greenway trail installations and supporting facilities (trailhead restrooms, parking lots, wayfinding; see Greenway Guidebook pg. 21) and a similar model can be extended towards implementing Natural Resource projects. Table 9 outlines the Roles and Responsibilities of Dakota County and Landowner Partner organizations for each of the consideration areas discussed above.
Table 9: Proposed Management Activities and Responsibilities Greenway Roles and 30 foot Easement 100 – 300 foot Corridor Natural Lands Beyond Responsibilities Corridor Landowner. County may Landowner. County may Grant Match Cost Share County assist with costs up to assist with costs up to 30% of project costs 20% of project costs Landowner. County may Landowner. County may Restoration Project County assist with costs up to assist with costs up to Management 30% of project costs 20% of project costs Maintenance County Landowner Landowner
i. Grant opportunities and requirements Dakota County utilizes external grant funding to implement natural resources projects on County owned land, but there exist opportunities for these projects to be bundled with smaller, non-County owned lands within Greenway Corridors that would not receive the same competitive consideration if they were submitted to granting organizations as separate projects. Likewise, many local government or non-governmental organization public land owners along these Corridors may not have the staff capacity or organizational structure to take advantage of grant opportunities to implement natural resource projects on their lands, despite their willingness and interest to enact these improvements.
The State of Minnesota’s Legacy Amendment offers funding opportunities for ecological restoration by way of the Outdoor Heritage Fund (through direct appropriations or through the Department of Natural Resources Conservation Partners Legacy Grant Program) or Clean Water Fund (through the Board of Water and Soil Resources competitive grant programs).
109
Dakota County typically leverages 20% of requested grant funds as cash match when applying for State grants. For areas included in grants not owned in fee by Dakota County, part of these match funds would need to be contributed by Landowner Partners. Partnership contributions towards grant match funds would be agreed upon in the form of a Joint Powers Agreement in advance of initiating grant-funded natural resource projects. Additionally, this JPA would detail the roles of staff from the County or Landowner in terms of contributions of staff time for project management, contractor oversight, public and volunteer engagement, plant material acquisition, and other pertinent details within the scope of Natural Resource management of the site during the project period.
C. Continued Natural Resource Management
i. Maintenance Agreements Dakota County and both City and civic partners collaborating on Natural Resource project implementation will establish management agreements that ensure the restoration areas paid for with grant dollars will be maintained into the future. Such maintenance activities are outlined in the 20-Year Work Plan (Table 8) and include revisiting sites multiple times a year to target undesirable plants for spot chemical treatment or mechanical removal. The maintenance activities should be agreed upon at the initiation of the partnership and before project implementation agreement, and documents such as Joint Powers Agreements (JPAs) or Supplemental Maintenance Agreements (SMAs) must be approved through normal business procedures for each partner in the agreement (i.e., Board or Council approval). ii. Ongoing management activities Ongoing management activities included in JPAs or SMAs ensure the future integrity of restoration targets. Ideally, upon completion of these restoration projects, the routine vegetation maintenance on these sites (outside the County trail easement boundaries) are carried out either by the Landowner staff members or through contractors specialized in installing and maintaining native plantings. Coordinated maintenance activities could be utilized via contributions to a shared maintenance contract to simultaneously address lands falling within the County Easement, the 100 to 300-foot-wide Greenway Corridor, and adjacent Natural Lands Outside Corridor, with County and Landowner contributions detailed in JPAs or SMAs.
Ongoing management activities need not be restricted solely to vegetation maintenance, and the following possibilities would work toward managing native plantings within agreed upon parameters for maintaining their ecological integrity.
Other possibilities for activities that Landowners could utilize include the following:
• Hosting Conservation Corps or Green Corps positions for organizing maintenance and enhancement projects • Leading volunteer groups for restoration projects (buckthorn hauling, garlic mustard pulls, tree and shrub plantings, litter pick-up) adjacent to or follow-up within grant-funded project areas • Leading school and volunteer groups in enhancement planting activities
110
• Hosting public meetings educating private landowners about cost-share opportunities for native plantings (BWSR - Lawns to Legumes, Dakota SWCD – Landscaping for Clean Water) and guidance on activities that they can take to improve the ecological diversity on their own property. • Working with specialized volunteers such as Master Gardeners, Master Water Stewards and Master Naturalists for additional planting events
The above activities could be considered as alternatives to cash-match requirements for partnership grants if completed during the project implementation phase, or they could be considered as contributions towards offsetting long-term maintenance costs as estimated in JPAs or SMAs.
Additionally, Dakota County Staff can assist Landowners in some of the following ways within Greenway Corridors:
• Training staff in native and invasive plant identification • Training staff with management techniques for in-house long-term native planting maintenance • Organizing volunteer events for enhancement plantings • Conducting vegetation and wildlife monitoring on public lands to assess effectiveness of restoration projects • Coordinating Conservation Corps crews for limited maintenance activities and enhancement plantings
X. Monitoring and Adaptive Management
A. Methods
Ecological restoration is a long-term process. It takes time to restore ecosystems to their former functionality and diversity. And even under the best circumstances and human abilities, generally, this can only be approximated. It took many decades to degrade the ecosystem and biological communities within the Greenway Corridor, so it will not be restored overnight. Many steps are typically involved in a successful restoration; even deciding when a restoration is complete can be very difficult. Restoration should be viewed as a process and not as an end point. The ultimate goal is to achieve and maintain a diverse natural community at the site, though this will not always proceed in a linear fashion. Using the concept of adaptive management will be the key to continual progress at the site. Adaptive management is a strategy commonly used by land managers, which integrates thought and action into the restoration process. It can be described as a strategy that uses evaluation, reflection, communication, and also incorporates learning into planning and management. It is set up like a feedback loop as illustrated in Figure 22 below.
111
FIGURE 22: Adaptive Natural Resource Management
Thus, moving forward with restoration, each round of adaptive management refines and hones the process to better fit the current ecological conditions. This strategy should be emphasized within the Greenway Corridor.
112
XI. References Congdon, J. D., D. W. Tinkle, G. L. Breitenbach, and R. C. van Loben Sels. 1983. Nesting ecology and hatching success in the turtle Emydoidea blandingii. Herpetologica 39(4):417-429.
Mossler, J.H. 2008. Paleozoic stratigraphic nomenclature for Minnesota: Minnesota Geological Survey Report of Investigations 65, 76 p., 1 pl.
Oldfield, B., and J. J. Moriarty. 1994. Amphibians and reptiles native to Minnesota. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 237 pp.
Piepgras, S. A., and J. W. Lang. 2000. Spatial ecology of Blanding's Turtle in central Minnesota. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(4):589-601.
113
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Landowner Visioning of Future Cover
The following maps were results of discussion during the Technical Advisory Committee meeting on the River to River Greenway. Project Partners were consulted on future cover types and development projects occurring within the River to River Greenway Corridor, and these plans informed the Future Cover types recommended for restoration in this NRMP (Figures 18A-I).
Figure A1: Valley Park
114
Figure A2: Dodge Nature Center- Lilly Property
115
Figure A3: Dodge Nature Center- Main/Marie Properties
116
Figure A4: Garlough and Marthaler Parks – West Saint Paul
117
Figure A5: Kaposia – South Saint Paul
118
Appendix B: Potential Ecological Impacts
A. Fire Suppression
The application or withdrawal of ecosystem functions, processes, and components will have varying affects. Sometimes these affects are subtle and sometimes they are overt. They can be acute or chronic. As is so oftentimes the case, there are complex interactions between species and amongst abiotic features that result in changes to or even shifts in ecosystems. For example, periodic fires were very important parts of natural processes prior to settlement. Fire kills small woody seedlings that might otherwise grow into mature trees and shrubs, thus keeping the understory of woodland and the ground layer of savannas open. The resulting open areas allow wildflowers, grasses, sedges, and ferns to thrive. When fires occurred historically, a very diverse and varied herbaceous ground layer flourished under woodlands and savannas, with hundreds of species occurring. The lack of fire over the last 150 years has negatively impacted native woodlands and savannas. In broad terms, woodlands have succeeded and are currently succeeding to forests, with savannas and prairies succeeding to woodlands.
B. Disease
1. Oak Wilt Oak wilt is a very serious fungal disease affecting oak trees that results in tree mortality. Once oak wilt fungus becomes established in one tree, it can move through common root systems to adjacent trees of the same species – red oaks to other red oaks, and white oaks to other white oaks – forming of an “infection center.” Infection centers spread rapidly through red oaks and slowly through white oaks. Bur oaks are intermediate in spread rate. Oak wilt can be controlled primarily through reducing and preventing the wounding of trees.
Overland spread of oak wilt by insects can be prevented by following these guidelines on when to prune and when to paint.
High Risk Period: Don't wound or prune during April, May and June. If trees are accidentally wounded, or pruning is unavoidable, cover the wounds immediately or within minutes using one of the preferred materials such as water-based paint or shellac. Low Risk Period: July through October. The tree’s vascular system begins shutting down during this period and appears to be better able to prevent fungal growth. However, infections may rarely occur due to weather conditions and insect populations. Covering wounds is optional. Safe Period: November through March. This is the preferred time for pruning since the fungal pathogen and insect vectors are inactive. Tree climbing irons should never be used on living oak trees, even during the “safe period.” Control Wounded oak trees (e.g., storm damage) are more susceptible to oak wilt, since beetles carrying fungal spores on their bodies are attracted to the scent of fresh wounds and become disease vectors.
119
To slow the underground spread of the fungus, root barriers are required. The most cost-effective method of creating root barriers is with a vibratory plow – a large, modified backhoe that pulls a vibrating blade through the ground. The blade typically extends five-feet deep into the soil, cutting roots as it moves. This procedure can be more or less disturbing to the soil and plant community, so deciding whether or not to root-cut should include an analysis of the costs and benefits. Also, vibratory plows will not operate on slopes that are too steep or soils that are too wet or too hard. It is not recommended on the steep slopes of a site, but rather on relatively broad, flat areas. Access for a vibratory plow must be considered and a 10-foot wide lane must be available for machine use.
An alternative method is chemical injections into individual trees, which is used in situations where trees are of high value and/or vibratory plowing is not an option. The downsides of using chemicals is that they are more expensive, they only treat individual trees, not groups of trees, and injections must be repeated every two years to be effective.
Most of the time, oak wilt will affect red or pin oaks, and not affect bur and white oaks. This situation is usually tolerable, since red and pin oaks are somewhat invasive in woodlands and savannas, and reducing tree density helps to restore woodlands and savannas. However, if the bur and white oaks become infected, control measures should be assessed as soon as possible. Sometimes there will be no good control options, due to steepness of slopes and presence of outcropping bedrock, etc. Removing wilting red and pin oaks (after control lines are in place, if feasible) is recommended, and properly disposing of the wood, since it can produce spore mats that can spread the disease to any nearby oaks. If there is a high amount of spores in an area, the likelihood of overland infection goes up, even for bur oaks and white oaks.
In some circumstances, monitoring and replanting, with a different tree species or a diversity of tree species is the most parsimonious solution.
2. Bur Oak Blight Bur Oak Blight (BOB) is a relatively new fungal disease recently discovered in Minnesota, and confirmed in several counties, including Ramsey and Hennepin; so it could potentially occur in Dakota County. This disease kills trees, but moves much more slowly than Oak Wilt. It only affects bur oaks, which is a concern in areas containing valuable bur oaks. BOB seems to be influenced by the frequency of rainfall, with more rainfall resulting in conditions more suitable for the disease. Symptoms occur on leaves during July and August, with large, brown, wedge-shaped necrotic lesions forming. Sometimes leaf veins also turn brown. One of the best ways to diagnose the presence of this disease is by examining bur oaks during the winter. Normal bur oaks drop all of their leaves during the winter. If the leaves are retained (even a few), this may indicate that the tree is infected with BOB. The disease overwinters in leaf petioles and spreads throughout the crown of the tree and potentially into other nearby trees over the span of several years. Mortality can result, but often trees that die are located next to ones that are unaffected, so the rate of spread is relatively slow. Control of this disease cannot be attained through raking and burning of fallen leaves, since many leaves remain attached to the tree over winter. However, periodic site-wide burning would reduce the spore load, since
120
many fallen leaves bear fungal spores. Researchers are supporting the use of fungicide injections since the protection provided by a single injection seems to last for several years.
3. Dutch Elm Disease Dutch Elm Disease (DED) is caused by a fungus, which like oak wilt, kills trees and is transmitted via root grafts from tree to tree. Even though it has been active in Minnesota for decades, it has not disappeared and continues to infect and kill many elm trees every year. This should not significantly affect site management, unless large trees die and create large canopy gaps. Gaps will induce a flush of understory plants, which may be dominated by buckthorn; so the sites should be monitored and managed appropriately. It may not be necessary to replace dead elms with new plantings, since native seedlings will sprout in the gaps. Researchers are searching for and propagating individual trees that are resistant to DED, which may restore lost American elms, as well as replace dying ash trees. Some DED-resistant elms are available now, but these are hybrids of Asian species, which may not be desirable, and are often difficult to obtain. It will be many years before native genotype, DED-resistant elms become commercially available.
C. Exotic and Over Populated Animals
1. Earth Worms No species of earthworms were native to the northern part of the U.S., since the last glaciation over 10,000 years ago. During the last century, “litter dwelling,” “soil dwelling,” and “deep burrowing” species of have been introduced – primarily as cast-off bait from anglers. Since then, they have become established and are very invasive in our native woodlands and forests. These species move into new areas in waves, one species following another, with ultimately the largest worms, night-crawlers, invading and becoming established. Where soils/systems have evolved without them, these earthworm species, contrary to popular opinion, are not good for the soil – tunneling into the top layers of soil and consuming large amounts of leaf litter (duff). The result of their activities is a net soil compaction and a marked increase in the duff turnover rate (the time it takes for the litter layer to be decomposed and turn into humus). Where there used to be several inches of the light, fluffy duff layer in native forests and woodlands, there is now only a trace of duff or often none at all, with compacted, bare soil often prevalent. This situation can result in increased erosion and nutrient runoff and lead to detrimental impacts for nearby lakes and streams. The lack of duff layer and soil compaction have negative ramifications on native forb populations, especially spring ephemerals that evolved under conditions that required thick, fluffy duff layers.
2. White-tail Deer Another factor of the woodland decline is over-browsing/over-grazing. Areas that were pastured by cattle or sheep received heavy grazing pressure that was previously unknown. Native grazers (primarily bison and antelope) would move around and not concentrate in one area for long periods of time. This allowed a very diverse forb layer to thrive. With the introduction of cattle in the last century and a half, that grazing pattern changed. Cattle will concentrate their grazing much longer and their impacts are much greater. Many native forbs simply cannot survive this type of grazing pressure.
121
Today, deer browsing, not grazing, has a more significant negative impact on woodlands. Deer populations in the Metropolitan Area have significantly increased over the last century, due to direct and indirect causes. The conversion of native forest, woodland, savanna, and prairie, first to agricultural land and then to more “suburbanized landscapes,” has favored deer. Forest fragmentation and managing for large gaps and residential lots, with linear woodlands, has greatly increased the suburban “edge effect.” Deer prefer areas with large amounts of long, linear forest/woodland edge that can be used as open areas to feed and wooded areas for cover. Active vegetation management for deer hunting by wildlife managers has also increased deer abundance. Deer prefer to feed on many native forbs, shrubs, and tree seedlings. Although deer will eat buckthorn and honeysuckle, they do not prefer them if given the choice. This combination of factors greatly increases the browsing pressure on the few natives that can survive earthworm and buckthorn infestations. The lack of oak regeneration, typical of such woodlands, is one result of these conditions.
The synergistic effect of four factors: fire suppression, earthworm infestation, buckthorn/ honeysuckle invasion, and high deer browsing pressure, has resulted in oak woodland decline. Although difficult to remediate, this decline can be improved and possibly reversed by implementing appropriate management activities.
3. Emerald Ash Borer Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) is a small beetle from Asia that was recently introduced to the United States, first showing up in Michigan and Maryland in the 1990s (via packing material), and now in Minnesota since 2009. EAB is a wood boring insect whose larvae feeds on the inner bark and phloem of ash trees and kills them. All native species of ash are susceptible, including black, green, red, and white, as well as many planted cultivars. Primary damage is caused by larvae as they feed and produce galleries within the phloem and outer sapwood. Tree mortality occurs within one to three years of initial attack. For more information on the life cycle, symptoms, and control of EAB, see the Minnesota Department of Agriculture website: www.mda.state.mn.us/en/plants/pestmanagement/eab.aspx.
Most experts agree that it is only a matter of time before EAB becomes widely established in Minnesota. When that time comes, all properties with ash trees will be affected. One small bit of hope for a natural control of EAB is cold temperatures. According to Lee Frelich, Director of the University of Minnesota Center for Forest Ecology, “winter mortality of EAB is definitely temperature dependent.” A recent study in Minnesota showed that five percent of insect larvae die at 0 degrees Fahrenheit (F), 34 percent at -10 degrees F, 7 percent at -20 degrees F, and 98 percent at -30 degrees F. However, since the larvae overwinter under the bark and are insulated, air temperatures need to be slightly colder to have the measured effect, and larvae need to be exposed for prolonged periods of time for mortality to occur.
Another potential method of biological control is with three species of Asian wasps. These wasps are tiny and stingless, about the size of a gnat. In their native China, they parasitize the larvae and eggs of emerald ash beetles, which reduce EAB populations over the long term. EAB will never be eradicated by wasps since there will always be a level of population that does not get parasitized, but the wasps have the potential to keep EAB in-check. 122
Proper sanitation is an important strategy for slowing the spread of EAB. Sanitation is the prompt removal and appropriate disposal of dead and dying ash trees that are symptomatic for EAB, when EAB is known to occur in the vicinity (within 15 miles). Unfortunately, this strategy does not usually eradicate the insect.
For more information on the life cycle, symptoms, and control of EAB, see the Minnesota Department of Agriculture website: www.mda.state.mn.us/en/plants/pestmanagement/eab.aspx.
D. Climate Change
With the advent of global climate change, conditions for plant communities are changing. By the end of the century, scientists believe that much of Minnesota will not be conducive for the growth of boreal pine or boreal mixed forests. The climate of the Twin Cities will be more like that surrounding Sioux Falls, South Dakota, or Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Minnesota is expected to receive the same average amounts of precipitation or slightly more, but yearly distributions will be different. More rain is expected during the winter months and less rain during the summer months. The result will be a sort of “savannafication” of the region.
By facilitating the movement of plants from more southerly and westerly regions of Minnesota, degradation of natural areas may be mitigated or averted. By promoting healthy oak woodland and oak savanna ecosystems, the potential negative shift from unsustainable land management expectations and serious loss of diversity can occur by focusing on strategies emphasizing resistance and resilience. Appropriate actions could mimic, assist, or enable ongoing natural adaptive processes, such as species dispersal and migration, population mortality and colonization, changes in species dominance and community composition, and changing disturbance regimes.
123
Appendix C: List of Noxious and Invasive Plants
Trees/Canopy MDA and Plant MN DNR Mode of Introduction Ecological Impact Control Methods Status Re-produces vigorously by root Native to lower Mechanical: Mowing and burning is only suckering and stump sprouting. Appalachian mountain temporarily effective because of the tree’s
Restricted slopes. It has been ability to re-sprout and spread vegetatively It Invades primarily disturbed habitats, Black Locust Noxious extensively planted for degraded wood, thickets, and old field Weed its nitrogen-fixing Chemical: Cut-stump treatment with and crowds out native vegetation of qualities and hard glyphosate; cut-stump or basal bark spray prairies, oak savannas, and upland wood. treatment around the stem with triclopyr forests, forming single species stands Although sold primarily as a boulevard tree it spreads its seeds into disturbed Mechanical: Pulling seedlings when soil is forest communities. moist Native to Europe and Norway Not Asia and widely sold in Maple Regulated It Invades native woodlands where it Chemical: Cut-stump treatment with nurseries in the U.S. out-competes sugar maple Wildflower glyphosate; cut-stump or basal bark spray diversity is reduced because it forms a treatment around stem with triclopyr dense canopy. A native of East Asia, it was introduced to the Mechanical: (1) Girdling in late spring, plants U.S. in the 1860s for its Seed germination rate is high and will die over one to two years (2) Prescribed hardiness, fast growth seedlings establish quickly in sparsely burn (3) Pulling seedlings Not and ability to grow in vegetated areas. Siberian Elm Regulated various moisture Chemical: Cut-stump treatment with conditions. It is still sold The tree can invade and dominate glyphosate; cut-stump or basal bark commercially as a disturbed prairies in just a few years. treatment around the stem with triclopyr shelterbelt and windbreak tree. Mechanical: Young seedlings may be pulled Tree-of-heaven reproduces both or dug up, preferably when the soil is moist. sexually (seeds) and asexually Cutting large seed producing female trees A native of eastern and (vegetative sprouts). Established trees should temporarily reduce spreading by this central China it is also produce numerous suckers from Restricted method. Tree of reported by the U.S. the roots and re-sprout vigorously from Noxious Heaven Forest Service as close cut stumps and root fragments. Weed Chemical: Use any of several readily to Minnesota as available general use herbicides, such as Wisconsin and Iowa. It is found in disturbed soils, fields, trichlopyr and imazapyr. The herbicides may roadsides, fencerows, and woodland be applied using foliar (to the leaves), basal and forest edges. bark, cut stump, or hack and squirt methods. Sub-Canopy/Shrub Plant MDA Status Mode of Introduction Ecological Threat Control Methods Mechanical: (1) Prescribed burning will set it Native of temperate A prolific seed producer and re-sprouts back but not eliminate it (2) Grubbing out China, Manchuria, and easily from the cut stump. small infestations Specially Japan, and introduced
Amur Maple Regulated to North America in the Displaces native shrubs and understory Chemical: (1) Cut-stump treatment with Plant 1860s. It is still sold trees in open woods, and shades out glyphosate; cut-stump or basal commercially as an native grasses and herbaceous plants in (2) Bark Spray treatment around the stem ornamental, and for a savanna habit. with triclopyr
wildlife and shelter belt planting. Mechanical Individuals: Small plants: if < 3/8 inches in diameter, remove by hand. If > 3/8 inches, use a hand toll to pull the shrub out.
Out-competes native plants for Large stems, > 2 inches, can be cut and nutrients, light, and moisture covered with a tin can or black plastic. First brought to Restricted Minnesota in the mid- Degrades wildlife habitat and threatens Chemical: Spray with a herbicide. Common Noxious 1800s as a very popular the future of woodlands. Contributes to Glyphosate (e.g., Round-up) will kill all Buckthorn Weed hedging material. erosion by shading out other plants actively growing vegetation. Triclopyr will kill that grow on the forest floor. Serves as broadleaf plants and will not harm grasses. a host to other pests, such as crown rust fungus and soybean aphid. Combination: Cut stems, and treat immediately with a herbicide containing triclopyr or glyphosate to prevent re- sprouting, best in late summer and throughout the fall. Aggressively invades wetlands and also Mechanical: Prescribed fire for seedlings and Introduced to North grows in upland habitat. Plants leaf-out pulling in small infestations Glossy or Restricted America as an early and retain leaves late into the fall, alder Noxious ornamental shrub, creating dense shade. Seeds have a Chemical: Cut-stump treatment with Buckthorn Weed often planted in laxative effect on birds that disperse glyphosate; cut-stump or basal bark spray hedgerows. them. treatment around the stem with triclopyr Mechanical: Pulling seedlings out in small infestations when the soil is moist. Bell’s, Introduced to North Prescribed burning will kill seedlings and top Seeds are readily dispersed by birds. Morrow’s, America as ornamental kill mature shrubs, repeated burns may be Honeysuckles shade out herbaceous Tartarian, shrubs and beneficial to needed to control infestations. ground cover and deplete soil nursery. Exotic and Amur wildlife. Commercial
Honeysuckle Honeysuckle propagation continues Chemical: Cut-stump treatment with Exotic honeysuckle replaces native s Restricted with many cultivars glyphosate; cut-stump or basal bark spray forest shrubs and herbaceous plants by noxious available from treatment around the stem with triclopyr. their invasive nature and early leaf-out. weed nurseries. Foliage spraying with glyphosate solution, where burning is not possible, prior to leaf out of the native species. Mechanical: Prescribed fire effectively kills Spreads vegetatively through horizontal the plant. Regular mowing of re-sprouts Certain Introduced to North lower branches that root freely. Seeds after initial removal and pulling plants in cultivars are America as an Japanese are dispersed by birds. small infestations. Specially ornamental, a living Barberry Regulated fence, and for wildlife It invades oak woodlands and oak Chemical: Cut-stump treatment with Plant and erosion control. savanna and prefers well-drained soils. glyphosate, cut-stump or basal bark spray treatment around the stem with triclopyr Tolerates shade and a variety of soil A native of southern Chemical: Cut-stump treatment with moisture conditions. It propagates Europe and western glyphosate; cut-stump or basal bark spray vegetatively by sprouts from buds Asia it was introduced treatment around the stem with triclopyr Russian Not formed in the root crown and by root on North America as a Olive Regulated suckers. ornamental and as a Biological: Natural disease affects Russian
windbreak plant in the olive to a great extent, such as Verticillium It quickly takes over streambanks, lake later 1800s. wilt and Phomopsis canker. shores, and prairies, choking out native
125
riparian habitat. It can grow on bare mineral soil which encouraged planting on mine spoils. Mechanical: Pull seedlings in small infestations when the soil is moist. Larger plants can be pulled using hand tools. Forms dense thickets which are painful
to walk through and reduces Chemical: Cut-stump treatment with Brought to the U.S. populations of native plants. glyphosate or triclopyr; cut-stump or basal from Japan in 1866 for bark spray treatment around the stem with Restricted rootstock for Reduces grazing quality by invading Multiflora triclopyr. Foliar spray with glyphosate or Noxious ornamental roses. pastures and grazing lands. Invades rose triclopyr solution. Weed Starting in the 1930s it forest edges, woodlands, oak savannas,
was widely planted in prairies, fields, pastures, and road- Biological: Rose rosette disease is a native the U.S. sides. virus spread by the eriophyid mite and can
be fatal to multifloral roses. However, it can
also infect other members of the rose family (e.g., native roses, plums, apples, and ornamental roses). Mechanical: Repeated prescribed burning, it A native of Siberia and will stump sprout but be weakened It invades savanna and woodland edge Manchuria, it is still sold eventually (2) Pulling Siberian Not environments where it competes with as an ornamental and peashrub regulated native shrubs. Invades disturbed for shelter belt and Chemical: Cut-stump treatment with grasslands as well. wildlife plantings glyphosate; cut-stump or basal bark treatment around the stem with triclopyr Grasses Plant MDA Status Mode of Introduction Ecological Threat Control Methods The wind dispersed seeds can spread the plant beyond landscaped areas. It Mechanical: Digging entire roots and re- also reproduces vegetatively by A native to parts of sprouts from root pieces rhizomes. Amur Silver Not eastern Asia, it is
grass Regulated currently grown as an Chemical: Cutting and spot treatment with It can form monocultures in wetter ornamental in the U.S. glyphosate and continued periodically until habitats, including marginal cropland, flowering water corridors, roadsides, railways, and pond edges. Mechanical: Common reed can be cut and the rhizomes can be dug up, but physical control is difficult because it can re-establish Common reed re-produces by from seed or remaining rhizomes. Frequent spreading rhizomes that from large mowing is sometimes effective on control of colonies. common reed. Non-native Restricted Species of Noxious Native to Europe Common reed has become a Chemical: It can be controlled using any of Common Weed destructive weed, quickly displacing several available general use herbicides such Reed desirable plant species such as wild as glyphosate. rice, cattails, and native wetland orchids. Biological: There is no known biological control for common reed, although goats are known to forage on many types of emergent vegetation.
126
Mechanical: (1) Consecutive burns spring or Invasion is associated with fall (2) Mowing mid-June and October to This Eurasian species disturbances, such as ditch building, reduce seed and encourage native species has been planted stream channeling, sedimentation, and (3) Frequent cultivation followed by fall Reed canary Not through-out the U.S. intentional planting. It out-competes seeding grass regulated since the 1800s for native species. forage and erosion Chemical: (1) Application of glyphosate control. Reed canary grass is a major threat to (Rodeo) (2) Preliminary research indicates natural wetlands. that fall chemical application may be most effective It is tolerant of a wide variety of conditions, but prefers moist soils and Imported in the late Mechanical: Late spring burns will decrease sunny locations. Smooth Not 1800s and is widely
brome regulated used as a forage grass Chemical: Mowing and then after a flush of Spreads into degraded prairies, and for erosion control growth spraying repeatedly with glyphosate roadsides and ditches and moist wooded areas. Forbs Plant MDA Status Mode of Introduction Ecological Threat Control Methods Birdsfoot trefoil forms dense mats Mechanical: Mowing frequently at a height choking and shading out most other of less than two inches for several years This European species vegetation. (which will be stressful to native plants, as has been introduced to well). the U.S. and Canada for Birdsfoot Not Prescribed burns increase seed livestock forage and Trefoil regulated germination making it trouble-some in Chemical: Spot spraying affected areas (after erosion control along native prairies. It grows best in the re-greening from a burn or mowing), with roadsides. It is still sold Midwest and is most problematic in clopyralid plus a surfactant plus dye (this will commercially. prairies and disturbed open areas, such also effect native plants of the sunflower as road-sides. and the pea family). Invades natural areas and suppress other plant species by competing for soil moisture and nutrients, light, and Mechanical: Mowing or hand pulling pods as Prohibited other environmental factors. Hatching they are forming minimizes seed production; Noxious Native to France, Italy, caterpillars can’t develop on this plant. dig out isolated plants and dispose properly. Weed Portugal, and Spain, Black (Eradicate and is believed to have Swallow- It is found in disturbed areas such as Chemical: It can be effectively controlled List) and arrived in North wort highway, rail, utility, and other using any readily available general use Early America as a transportation corridors. herbicides such as glyphosate in late Detection horticultural plant. summer and fall. Repeat applications of Species According to the USDA Plant database, necessary. this species is not present or has a limited distribution in Minnesota. Plants reproduce by seed, short Mechanical: Hand pull small infestations; rhizomes, and root fragments. Once disposal of rhizomes and root fragments is established, it spreads rapidly. important to prevent re-occurrences. Use Not Native to Europe and caution not to spread green plant segments regulated This plant tolerates a wide range of soil British Asia, and has been in composted trash. and Early types and is found primarily in moist Yellow-head introduced into North Detection habitats, including river and stream America. Chemical: It can be effectively controlled Species. banks, marshes, moist meadows, using any of several readily available general ditches, wet grasslands, and wet use herbicides such as Dicamba, clopyralid, woods. triclopyr plus clopyralid, and glyphosate.
127
According to the USDA Plant database, this species is not present or with a limited distribution in Minnesota Mechanical: Pulling or mowing and dispose off-site to avoid re-seeding. Bull thistle is distasteful to most grazing animals, giving the thistle a competitive Chemical: Spot-spraying with glyphosate, Native to Europe and edge. triclopyr or metsulfuron when plants are in Not Asia and introduced rosette stage (first year) in the fall when Bull Thistle Regulated into the U.S. in the early It colonizes primarily in disturbed areas non-target plants are less susceptible. 1800s such as pastures, roadsides, and ditch banks, but also in hayfields and Biological: Thistlehead-feeding weevil and disturbed prairies. rosette-feeding weevil. Caution: There have been observations of weevils feeding on native thistles. It competes well against less aggressive plants in gravelly and sandy soils; its Mechanical: Frequent mowing will weaken The plant was capability to spread vegetatively is the plant introduced into North largely responsible for its invasive America as an Butter and Not behavior. Chemical: Spray with 2,4-D broadleaf ornamental from the Eggs regulated herbicide steppes of Europe and Plants have the ability to adapt to Asia in the 1700s, and is various site conditions; it grows along Biological: Two European beetles feed on still sold commercially. roadsides, railroad yards, waste places, buds, flowers, and seed capsules dry fields, pastures, and croplands. Once it has established itself it spreads Mechanical: Repeated pulling and mowing quickly replacing native plants, will weaken roots; especially mow when diminishing diversity. It grows in flower buds are just about to open. Late circular patches spreading vegetatively spring burns (May/June) are most through horizontal roots which can detrimental, but also stimulate seed Canada Thistle occurs Prohibited spread twelve feet in one season. germination; burn consecutively for three throughout the Canada Noxious years. northern U.S. from Thistle Weed Canada thistle invades natural areas northern California to (Control List) such as prairies, savannas, glades, and Chemical: Spot application with glyphosate Maine. dunes, if some degree of disturbance or with selective herbicide clopyralid, or already exists. It also invades wet areas metsulfuron. with fluctuating water levels such as streambanks, sedge meadows and wet Biological: Stem weevil, bud weevil and stem prairies. gall fly are commercially available. Numerous tufted seeds. Spreads vegetatively forming new plants from Was introduces to the Grazing: One source claims that sheep graze even small root fragments. Tansy is Prohibited U.S. from Europe for it and are not affected. distasteful and even toxic to some Common noxious medicinal and grazing animals. Tansy weed horticultural purposes. Chemical: Spot-spraying with selective
(Control List) It is still cultivated in broadleaf herbicide such as clopyralid, Common along roadsides and gardens. metsulfuron, or 2,4-D abandoned farmyards in northern Minnesota. Prohibited Native to Europe and It frequent use in dried flower Mechanical: Cutting or roots below ground Noxious temperate Asia. arrangements may aid in its dispersal; and removal of as much as possible will limit Common Weed Common teasel may for example common teasel often sprouting. Mowing of the flowering stalks Teasel (Eradicate have been introduced occurs in and near cemeteries. It also can disrupt seed production. List) and to North America as commonly disperses along roads and
128
Early early as the 1700s, and waterways. It occupies sunny and open Thermal: Prescribed fire can be used to Detection was likely cultivated for sites such as riparian areas, meadows, increase competition from native warm Species and producing wool or as an grassland, savannas, forest openings, season grasses, if they are present. ornamental. and disturbed sites. Chemical: Herbicides such as metsulfuron methyl, clopyralid, triclopyr, or 2, 4-D amine work on teasel at the rosette stage. Both vetches have Their week stems grow two to three naturalized in the U.S. feet high and clamber over other and are grown for vegetation, smothering it. Mechanical: Pulling small infestations before forage, green fertilizer Cow Vetch seeds develop, to free native plants. Not or cover crop. They They grow best on the dry sandy soils of and Hairy regulated occur through-out thee disturbed fields and thickets. Both Vetch Chemical: Spray with selective herbicide eastern and vetches are not a threat to healthy such as clopyralid. Midwestern states native prairies at this time, but can be a extending into southern problem in prairie re-construction and Canada. on disturbed sites. Ground ivy grows best in semi-shaded to shaded moist soils and forms a dense Mechanical: Repeated pulling can control Ground ivy is found in mat, smothering other vegetation. small infestations most of the world with Roots grow from each leaf node as it Creeping Not a similar climate as creeps along the ground surface while Chemical: Spraying with glyphosate will also Charlie regulated Minnesota, and is also spreading vegetatively. affect native plants. Selective herbicide 2,4- known to have D or Dicamba (Banvel) will control it but is medicinal properties. It is a common garden weed and grows hard on trees. mostly in disturbed degraded places. Cut-leaved teasel is an aggressive species Mechanical: Individual rosettes can be native throughout removed using a dandelion digger; removal Teasels produce massive amounts of central and southern of the entire root is essential to eliminate re- seed that can remain viable in the soil Europe and Asia. sprouting. Flowering stalks may be cut down for several years and have germination Introduction was once the plant has initiated flowering, but if rates as high as 86%. It forms extensive probably made by early cut too soon plant may send up new mon-cultures. Prohibited settlers. It was used as flowering stalks. Cutting flowering stems
Noxious an ornamental, and may need to be repeated for several years to Teasels grow in open sunny habitats, Weed toys were made from control teasel. ranging from wet to dry conditions. Cut-leaved (Eradicate the flowering heads Optimal conditions seem to be mesic Teasel List) and Teasels were also used Thermal: Late spring burns may be useful fir habitats. Early commercially for controlling teasel before it becomes dense.
Detection combing wool. Once an area is densely covered with teasel Teasel sometimes occurs in high quality Species Teasel has spread rosettes, fire does not move well through an prairies, savannas, seeps, moist forest rapidly in the last 20 to infested area. opening and sedge meadows, though 30 years, probably roadsides, dumps, cemeteries and aided by construction Chemical: Foliar application of herbicides is heavily disturbed areas are the most of the interstate effective and useful when mechanical common habitats. highway system, where treatments are not feasible. Glyphosate or dispersal is aided by 2,4-D should be applies to the rosette state. mowing equipment. Prohibited Dalmatian toadflax is capable of A plant native from Manual: Hand pulling, mowing, and tillage Noxious forming colonies through adventitious Dalmatian central Europe east to can be effective in preventing seed Weed buds from creeping root systems. It can toadflax central Asia; originally production and starving toadflax roots, (Eradicate rapidly colonize disturbed or cultivated introduced into North thereby controlling infestation under certain List) and ground to out-compete desirable native
129
Early America as an plant species and decrease plant conditions only if done repeatedly and/or in Detection ornamental plant. species diversity. combination with other control methods. Species; it is reported in It is typically found along disturbed Chemical: Effective herbicides for toadflax Minnesota sites, road-sites, clear-cuts, railroad include chlorsulfuron, Dicamba, picloram, right-of-ways, fences, croplands, and imazapic. It may be necessary to retreat pastures, and rangelands. infestations every three to four years. Triclopyr and glyphosate do not effectively control this plant. Mechanical: Cutting in areas of light infestations. Flowering stem cutting at ground level. Seed are viable in the soil for five years.
Invaded sites undergo a decline in This European exotic Thermal: Prescribed burning if there is native herbaceous cover within ten Restricted occurs now in 27 mid- enough fuel to carry the flames Garlic years. Noxious western and mustard Weed northeastern states, Chemical: Spot application of 2% glyphosate Garlic mustard spreads into high quality and in Canada. in early spring or late fall when native plants woodlands upland and floodplain are dormant. forests, not just into disturbed areas.
Biological: Control insects are not available at this time. Mechanical: Clear above ground leaf and Giant hogweed is an aggressive stem material by hand; remove ground competitor because of its size and rapid material of roots and seeds. growth, reducing the amount of
Prohibited suitable habitat available for wildlife. It Chemical: It can effectively controlled using Noxious dies back in winter months, leaving any of serval readily available general use Weed bare ground that can lead to an Native to Europe herbicides such as glyphosate early in the Giant (Eradicate increase in soil erosion on riverbanks introduces as an season when leaves are less than two feet Hogweed List) and and steep slopes. ornamental or spice tall and before the plant flowers and sets Early seed. Detection This species is common is common
Species along railroads, roadsides, rights-of- Biocontrol: Cattle and pigs are cited as way, vacant lots. Streams, rivers, u possible biocontrol agents. Both eat giant uncultivated or waste lands, and hogweed without apparent harm. Trampling agricultural areas. also damages plant. Caution: Toxic to humans and animals. Wear long sleeves and gloves to avoid prolonged skin contact
Prohibited It grows in single species stands and is a Mechanical: Pulling and cultivation Grecian Noxious Native to southeastern potential threat to savanna and prairie foxglove Weed Europe’s scrub oak communities. Chemical: Spot spraying with glyphosate, or (Eradicate forests selective herbicide metsulfuron List) It can be found in Washington County in the vicinity of the St. Croix River along sunny and semi-shaded road ditches. It can be a nuisance in prairie re- Mechanical: Mowing and pulling Hoary Not construction but declines as prescribed Native to Europe alyssum regulated burns are administered. It displaces Thermal: Prescribed burning native species particularly in dry
130
prairies and sand blow-outs where vegetation is sparse.
It is most abundant in dry areas, fields, and waste places. Although often found in areas of partial Mechanical: Pull or mow prior to flowering Not to full shade, it can tolerate a wide
Japanese Regulated range of light intensity. Bristle-covered Chemical: Treat foliage with glyphosate, Hedge but Early Native to Asia seeds are easily dispersed by animals. triclopyr, or metsulfuron methyl in early Parsley Detection spring or on plants that are re-sprouting Species Invades forest edges, fields, fence rows, after having been cut. roadsides, and disturbed areas. Prohibited Grows so rapidly that it can smother Noxious other plants. It can form dense patches Mechanical: Repeated hand-pulling is an Weed that out-compete and displace native option to control small infestations. (Eradicate Native to eastern Asia vegetation. Repeated cutting with tolls such as weed- List) and and were introduced as whip, brush-cutter or mower is another Japanese Early an ornamental in the Prefers full or partial sun in riparian option for controlling small infestations. Hops Detection mid to late 1880s, and areas, grasslands, hay fields, and Species; escaped cultivation. roadsides. It will invade disturbed Chemical: Repeated foliar application of a limited habitats, but can also colonize systemic herbicide containing glyphosate distribution undisturbed sites like forest edges and can be effective. in fields. Minnesota Spreads vegetatively to form dense thickets that suppress native Mechanical: Digging plants is effective for vegetation. It tolerates full shade, high small infestations and in sensitive areas. Introduced in the U.S. temperatures, high salinity, and Specially Pulling of juvenile plants is also effective. Japanese in the late 1800s for drought. Regulated Knotweed ornamental purposes Plant Chemical: Cut stems and treat with and erosion control. It can pose a significant threat to glyphosate and triclopyr. Foliar spray in large riparian areas, such as disturbed stream species populations. sides, lakeshores and other low lying areas, where it can rapidly colonize. Thermal and Chemical: Prescribed burning in conjunction with repeated treatment with Explosive dispersal from a seed capsule glyphosate plus 2,4,-D (one pint per acre up to fifteen feet; high germination rate; seeds remain viable in the soil for Chemical: Imazapic (Plateau): Apply 1 to 1.3 Native to Europe and seven years. Tolerant of a wide range of ounces/gallon water plus 1 ounce/gallon Prohibited Asia it occurs across habitats, from dry to moist, and from water methylated seed oil (MSO) for spot Noxious much of the northern sunny to semi-shade. treatment of 8-12 ounces per acre for spot Leafy Spurge Weed U.S. in the grasslands treatment of 8 to 12 ounces per acre plus (Control and savannas of the Rapidly invades primarily non-cropland MSO in late September through October List0 Great Plains. disturbed environments, such as when native plants have gone dormant and roadsides. Is a threat primarily to moist leafy spurge has a second flush of growth. and dry prairies and savannas, quickly displacing native plants. Biological: Root-boring beetle, four root- mining beetles, shoot-tip gall midge; grazing goats. Prohibited Native to Europe and Grows aggressively and forms dense Mechanical: Combination of hand-pulling Meadow Noxious likely a fertile hybrid patches of vegetation. and digging is an option for small Knapweed Weed between black and infestations
131
(Eradicate brown knapweeds. It Out-competes other plants in pastures, List) may have been hayfields, meadows, riparian areas, Chemical: Herbicides are a very effective introduces to western forest margins, and rights-of-way. management tool North America for forage, but is not palatable and has low nutritional value Mechanical: Pulling or mowing in early bud It is distasteful to grazing animals, or bloom stage, then dispose off-site giving it a competitive edge. It generally A native of western does not pose a threat to high quality Chemical: Spot spraying with glyphosate, Prohibited Europe which was areas. It colonizes primarily in disturbed triclopyr or metsulfuron when plants are in Musk or Noxious introduces to the U.S. in areas. the rosette stage (first year) in the fall when Nodding Weed the early 1800s, and non-target plants are less susceptible Thistle (Control List) was declared an It grows best in disturbed areas such as agricultural pest. pastures, road-sides, and ditch banks, Biological: Thistlehead-feeding weevil and but also in hayfields and disturbed rosette-feeding weevil. Caution: There are prairies. observations of weevils feeding on native thistles. Mechanical: Hand pulling timed to prevent flower and/or seed production is Prohibited It is not known how it This species can tolerate a variety of recommended. Noxious was introduces to North conditions and has been reported in
Weed America from Eurasia. It areas such as road-sides, vacant lots, as Thermal: In spring to top-kill basal rosettes (Control List) was first reported in well as yards and gardens. and seedlings. Follow-up treatment with and Early New England in 1916. Narrowleaf herbicide after seedling germination to Detection The first report in Moist woodlands, forested areas, and bittercress further slow progress of infestation. Species; Minnesota was in 2008. on margins of thickets is its preferred
limited By 2009, multiple habitat. River bottom sites, Herbicide: Applications to forage with distribution discrete infestations streambanks, and other moist areas are formulations of triclopyr, metsulfuron- in were reported in very good habitat and provide avenues methyl, or imazapic. Use glyphosate or 2,4-D Minnesota several counties. for dispersal. after native plants have entered dormancy and narrowleaf bittercress is still active. Its greatest density occurs on newly disturbed sites, as it is am early succession plant. There is a loss of plant diversity in infected areas, and it Chemical: Most effective control is with colonizes rapidly forming a solid mat of Orange Not clopyralid or 2,4-D in the rosette stage. A Native of Europe rosettes. The plant has allelopathic Hawkweed regulated surfactant should be added to the mix to effect on neighboring plants. ensure herbicide adherence to the hairy leaf.
It invades northern moist prairies, forest openings, abandoned fields, clear-cuts, and roadsides. Spread vegetatively with horizontal stems growing below the soil surface, Probably introduced as called rhizomes, forming roots and an ornamental from producing new plants. It is the only Not Europe that escaped to Mechanical: Repeated pulling of small Oxeye daisy large white daisy that has escaped regulated become one of the infestations is effective. gardens. most common roadside
weeds. It frequently invades disturbed fields and meadows, competing with native
132
plants, especially under grazing pressure. Widely spreading roots penetrating five to ten feet, producing new plants from small root pieces. Spreads vegetatively Mechanical: Cutting and pulling Perennial Not Common throughout as well as through wind-born seeds. Sow thistle regulated the U.S. and Minnesota Chemical: Spraying with glyphosate or It colonizes in cultivated fields, triclopyr, a selective broadleaf herbicide. pastures, woodlands, roadsides and gardens. Mechanical: Hand pull while wearing gloves. Use a shovel to cut the taproot 1 – 2 inches Highly Poisonous: Do not ingest any below ground, and then remove the plant. parts of the plant, because it is Mow plants after flowers emerge, but Native to Europe, poisonous to humans and livestock. Use before seeds form. Repeatedly mow in northern Africa, and gloves when handling the plant. Poison future years. First year plants may be too Not western Asia. It was Hemlock low to the ground to be impacted by regulated introduced to North Spreads by seeds and is present in most mowing. Mowing reduces seed set by America as a garden states in the continental U.S. Can grow removing the flowering stalks of second- plant. in dense patches and displaces species year-plants. along streams, wet areas, fields, and
disturbed habitats such as roadsides. Chemical: Foliar spray of triclopyr, glyphosate, or 2,4-D. Mechanical: Cutting of flower spikes can be Native of Europe and an effective control of seed production. Asia, it was introduced Hand pulling or digging of plants can also be to the east coast of effective but care should be taken to remove The plant can form dense, North America in the entire root system. impenetrable stands which are 1800s. unsuitable as cover, food, or nesting Prohibited Chemical: Herbicide formulations labeled for sites for a wide range of native wetland Purple Noxious Seeds escape from use on rights-of-way and near water: 2,4-D, animals. loosestrife Weed gardens and nurseries glyphosate, imazamox, metsulfuron-methyl
(Control List) into wetlands, lakes and + aminopyralid, triclopyr, imazapyr, and Purple loosestrife invades marshes and rivers. Once in aquatic aminocyclopyrachlor. lakeshores, replacing cattails and other systems, seeds are wetland plants. easily spread by moving Biological: Two leaf feeding beetles of the water and wetland same genus (Galerucella calmariensis and G. animals. pusilla) have been very effective in Minnesota. Barbed small seeds, promote dispersal by animals and wind. Restricted Native of Europe and Queen Mechanical: Hand pulling or mowing in mid Noxious Asia it now occurs Anne’s lace It invades disturbed dry prairies, to late summer before seed set. Weed through-out the U.S. abandoned fields, waste places, and roadsides. Mechanical: Early detection and pulling (2) Native of Europe and Mowing as needed so plants can’t go to seed Asia which spreads Caution: Wear long sleeves and gloves, Prohibited (3) Prescribed burning, only very hot burns Spotted rapidly to artificial can be an irritant to humans. Noxious are effective which may also damage plants knapweed corridors, gravel pits, Weed agricultural fields Especially threatens dry prairie, oak and (Control List) Chemical: Apply selective herbicide margins and overgrazed pine barrens, dunes and sandy ridges. clopyralid during bud growth in early June pastures for best results. Use caution in quality
133
natural areas, because this herbicide affects plants in the sunflower and pea family
Biological: Seed-head weevils, root-boring weevils, and seed-head flies are commonly used. Mechanical: (1) Hand pulling is effective on small infestations when the soil is moist(2) Strong tap root and seeds stay viable in Cutting, before flowers emerge Native to Europe and the soil for 30 years. was brought to the U.S. Thermal: Prescribed burning by a hot early in the 1600s and still White and Sweet clover invades and degrades complete first year burn followed by a hot Not used today as a forage Yellow native grasslands by overtopping and late spring second-year burn (repeat after regulated crop and soil enhancer clover shading native sun-loving plants two years) predominately in the thereby reducing diversity. It grows Great Plains and the abundantly on disturbed lands, Chemical: Spray emergent seedlings with Upper Midwest roadsides and abandoned fields. 2,4-D amine or MecAmine after a fall burn, or after a spring burn before native vegetation emerges. Warning: Avoid skin contact with the toxic sap of the plant by wearing gloves, Mechanical: (11) Do nothing in healthy long sleeves and long plants. The juice prairies, natives can sometimes out- of the wild parsnip on the skin, in the compete the parsnip (2) Hand pulling and presence of sunlight, can cause a rash, removing of plants (3) Cut the plant below A native of Europe and blistering and discoloration of the skin. the root crown before seeds set, and Prohibited Asia that has escaped Wild parsnip remove the cut plant (4) Mow or cut the Noxious cultivation, it is grown Well-established prairies are not likely base of the flowering stem and remove Weed as a root vegetable, and to be invaded by wild parsnip, but it (Control List) is common through-out readily moves into disturbed habitats, Chemical: Use sparingly in quality habitats the U.S. along edges and/or in disturbed (2); spot application with glyphosate and patches. It invades slowly, but once selective metsulfuron after a prescribed population builds, it spreads rapidly and burn, parsnip is one of the first plants to can severely modify open dry, moist, green-up and wet-moist environments. Mechanical: Dig to eliminate vegetative spreading.
Regulated Eurasian plant that is Competed with native shore-land Chemical: Spray with glyphosate (Rodeo, for Yellow Iris Invasive still sold commercially vegetation. aquatic areas) Species for use in garden pools
Note: A permit is required to work in public waters. Mechanical: Plants can be pulled, tilled, or mowed before bloom. Spread is by seed and each seed head Prohibited can produce 35 to 80 seeds. Noxious Thermal: Controlled burns are successful, if Yellow Star Origin in Mediterranean Weed repeated every 3 years. Thistle region of Europe Chokes out native plants, reducing (Eradicate biodiversity, and wildlife habitat and List) Chemical: Use any readily available chemical forage. herbicide.
134
Biological: Six biological control insects have been released in the U.S and available for use.
Grazing: Sheep, goats, and cattle graze on yellow starthistle in early spring, before the flower’s spines develop. Vines Plant MDA Status Mode of Introduction Ecological Threat Control Methods Mechanical: For small populations, pull up or Highly invasive in the eastern U.S., vines dig plants. Regular weekly mowing will Prohibited Seed is moved by using girdle trees as they climb to dominate control the plant, but less frequent mowing Noxious Oriental fruiting stems in the canopy and shade the understory, may result in suckering from the roots. Weed Bittersweet flowering reducing and preventing the growth of (Eradicate arrangements. other species. At times, the weight of Chemical: Cut stems and apply herbicide List) vines in the canopy can break tees. (such as glyphosate or triclopyr) to the cut stem.
135
Appendix D: Methods for Controlling Exotic, Invasive Plant Species
A. Trees and Shrubs
Common Buckthorn, Tartarian Honeysuckle, Siberian Elm, and Black Locust are some of the most common woody species likely to invade native woodlands or prairies in Minnesota. Buckthorn and honeysuckle are European species that escaped urban landscapes and invaded woodlands in many parts of the country. They are exceedingly aggressive and, lacking natural disease and predators, can out-compete native species. Invasions result in a dense, impenetrable brush thicket that reduces native species diversity.
Siberian elm, native to eastern Asia, readily grows, especially in disturbed and low-nutrient soils with low moisture. Seed germination is high and seedlings establish quickly in sparse vegetation. It can invade and dominate disturbed areas in just a few years. Black locust is native to the southeastern United States and the very southeastern corner of Minnesota. It has been planted outside its natural range, and readily invades disturbed areas. It reproduces vigorously by root suckering and can form a monotypic stand.
1. Chemical Control The most efficient way to remove woody plants that are half inch or more in diameter is to cut the stems close to the ground and treat the cut stumps with herbicide immediately after they are cut, when the stumps are fresh and the chemicals are most readily absorbed. Failure to treat the stumps will result in resprouting, creating much greater removal difficulty.
In non-freezing temperatures, a glyphosate herbicide such as Roundup can be used for most woody species. It is important to obtain the concentrated formula and dilute it with water to achieve 10% glyphosate concentration. Adding a marker dye can help to make treated stumps more visible. In winter months, an herbicide with the active ingredient triclopyr must be used. Garlon 4 is a common brand name and it must be mixed with a penetrating oil, such as diluent blue. Do not use diesel fuel, as it is much more toxic in the environment and for humans.
Brush removal work can be done at any time of year except during spring sap flow, but late fall is often ideal because buckthorn retains its leaves longer than other species and is more readily identified. Cutting can be accomplished with loppers or handsaws in many cases. Larger shrubs may require brush cutters and chainsaws, used only by properly trained professionals.
For plants in the pea family, such as black locust, an herbicide with the active ingredient clopyralid can be more effective than glyphosate. Common brand names for clopyralid herbicides are Transline, Stinger, and Reclaim.
In the year following initial cutting and stump treatment, there will be a flush of new seedlings as well as resprouting from some of the cut plants. Herbicide can be applied to the foliage of these plants. Fall is the best time to do this, when desirable native plants are dormant and when the plant is pulling resources from the leaves down into the roots. Glyphosate and Krenite (active ingredient – fosamine ammonium) are the most commonly used herbicides for foliar application. Krenite prevents bud formation so the plants do not 136
grow in the spring. This herbicide can be effective, but results are highly variable. Glyphosate or a triclopyr herbicide such as Garlon can also be used. Glyphosate is non-specific and will kill anything green, while triclopyr targets broadleaf plants and does not harm graminoids. All herbicides should be applied by licensed applicators and should not be applied on windy days. Care should be taken to avoid application to other plants. “Weed Wands” or other devices that allow dabbing of the product can be used rather than spraying, especially for stump treatment.
Undesirable trees and shrubs can also be destroyed without cutting them down. Girdling is a method suitable for small numbers of large trees. Bark is removed in a band around the tree, just to the outside of the wood. If girdled too deeply, the tree will respond by re-sprouting from the roots. Girdled trees die slowly over the course of one to two years. Girdling should be done in late spring to mid-summer when sap is flowing and the bark easily peels away from the sapwood. Herbicide can also be used in combination with girdling for a more effective treatment.
Basal bark herbicide treatment is another effective control method. A triclopyr herbicide such as 10% Garlon 4, mixed with a penetrating oil, is applied all around the base of the tree or shrub, taking care so that it does not run off. If the herbicide runs off it can kill other plants nearby. More herbicide is needed for effective treatment of plants that are four inches or more in diameter.
2. Mechanical Control Three mechanical methods for woody plant removal are hand pulling (only useful on seedlings and only if few in number), weed wrenching (using a weed wrench tool to pull stems of one to two inches diameter), and repeated cutting. Pulling and weed wrenching can be done any time when the soil is moist and not frozen. The disadvantage to both methods is that they are somewhat time-consuming, as the dirt from each stem should be shaken off. Weed wrenching also creates a great deal of soil disturbance and should not be used on steep slopes or anywhere that desirable native forbs are growing. The soil disturbance also creates opportunities for weed germination. This method is probably best used in areas that have very little desirable native plant cover.
Repeated cutting consists of cutting the plants (by hand or with a brush cutter) at critical stages in its growth cycle. Cutting in mid spring (late May) intercepts the flow of nutrients from the roots to the leaves. Cutting in fall (about mid-October) intercepts the flow of nutrients from the leaves to the roots. Depending on the size of the stem, the plants typically die within three years, with two cuttings per year.
3. Stems, Seedlings and Re-sprouts Prescribed burning is the most efficient, cost effective, and least harmful way to control very small stems, seedlings, and re-sprouts of all woody plants. It also restores an important natural process to fire-dependent natural communities (oak forests, for example). Burning can only be accomplished if adequate fuel (leaf litter) is present and can be done in late fall or early spring, depending on conditions at the site.
If burning is not feasible, critical cutting in the spring is also effective, though it can impact desirable herbaceous plants as well. Foliar (leaf) application of a bud-inhibitor herbicide (Krenite) during fall is also effective. This method can also affect non-target species, though most natives will be dormant by that time. 137
4. Disposal The easiest and most cost-effective method to handle large amounts of brush is usually to stack it and burn it in winter. In areas where brush is not dense, it can be cut up into smaller pieces and left on the ground where it will decompose in one to three years. This method is especially useful on slopes to reduce erosion potential. Small brush piles can also be left in the woods as wildlife cover. Where there is an abundance of larger trees, cut trees may be hauled and chipped and used for mulch or as a biofuel. Alternatively, the wood can be cut and used for firewood, if a recipient can be found.
B. Forbs
1. Canada Thistle While native thistles are not generally problematic, exotics such as Canada thistle are clone-forming perennials that can greatly reduce species diversity in old fields and restoration areas (Hoffman and Kearns 1997). A combination of chemical and mechanical control methods may be needed at a site. Chemical control is most effective when the plants are in the rosette stage and least effective when the plants are flowering. A broadleaf herbicide such as 2,4-D is appropriate to minimize damage to native grasses. It is most effective when applied 10 to 14 days before the flowering stems bolt. It is applied at rate of two to four pounds per acre using a backpack or tractor-mounted sprayer or in granular form. Dicamba could also be used, with the advantages that it can be applied earlier in the spring at a rate of one pound per acre. Plants that do not respond to treatment or that are more widely dispersed could be controlled mechanically.
Mechanical control, involving several cuttings per year for three or four years, can reduce an infestation, if timed correctly. The best time to cut is when the plants are just beginning to bud because food reserves are at their lowest. If plants are cut after flowers have opened, the cut plants should be removed because the seed may be viable. Plants should be cut at least three times throughout the season. Late spring burns can also discourage this species, but early spring burns can encourage it. Burning may be more effective in an established prairie, where competition from other species is good, than in an old field, where vegetation may not be as dense.
2. Wild Parsnip
Treat wild parsnip similar to Canada thistle. These are the recommendations listed by MN DNR:
Mechanical
• Do nothing in healthy prairies, natives can sometimes outcompete the parsnip • Hand pulling and removing of plants • Cut the plant below the root crown before seeds set, and remove the cut plant • Mow or cut the base of the flowering stem and remove Chemical
• Use sparingly in quality habitats
138
• Spot application with glyphosate or selective metsulfuron after a prescribed burn; parsnip is one of the first plants to green up This plant can be very irritating to the skin for some people. It contains a toxin that reacts with sunlight to produce welts on the skin, similar to poison ivy. The welts can itch and get infected. Use gloves and long sleeves when handling this plant.
3. Sweet Clover
White and yellow sweet clovers are very aggressive annual species that increase with fire. Sweet clover can be eliminated by using a treatment that eliminates smooth brome. However, it is a common plant in agricultural areas, so if restoration is implemented, the area should be surveyed for this species on an annual basis. Individual plants or small populations can be removed by hand-pulling. If seed production occurs, prodigious amounts of seed could be spread at the site.
C. Reed Canary Grass
These recommendations are taken from Reinhardt, C. H. and Galatowitsch, S. M. 2004. Best Management Practices for the Invasive Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) in Wetland Restorations.
1. General recommendations for Reed Canary Grass (RCG) control Dense populations that currently exist on-a site will need to be removed for native species to establish. In addition to the existing vegetation, in areas where RCG has been established for multiple years the RCG seed bank may be as high as 1200 seeds per square meter. Because this density of the RCG seed bank presents competition for any planting of native species, it must be considered in the NRMP. Seeds near the surface will germinate when the RCG canopy is removed. Subsequent herbicide applications will remove these seedlings, and burning/ herbicide treatments will deplete the seed bank in this way. For the RCG seed bank to deplete to levels that will not prevent native species establishment, RCG control will likely need to take place over several growing seasons. Minimize disturbance of the soil to prevent turning up additional RCG seed in these areas. While areas are undergoing herbicide treatment, large areas of exposed soil will need to be stabilized, e.g. through the use of stabilization blankets.
Herbicide applications are a major part of the plan to control RCG. A glyphosate-based herbicide is recommended because 1) it is relatively non-toxic, 2) its effect on RCG has been demonstrated, and 3) it is widely available and easy to apply. To maximize glyphosate herbicide effectiveness, apply herbicide in the later season, after late August, to ensure translocation of the herbicide to rhizomes (and therefore inducing rhizome mortality). Apply glyphosate herbicide at the rate and concentration specified by the label for weedy perennial grasses; this will differ with respect to the glyphosate-based product chosen.
RCG -dominated areas will require herbicide control over several growing seasons. Removal of RCG will result in areas of temporarily exposed soil that are subject to erosion. Implementing control on selected management units separately through time will minimize erosion-related problems at a site. Further discoveries about best management practices may result from observing the implementation of this plan over time, and the plan may be modified according to lessons learned during the management process. 139
For RCG-dominated areas, a broad-scale herbicide application is recommended, as damage to non-target species within these management units does not need to be considered. Apply herbicide in late August and later as this application timing maximizes translocation of the herbicide to the rhizomes, ensuring maximum rhizome mortality, which is crucial to control of RCG. Two herbicide applications can be implemented during this window if necessary.
After the standing RCG vegetation is killed in the first year of treatment, a heavy layer of thatch will remain. A controlled burn will be applied to remove thatch and encourage germination of RCG from the seed bank in the interests of reducing RCG seed bank density. Subsequent herbicide applications will control this flush from the seed bank. A late fall burn is recommended to remove thatch (spring burns may encourage growth from rhizome-based shoots).
Even after two years of effective herbicide application, RCG will recolonize, largely from the seed bank and from incoming propagules, and outcompete new native vegetation from a restoration seeding. Therefore, three years of herbicide application are recommended.
For areas with native species cover, selective removal of RCG will be critical to the maintenance of these native populations. We recommend hand weeding of RCG seedlings in the early spring as soon as they reach an identifiable stage (removal will be easiest before the seedlings establish a network of rhizomes) and herbicide wicking of established RCG individuals in the fall (damage to non-target species will be lowest at this time when many native species have already senesced). Herbicide wicking is also an option in the early spring, but hand weeding is preferable, as herbicide applications during the early spring may not achieve complete mortality. Selective control of RCG in these areas can begin immediately and continue for as long as needed.
2. Areas with woody species cover
Some management units with woody species cover (shrub units) have been invaded by RCG, although other species exist in the understory. Similar to the areas with native species cover, selective removal of RCG rather than homogeneous treatment over a large-scale area, will be necessary. We recommend hand weeding of RCG seedlings in the early spring and herbicide wicking of established RCG individuals in the fall. Herbicide wicking is also an option in the early spring, but hand weeding is preferable, as herbicide applications during the early spring may not achieve complete mortality. Selective control of RCG in these areas can begin immediately and continue for as long as needed.
3. Reestablishment of native vegetation
Following control of RCG seeding with a native species restoration mix will be needed to stimulate reestablishment of native vegetation. If there are no high quality wetlands nearby to serve as propagule sources, and years of drainage have made the seed bank depauperate, it is highly unlikely that native vegetation will establish through natural means of propagule dispersal to a site.
Areas that have been treated with broad-scale herbicide applications must be seeded uniformly. Prepare the soil for seeding, by first performing a prescribed burn on the area (either in the previous fall or the early spring
140
of that year) if necessary to remove dead vegetation. The appropriate seeding rate will depend on the target community, but since RCG is most problematic in a wet but not saturated soil environment, it is not unlikely that the NRMP will target such a community as a wet meadow. In such a case, a wet meadow grass mixture will be seeded at 13 pounds per acre Pure Live Seed (PLS) or greater, and a wet meadow forb mixture will be seeded at four pounds per acres PLS or greater. The combined seeding rate of 17 pounds per acre PLS is an average seeding rate, and increasing the rate will likely increase native species establishment.
For areas that have received selective removal of RCG (not broadcast herbicide application), inter-seeding is recommended for areas left open after RCG removal. Species-appropriate seedlings will be necessary, e.g. woodland forb species in the understory of areas with woody species cover, and aquatic species in a Seepage meadow/carr area. After seeding with native species, monitoring of RCG recruits will likely be necessary for as long as Greenway Corridor wetlands are exposed to an influx of new RCG (i.e., indefinitely in a riparian environment). As native species begin to establish, selective removal of new recruits of RCG is necessary as they emerge within the establishing native community, via hand-weeding or selective treatment with herbicide.
141
Appendix E: Suggested Native Shrubs for Replacing Common Buckthorn
Dry Upland Areas
Common Scientific Height Light Wildlife Value Comments Name Name [feet]
Ceanothus High: butterflies and New Jersey tea 2 to 3 Full sun Dry prairie –forms patches. americanus hummingbirds
Gray dogwood Cornus racemosa 9 Sun/shade Very high Used by over 40 species of wildlife. Spreads
Corylus Sun/part highly valued by mammals American hazelnut 6 to12t Spreads, but slowly; forms very deep roots americana shade and birds
Spreads, but slowly. More northern range than Beaked hazelnut Corylus cornuta 6 to 12 Sun/shade high American hazelnut.
Juniperus Invades prairies in absence of fire. Important bird Eastern red cedar 20 Sun high virginiana cover in winter and summer heat.
Prunus Pin cherry 10 to30 Sun Excellent Used by 81 species of wildlife pensylvanica
Sun/part Smooth rose Rosa blanda 4 to 6 shade
Thicket forming in prairies; silvery green foliage; red Shepherdia Silver buffaloberry 8 to 10 Full sun High: birds berries in late summer. Native to west edge argentea Minnesota
Symphoricarpos Wolfberry 2 to 4 Full sun Thicket forming in prairie; small pinkish flowers occidentalis
Dry-Mesic Upland Areas
Common Scientific Height Light Wildlife Value Comments Name Name [feet]
Allegheny Amelanchier Sun/part 15 to 25 high serviceberry laevis shade
Round-leaved Part Butterflies use flowers; Cornus rugosa 8 to 12 dogwood sun/shade birds eat berries
Euonymus Eastern wahoo 6 to 20 Sun/shade Spreads atropurpurea
Physocarpus Common ninebark 8 to 10 Full sun Bird food Dense growth habit opulifolius
American plum Prunus americana 20 to 35 Sun high
Sun/part Choke cherry Prunus virginiana 20 to 30 Excellent shade
Sun/part Cluster of white flowers; red berries in early Sambucus pubens Red-berried elder 10 to12 High value: bird food shade summer.
Sun/part smooth rose Rosa blanda 4 to 6 shade
Red-berried elder Sambucus pubens 6 to 12 Shade Very high Excellent massing, fast growing.
Bladdernut Staphylea trifolia 8 to 15 Shade Tolerates many soil conditions, disease resistant
Arrowwood Viburnum Part shade, 5 to 8 high Pretty foliage viburnum rafinesquianum shade
Highbush Viburnum 6 to 12 Sun to shade High -Birds eat fruits. Foliage open form in shade, dense in sun. cranberry trilobum
Larval host for swallowtail Wafer ash Ptelea trifoliata 10 to15 Sun to shade Foliage open form in shade, dense in sun. butterfly
Flood Tolerant Areas
Common Scientific Height Light Wildlife Value Comments Name Name
Sambucus Very tolerant of soil conditions; blue-black fruit in American elder 8 to10 Full sun High value: bird food canadensis late summer
Amorpha Sun/part False Indigo 8 to10 Butterflies Attractive flower fruticosa shade
Aronia Black chokeberry 5 to 8 Sun/shade Bird food melanocarpa
Cephalanthus Buttonbush 6 to 12 Full sun Birds, butterflies Round flower head; fragrant occidentalis
Cornus Pagoda dogwood 15 to 20 Sun/shade Beautiful growth form. alternifolia
Silky dogwood Cornus amomum 6 to 12 Full sun Bird food Blue fruit; reddish-purple bark
Sun/part Red twig dogwood Cornus sericea 6 to 12 Bird food Red twigs, greenish-white fruit shade
Hamamelis Unique, spider-shaped yellow flowers that bloom Witch hazel 20 to 30 Sun or shade Late-season pollinators virginiana late in the year.
Hypericum Sun/part St. Johns Wort 2 to 3 Pollinators Masses of yellow flowers in summer kalmianum shade
Sun/light Winterberry Ilex verticillata 6 to 8 Bird food Showy red fruit in fall. shade
Ribes Sun/light High value: birds and Black Currant 3 to 6 White flowers and black-purple fruit americanum shade mammals
143
Pussy willow Salix discolor 20 Full sun Soil stabilizer Showy catkins and ornamental
Red willow Salix sericea 6 to 8 Full sun Bird food Upright, rounded form; and reddish-brown twigs
Of wet meadows. Erect branching; white flower Meadowsweet Spirea alba 3 to 6 Full sun Bird food spikes in July
Sun/part Nannyberry Viburnum lentago 16 to 20 high Dense foliage shade
Highbush Viburnum Sun/part White flat-topped flower clusters; red fruit persists 6 to 12 High value: bird food cranberry trilobum shade until spring; red color to foliage in autumn
144
Appendix F: Description of Target Plant Communities
Prairie - UPs13 Southern Dry Prairie and UPs23 Southern Mesic Prairie
Grass-dominated herbaceous communities on level to steeply sloping sites with droughty (Dry) to poorly or well-drained loam (Mesic) soils. Mesic prairies tend to be higher in forb richness. While Mesic Prairies irregularly experience drought stress, moisture deficits in Dry Prairies occur most years, and severe moisture deficits are frequent, especially during periodic regional droughts. Historically, fires probably occurred every few years for both communities.
Vegetation Structure & Composition • Graminoid cover is usually continuous (75–100%) in Mesic Prairie, patchy to continuous (50%-100%) in Dry Prairie. Tallgrasses dominate in Mesic Prairies, but several midheight grasses are also important. In dry prairies, midheight and shortgrass species are prominent, although tallgrass species are typically important as well. Dry prairie species composition varies considerably, reflecting variation in soils and topography; several species in the community are restricted to sites on deep sands. Little bluestem is generally the dominant grass; other major midheight grasses are side-oats grama, prairie dropseed, porcupine grass, and plains muhly. Junegrass and hairy grama are common minor grasses. Of the tallgrasses, big bluestem is usually important, while Indian grass is less frequent, being more strongly associated with more mesic sites within the community. Mesic Prairie species composition is fairly uniform, although relative abundances shift across the moisture gradient within the community. Big bluestem and Indian grass are the dominant tallgrasses, with prairie dropseed either a codominant or subdominant component. On the drier end of the gradient, little bluestem, porcupine grass, and side-oats grama are important. On moister sites, switchgrass may be common, and prairie cordgrass is usually present. Leiberg’s panic grass is distinctive, although usually minor in terms of cover. • Forb cover is sparse to patchy (5–50%). Forb species composition also responds to moisture. A number of species are common across the moisture gradient, including heart-leaved alexanders, heath aster, stiff and Canada goldenrods, purple and white prairie clovers, silverleaf scurfpea, stiff sunflower, white sage, northern bedstraw, and smooth blue aster. Maximilian’s sunflower, tall meadow-rue, prairie phlox, and gray-headed coneflower are most common on the moister end of the gradient. Rough blazing star, Missouri and gray goldenrods and bird’s foot coreopsis are common in the drier end. Rattlesnake master and compass plant are typical species in southeastern Minnesota but rare to absent in the community elsewhere. Common species that are more abundant in UPs13 than in other UP classes include gray goldenrod, silky aster, aromatic aster, dotted blazing star, hairy golden aster, pasqueflower, harebell, western ragweed, false boneset and flowering spurge. • Shrub layer is sparse (5–25% cover). The low semi-shrubs leadplant and prairie rose are generally common. Sparse patches of wolfberry are occasional. Gray dogwood, American hazelnut, and wild plum are rare. • Trees are absent except bur oak where fire suppression has allowed invasion by woody species.
Natural History The xeric conditions and lower soil fertility of UPs13 strongly favor species having physiological and morphological adaptations to cope with these stresses. Reduced aboveground biomass, narrow, small, or 145
deeply dissected leaves, and dense hairy vestiture are examples of such adaptations. UPs23 is present on level to gently sloping sites where the water table is below the rooting zone except for brief periods during the growing season. Soil moisture availability remains high on average because of soil texture and composition. Recurrent fire is essential for the existence of UPs23, as environmental conditions are otherwise suitable for the growth of trees; where propagules are available, succession to forest occurs rapidly in the absence of fire. Fires also recycle nutrients bound up in litter and promote flowering and seed production. These events temporarily expose the soil surface and so probably play an important role in plant regeneration. Before Euro- American settlement, grazing and trampling by large ungulates were regular occurrences in UPs23. The contribution of this disturbance to the composition and structure of the vegetation is not well understood, although it is known that confined grazing by domestic livestock can quickly destroy mesic prairies, promoting the replacement of most native species by introduced ones. Episodic grazing probably enables the persistence of some native species that cannot otherwise reproduce in the dense canopy of tall grasses and forbs characteristic of UPs23; these would include shorter species and especially annual or biennial species. Spatial patchiness in grazing intensity is also thought to have influenced fire behavior, providing a shifting patchwork of refugia for fire-sensitive animal species. The fertile soils and gentle relief of UPs23 are ideal for row-crop agriculture, and almost all of the land that supported this class has been converted to cropland. As for all prairie classes in Minnesota, recurrent fire is necessary to prevent succession of UPs13 to woodland or forest, although the fire frequency required to maintain dry prairies is lower than for mesic prairies because the xeric conditions and lower fertility of the sites somewhat inhibit tree and shrub invasion. Smooth sumac and eastern red cedar are two of the most aggressive prairie invaders in the absence of fire. The first spreads clonally into prairies from woodland edges, while the second invades from seed dropped by birds. Once these woody species establish dense stands, it is difficult for fire to remove them. Other trees present in nearby woods and forests also can become established in dry prairies unless eliminated by fire.
Oak Savanna - Southern Dry and Mesic Savanna (UPs14 and UPs24) Sparsely treed communities with grass-dominated herbaceous ground layers on nearly level to steeply sloping sites with droughty (Dry) or somewhat poorly drained to well-drained loam (Mesic) soils. Moderate growing- season moisture deficits occur during most years for Dry sites, and severe moisture deficits are frequent, especially during periodic regional droughts. Drought stress is irregular in occurrence in Mesic sites and usually not severe. Trees are open grown, typically small and gnarled. Historically, these communities burned every few years.
Vegetation Structure & Composition • Graminoid cover is patchy to continuous (25–100%) for Dry sites and interrupted to continuous (50-100%) for Mesic sites. Midheight grasses (Dry) to tallgrass species (Mesic) are dominant depending on moisture availability. Species composition varies with variation in soils and topography and is similar to that of Southern Dry Prairie (UPs13) and Southern Mesic Prairie (UPs23). Little bluestem and porcupine grass are generally dominant; big bluestem and Indian grass are usually present and often common, more so than in UPs13. Pennsylvania sedge, a woodland species, is often present. • Forb cover is sparse to patchy (5–50%). Of characteristic forbs in Dry sites, the most common are western ragweed , Virginia ground cherry, gray goldenrod, white sage, hairy and hoary puccoon, hoary frostweed, and 146
starry false Solomon’s seal. The fern ally rock spikemoss is usually common on sand substrates. The most common species for Mesic sites include heart-leaved alexanders, heath aster, stiff and Canada goldenrods, purple and white prairie clovers, silverleaf scurfpea, stiff sunflower, white sage, northern bedstraw, and smooth blue aster. Maximilian’s sunflower, tall meadow-rue, prairie phlox, and gray-headed coneflower are common in moister examples; rough blazing star, Missouri and gray goldenrods, and bird’s foot coreopsis are common in drier ones. • Woody vines are a minor component. Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus spp.) is frequently present, and wild grape (Vitis riparia) is occasionally present • In Dry Savanna sites, shrub layer is sparse to patchy (5–50% cover) and composed of low (< 20in [50cm]) semi-shrubs, taller (up to 6ft [2m]) shrubs, and oak seedlings and stunted (< 6ft) oak “grubs.” Leadplant, prairie rose, and poison ivy are common low shrubs; chokecherry, American hazelnut, and smooth sumac are the most important tall shrubs. Mesic sites have higher levels of patchy to interrupted shrub cover (50–75% cover). Additional shrubs at Mesic sites include gray dogwood, wolfberry, low juneberry, and wild plum. • Trees occur as scattered individuals or as scattered small clumps (with total cover < 70%, typically 25–50%). Trees are usually < 33ft (10m) tall and frequently < 16ft (5m), with open-grown form. Bur oak is most common, but northern pin oak is also usually present. • Notes: The exotic grasses Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) and smooth brome (Bromus inermis) are often problematic in UPs24. Pennsylvania sedge (Carex pensylvanica var. pensylvanica), a native graminoid that is naturally a minor component of UPs24, increases in abundance with prolonged heavy grazing. With fire suppression, trees other than the oaks become established, especially green ash, quaking aspen, and basswood.
Natural History Savannas form where fire recurs frequently enough to prevent trees and shrubs from dominating and shading out sun-loving herbaceous plants, but where frequency and severity are low enough to allow fire-tolerant trees to become established and sometimes reach maturity. Historically, savannas typically occurred in physical proximity to prairie, but where various factors provided some amelioration of the fire regime of the adjoining or surrounding prairie. These factors include streams, lakes, and steep topography, which limited the spread of fire and thus created conditions conducive to savanna formation in the prairie region. The very low productivity of sandy substrates as well as surface instability result in reduced fuel loads and thus fire intensity is lower in savannas than in typical prairies. All savannas are highly sensitive to fire suppression, quickly succeeding to woodland and eventually to forest in the absence of fire. The higher productivity of sites where UPs24 occurs makes it even more susceptible to succession than UPs14. UPs24 occupies sites where soil moisture availability remains high on average because of soil texture and composition, although the water table is below the rooting zone during the growing season except for brief periods. Dry savannas are more resilient than mesic savannas because the xeric conditions and lower fertility of the soils inhibit tree and shrub growth and reproduction. These same factors also greatly influence herbaceous species composition, eliminating species not adapted to either frequent drought or low nutrient availability. Before Euro-American settlement, browsing, grazing, and trampling by large ungulates were regular occurrences in savannas. The contribution of these activities to the composition and structure of the vegetation is not well understood, although it is known that confined grazing by domestic livestock can badly degrade savannas by promoting the 147
replacement of most of the native species by introduced ones. The fertile soils and gentle relief of UPs24 are ideal for row-crop agriculture, and almost all of the land that supported UPs24 has been converted to cropland; areas not converted have either been so heavily pastured that almost none of the native herbaceous flora survives, or they have become woodland or forest with fire suppression.
Oak Woodland - Southern Dry-Mesic Oak Woodland (FDs37)
Dry-mesic hardwood forests on undulating sand flats, hummocky moraines, and river bluffs. Present mostly on fine sand or sand-gravel soils. Often on south- or west-facing slopes but common also on flat to undulating sandy lake plains. Historically, fires were common in this community, and many stands are on sites occupied by brushlands 100–150 years ago.
Vegetation Structure & Composition • Ground-layer cover is patchy to continuous (25–100%). Pointed-leaved tick trefoil, Clayton’s sweet cicely, hog peanut, Canada mayflower, and wild geranium are commonly present. Pennsylvania sedge is the most abundant graminoid. Dewey’s sedge and starry sedge may also be present. • Shrub-layer cover is patchy to continuous (25–100%). Common species include black cherry, red maple, chokecherry, American hazelnut, gray dogwood, prickly ash, Virginia creeper, and poison ivy. • Subcanopy cover is patchy to interrupted (25–75%). The most common species are black cherry, red maple, and bur oak. • Canopy cover is usually interrupted to continuous (50–100%). Bur oak and northern pin oak are the most common species. Northern red oak, white oak, and red maple are occasionally present. Older trees are often open grown, indicating previously more open conditions on the site.
Natural History Natural History In the past, fires were very common throughout the range of FDs37. An analysis of Public Land Survey records indicates that the rotation of catastrophic fires was about 110 years, and the rotation of mild surface fires about 10 years. The rotation of all fires combined is estimated to be 9 years. Windthrow was not common, with an estimated rotation exceeding 1,000 years. Based on the historic composition and age structure of these forests, FDs37 had two growth stages. • 0–75 years—Young forests recovering from fire, dominated by bur oak with some northern red oak or white oak. Quaking aspen, northern pin oak, and black cherry are minor components. • > 75 years—Mature forests dominated by a mixture of bur oak, white oak, northern pin oak, and some northern red oak, with minor amounts of American elm.
Native Plant Community Types in Class • FDs37a Oak - (Red Maple) Woodland: Canopy is dominated by northern red oak, northern pin oak, and white oak with lesser amounts of bur oak and red maple. Red maple is also common in the subcanopy and shrub layers. Chokecherry, American hazelnut, gray dogwood, and prickly ash are common in the shrub layer. FDs37a is distinguished from FDs37b by the presence of northern red oak or white oak in the canopy or understory. Other species that can help to differentiate FDs37a from FDs37b include red maple, bush honeysuckle, lady fern, interrupted fern, and starflower. 148
• FDs37b Pin Oak - Bur Oak Woodland: Canopy has abundant northern pin oak and bur oak. The subcanopy is not well differentiated from the canopy; bur oak, black cherry, and green ash are the most common subcanopy species. The shrub layer is often dense, with prickly ash, chokecherry, American hazelnut, gray dogwood, prickly gooseberry, and downy arrowwood all common. FDs37b is distinguished from FDs37a by the greater dominance of northern pin oak and bur oak in the canopy. Other species that help to differentiate FDs37b from FDs37a when present include green ash, wild honeysuckle, snowberry or wolfberry, giant Solomon’s seal, Lindley’s aster, and sideflowering aster.
Oak Forest - Oak-Basswood Forest (MHs38)
Mesic hardwood or, occasionally, hardwood-conifer forests. Present on wind-deposited silt on bedrock bluffs, on calcareous till on rolling till plains, and, rarely, in association with natural fire breaks in prairie landscapes or on weakly calcareous till on stagnation moraines.
Vegetation Structure & Composition • Ground-layer cover is patchy to interrupted (25–75%); important species include zigzag goldenrod, large- flowered bellwort, and Virginia waterleaf. Other common species include Clayton’s sweet cicely, Virginia creeper, bloodroot, lopseed, common enchanter’s nightshade, early meadow-rue, wild sarsaparilla, Pennsylvania sedge, and honewort. • Shrub-layer cover is patchy to interrupted (25–75%); common species include sugar maple, ironwood, prickly gooseberry, and chokecherry. • Subcanopy cover is interrupted to continuous (50–100%); important species include ironwood, sugar maple, and basswood. American elm, red elm, and bitternut hickory are occasionally present, with blue beech occasional in southeastern and east-central Minnesota • Canopy cover is interrupted to continuous (50–100%); the most common species are basswood, northern red oak, and sugar maple, with bur oak and green ash replacing northern red oak in importance in western Minnesota, and white oak abundant in some stands in eastern Minnesota. On rare occasions a supercanopy with abundant white pine is present.
Natural History In the past, catastrophic disturbances were rare in MHs38. An analysis of Public Land Survey records indicates that the rotation of catastrophic fires was in excess of 1,000 years, and the rotation of catastrophic windthrow was about 360 years.1 Events that resulted in partial loss of trees, especially light surface fires, were much more common, with an estimated rotation of 35 years. Based on the historic composition and age structure of these forests, MHs38 had two growth stages separated by a period of transition. • 0–35 years—Young forests recovering from fire or wind, dominated by northern red oak mixed with basswood, American elm, and some quaking aspen. • 35–75 years—A transition period marked by the gradual decline of northern red oak and its replacement by sugar maple. Basswood, American elm, and ironwood increase during this period, and white oak becomes established. • > 75 years—Mature forests of sugar maple mixed evenly with basswood, American elm, ironwood, northern red oak, and white oak. 149
Native Plant Community Types in Class • MHs38a White Pine - Oak - Sugar Maple Forest: Mesic hardwood-conifer forests, mostly on steep north- facing slopes on thin, windblown silty soil over bedrock. Canopy is dominated by northern red oak, often with sugar maple and occasionally with smaller amounts of basswood, paper birch, white oak, and other hardwood species. Most often a supercanopy of white pine is present. Subcanopy has abundant ironwood and sugar maple. MHs38a is distinguished from other types in this class by the presence of white pine in the canopy or understory; other species that can help to distinguish MHs38a include bush honeysuckle, elm-leaved goldenrod, starry campion, and Virginia thimbleweed. • MHs38b Basswood - Bur Oak - (Green Ash) Forest: Mesic hardwood forests on hummocky topography or near lakes on till plains and stagnation moraines; slopes are generally not steep. Canopy most often is dominated by basswood, bur oak, or green ash, with northern red oak abundant in a few stands. Subcanopy and shrub layer have abundant ironwood with occasional basswood. In general, MHs38b can often be distinguished from the other types in this class by the presence of abundant green ash in the canopy and abundant Virginia waterleaf in the ground layer. It is further distinguished from MHs38c by lower frequency of northern red oak and almost complete lack of sugar maple in the canopy. Additional species that can help to distinguish MHs38b include snowberry or wolfberry, starry false Solomon’s seal, and nodding trillium. • MHs38c Red Oak - Sugar Maple - Basswood - (Bitternut Hickory) Forest: Mesic hardwood forests on steep, mostly north-facing slopes on thin silt over bedrock and also on till plains with hummocky topography. Northern red oak and sugar maple are the most abundant canopy trees; basswood is also common. Ironwood and sugar maple are the most abundant subcanopy and shrub-layer species; bitternut hickory is common in both the subcanopy and shrub layers. When present, mayapple distinguishes MHs38c from MHs38a in the PPL; the absence of white pine also differentiates MHs38c from MHs38a. Farther north, MHs38c can be differentiated from MHs38b by the significantly higher abundance of northern red oak. Other species that can help to differentiate MHs38c from MHs38a and MHs38b include rue anemone and hairy Solomon’s seal.
Maple Basswood Forest - Southern Mesic Maple-Basswood Forest (MHs39)
Rich mesic hardwood forests on loamy soils derived from calcareous till or wind-deposited silt over bedrock. Present on sites that have been historically protected from fires on hummocky stagnation moraines, on till plains along rivers, and on middle or lower slopes of bedrock bluffs.
Vegetation Structure & Composition • Ground-layer cover is interrupted to continuous (50–100%); important species include Virginia waterleaf, bloodroot, yellow violet, largeflowered bellwort, wild leek, blue cohosh, and early meadowrue. Spring ephemeral species such as cut-leaved toothwort and Dutchman’s breeches are characteristic. • Shrub-layer cover is rare to interrupted (5–75%); common species include sugar maple, bitternut hickory, basswood, prickly gooseberry, and chokecherry. • Subcanopy cover is most commonly patchy to interrupted (25–75%); important species include sugar maple, ironwood, basswood, and bitternut hickory. • Canopy cover is interrupted to continuous (50–100%) and strongly dominated by sugar maple, with basswood, northern red oak, and occasionally red elm and American elm.
150
Natural History In the past, catastrophic disturbances were rare in MHs39. An analysis of Public Land Survey records indicates the rotation of catastrophic fires was in excess of 1,000 years, and the rotation of catastrophic windthrow was about 680 years.1 Events that result in partial loss of trees, especially light surface fires, were more common, with an estimated rotation of about 50 years. Based on the historic composition and age structure of these forests, MHs39 had two growth stages separated by a period of transition. • 0–35 years—Young forests recovering from wind or fire, dominated by northern red oak mixed with basswood, quaking aspen, and some American elm. • 35–75 years—A transition period marked by the gradual decline of northern red oak and its replacement by sugar maple. Basswood declines slightly, and quaking aspen is essentially eliminated during this stage. American elm and ironwood increase, and white oak seedlings become established during this period. • > 75 years—Mature forests mostly of sugar maple mixed evenly with basswood, American elm, ironwood, and northern red oak, and with some white oak in the eastern part of the range of the community.
Native Plant Community Types in Class • MHs39a Sugar Maple - Basswood - (Bitternut Hickory) Forest: Rich mesic hardwood forests on moderate to steep north-facing slopes on hummocky stagnation moraines, on till plains along the Minnesota River, and on middle and lower slopes on bedrock bluffs. Most often, canopy is strongly dominated by sugar maple with lesser amounts of basswood and, often, northern red oak or bur oak. Ironwood and sugar maple are the most abundant subcanopy species. Sugar maple is also common in the shrub layer with bitternut hickory, prickly gooseberry, chokecherry, and pagoda dogwood. MHs39a is the most widespread of the three community types in MHs39. • MHs39b Sugar Maple - Basswood - Red Oak - (Blue Beech) Forest: Rich mesic hardwood forests on shady, moist, middle and lower parts of moderate to steep north-facing slopes. Canopy is strongly dominated by sugar maple, with basswood and northern red oak. Ironwood, blue beech, sugar maple, basswood, and bitternut hickory are the most abundant subcanopy species. These same species are also common in the shrub layer with bladdernut, pagoda dogwood, and leatherwood. Species that help to differentiate MHs39b from the other types in this class include blue beech in the canopy and understory, and bladdernut, Wood’s sedge, woodland millet grass, shining bedstraw, mayapple, bulblet fern, interrupted fern, Virginia spring beauty, two- leaved miterwort, and hispid buttercup in the understory. MHs39b has very high species diversity and provides important habitat for a variety of rare plant species. • MHs39c Sugar Maple Forest (Big Woods): Rich mesic hardwood forests on gently sloping sites on hummocky stagnation moraines and also on till plains along the Minnesota River. Canopy is strongly dominated by sugar maple, often with basswood and less frequently with northern red oak, red elm, or American elm. Sugar maple is also abundant in the subcanopy and shrub layer. Other common species in the shrub layer are basswood, bitternut hickory, prickly gooseberry, red-berried elder, and chokecherry. MHs39c has been documented mainly in the Big Woods Subsection of the MIM, where it may overlap with MHs39a. Species that help to differentiate MHs39c in this area include hackberry (especially when present in the canopy), red-berried elder, puttyroot, giant Solomon’s seal, and hairy Solomon’s seal. MHs39c is also more likely to have dense patches of wood nettle in the ground layer.
151
Wet Forest - Southern Wet Aspen Forest (WFs55)
Wet to wet mesic forests on slightly raised “islands” in large open wet meadows and in transition zones between wet meadows and adjacent forested uplands. Present mostly on level to gently rolling outwash plains.
Vegetation Structure & Composition • Ground-layer cover is patchy to continuous (25–100%) and composed of a mixture of wet prairie, wet forest and upland forest species. Common species include mountain rice grass, bluejoint, false melic grass, longstalked sedge, largeleaved aster, wild sarsaparilla, dwarf raspberry, common strawberry, Canada mayflower, Peck’s sedge, and field horsetail. In wetter parts of the community, lake sedge, tussock sedge, Hayden’s sedge, swamp thistle, spotted water hemlock, and bottle gentian are common. • Shrub layer cover is patchy to interrupted (25–75%). Common species include downy arrowwood, Saskatoon juneberry, chokecherry, gray dogwood, prickly rose, wild honeysuckle, highbush cranberry, pussy willow, beaked hazelnut, red raspberry, poison ivy, and nannyberry. • Subcanopy cover is patchy to interrupted (25–75%). The most common species are quaking aspen, bur oak, American elm, and black ash. • Canopy cover is mostly interrupted to continuous (50–100%). The most common species are quaking aspen, black ash, and bur oak.
Natural History Wet aspen forests develop in the absence of fire on small, slightly raised “islands” in areas of open wet prairie, wet meadow, or shrub swamp. They may also occur in transition areas between wet prairies and upland forests and around the edges of wet meadows. Soil moisture can vary from site to site. In transition areas between uplands and lowlands and also around the edges of raised islands, where broad-leaved sedges are dominant, soils are wet. In the interior of these islands, species with affinity for mesic and dry-mesic soils are common.
Native Plant Community Types in Class • WFs55a Lowland Aspen Forest: WFs55a is the only plant community type recognized in this class. Further sampling and analysis is needed to better describe the community class and may result in alteration of the concept of the community.
Wet Forest - Southern Floodplain Forest (FFs68)
Deciduous riparian forests on sandy or silty alluvium on low, level, annually flooded sites along medium and large rivers in the southern half of Minnesota. Community is characterized by evidence of recent flooding such as rows and piles of debris, ice scars on trees, high-water channels, and freshly deposited silt and sand.
Vegetation Structure & Composition • Ground-layer cover is generally very sparse during spring due to inundation and scouring by floodwaters, becoming variable by midsummer (5–50% cover) and characterized by annual or flood-tolerant perennial 152
species. Important herbaceous species include false nettle, clearweeds, Ontario aster, Virginia wild rye, cut grasses, hop umbrella sedge, and cattail sedge. Wood nettle often forms dense patches. Species typical of wetland communities are also often present, including mad dog skullcap, southern blue flag, and beggarticks. The invasive species kidney-leaved buttercup, creeping charlie, moneywort, motherwort, yellow wood sorrels, garlic mustard, and reed canary grass are present in many stands and sometimes abundant. • Climbing plants and vines are important in this community; characteristic are climbing poison ivy, wild grape, and moonseed. • Shrub layer and subcanopy are mostly sparse (0–25% cover) and occasionally patchy (25–50% cover); silver maple, green ash, American elm, and hackberry are most common. Climbing poison ivy is occasionally present in the tall-shrub layer. Silver maple seedlings are often abundant. • Canopy is interrupted to continuous (50–100% cover), and strongly dominated by silver maple with occasional green ash, cottonwood, or American elm.
Deciduous Forest - Southern Dry-Mesic Oak Forest (MHs37)
Dry-mesic hardwood forests occurring most often on thin, wind-deposited silt on crests and upper slopes of bedrock bluffs and less often on hummocky stagnation moraines in calcareous, partially sorted drift.
Vegetation Structure & Composition • Ground-layer cover varies from patchy to continuous (25–100%); important species include lady fern, pointed-leaved tick trefoil, Clayton’s sweet cicely, common enchanter’s nightshade, wild geranium, hog peanut, and white snakeroot. • Shrub-layer cover is patchy to interrupted (25–75%); common species include northern red oak and black cherry saplings, chokecherry, American hazelnut, Missouri gooseberry, and pagoda dogwood. • Subcanopy cover is patchy to interrupted (25–75%); important species include basswood, black cherry, northern red oak, white oak, and shagbark hickory. • Canopy cover is interrupted to continuous (50–100%); the most common species are northern red oak, white oak, and basswood. Shagbark hickory is occasionally present.
Natural History In the past, catastrophic disturbances were rare in MHs37. An analysis of Public Land Survey records indicates that the rotation of catastrophic fires was in excess of 1,000 years, and the rotation of catastrophic windthrow was about 390 years. Events that resulted in partial loss of trees, especially light surface fires, were much more common, with an estimated rotation of about 20 years. Based on the historic composition and age structure of these forests, MHs37 had two growth stages separated by a long period of transition.
Deciduous Forest - Southern Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Woodland (FDs38)
Dry-mesic (or dry) deciduous woodlands on steep, exposed, south- to westfacing bluffs in southeastern Minnesota, often adjacent to bedrock bluff prairies.
Vegetation Structure & Composition • Ground-layer cover is mostly patchy to continuous (25–100%). Important species include woodland 153
sunflower, white snakeroot, elm-leaved goldenrod, shining bedstraw, Canadian and gregarious black snakeroots, and heart-leaved alexanders. Other common species include honewort, Clayton’s sweet cicely, lopseed, pointed-leaved tick trefoil, hog peanut, common enchanter’s nightshade, and Pennsylvania sedge. • Climbing plants and vines are sparse to patchy (5–50% cover); greenbrier, wild grape, and Virginia creeper are often present. • Shrub-layer cover ranges from patchy to often dense (25–100%). Shagbark hickory and hackberry are important tree saplings. Other common species include American hazelnut, gray dogwood, poison ivy, prickly ash, prickly gooseberry, red raspberry, black cherry, and American elm. • Subcanopy is patchy to continuous (25–100% cover) and often poorly differentiated from the canopy. Shagbark hickory, black cherry, hackberry, and black walnut are characteristic; other common species include American elm, red elm, box elder, bur oak, and paper birch. • Canopy cover is interrupted to continuous (75–100%), often with large, open-grown trees present. Bur oak, shagbark hickory, American elm, black walnut, and box elder are characteristic. Other common species include northern pin oak, white oak, northern red oak, and black cherry.
Natural History In the past, fires were very common throughout the range of FDs38. An analysis of Public Land Survey records indicates that the rotation of catastrophic fires was about 150 years, and the rotation of mild surface fires about 15 years. The rotation of all fires combined is estimated to be 11 years. Windthrow was not common, with the estimated rotation exceeding 1,000 years. Based on the historic composition and age structure of these forests, FDs38 had three growth stages. • 0–55 years—Young forests recovering from fire and dominated by bur oak mixed with northern pin oak and northern red oak. Paper birch is a minor component. • 55–135 years—Mature forests dominated by bur oak mixed with lesser amounts of pin oak, paper birch and northern red oak than young forests. Shagbark hickory and white oak are minor components. • > 135 years—Old forests dominated by bur oak mixed with white oak and some northern red oak; shagbark hickory is apparently absent (Most current examples of FDs38 originated as brushlands, oak savannas, or dry prairies and developed into woodlands in the past 75-150 years following suppression of wildfires).
Native Plant Community Types in Class • FDs38a Oak - Shagbark Hickory Woodland: FDs38a is the only community type recognized in this class at present. The sample size of the community is small, however, with many of the plots from Great River Bluffs State Park in Winona County. In addition, it is likely that the composition of much of the community in Minnesota—including the plots used in this classification—has been influenced by livestock grazing. Collection of additional data in dry-mesic woodlands in the PPL and to the west in the MIM and the CGP would improve the understanding of this community.
Deciduous Forest - Southern Wet-Mesic Hardwood Forest (MHs49)
Rich, wet-mesic lowland hardwood forests on level silty alluvium in stream valleys and on level glacial till bordering lakes. Sites are protected from fire, and soils remain moist throughout the growing season.
154
Vegetation Structure & Composition • Ground-layer cover is mostly continuous (75–100%). Important species include false rue anemone, blue phlox, common blue violet, hispid buttercup, appendaged waterleaf, Virginia spring beauty, tall coneflower, white trout lily, yellow trout lily, white bear sedge, and hairy-leaved sedge. Other common and often abundant species include Virginia waterleaf, cleavers, and wood nettle. • Shrub-layer cover is variable, ranging from sparse to continuous (5–100%); typical species are chokecherry, Missouri gooseberry, basswood, sugar maple, black ash, hackberry, bitternut hickory, American elm, red elm, and rock elm. • Subcanopy is generally patchy to continuous (25–100% cover), with sugar maple, basswood, hackberry, ironwood, black ash, and elms the most common species. • Canopy cover is mostly interrupted to continuous (50–100%). Species composition is variable, but basswood, black ash, sugar maple, American elm, red elm, rock elm, green ash, hackberry, box elder, and bur oak are common. Butternut, black walnut, and black maple are present in some stands.
Natural History In the past, catastrophic disturbances were rare in MHs49. An analysis of Public Land Survey records indicates the rotation of catastrophic windthrow was in excess of 1,000 years, and there were no references to fire.1 Events that result in partial loss of trees, especially light surface fires, were much more common, with an estimated rotation of about 160 years. There are almost no compositional changes among historic age classes in the community. Young, mature, and old stands were all dominated by elm—probably including American, red, and rock elm—mixed with lesser amounts of basswood and sugar maple. Because of Dutch elm disease, elms (especially American elm) are less abundant today than historically. In contrast, black ash is common in modern forests across much of the range of the community, but was a minor component in historic records.
Native Plant Community Types in Class • MHs49a Elm - Basswood - Black Ash - (Hackberry) Forest: Wet-mesic hardwood forests, most often with abundant basswood and elm in the canopy; other occasionally abundant species are black ash, sugar maple, and bitternut hickory. Hackberry and green ash are present in the canopy in many stands but are seldom abundant. Hackberry is more important in MHs49a, especially in the understory and seedling layers, than in MHs49b. Other species that help to distinguish MHs49a from MHs49b include greenbrier, starry false Solomon’s seal, carrion-flowers, Pennsylvania sedge, and starry sedge. • MHs49b Elm - Basswood - Black Ash - (Blue Beech) Forest: Wet-mesic hardwood forests. Sugar maple is the most common and abundant canopy species, often present with basswood, black ash, elms, and hackberry. Some stands are strongly dominated by bur oak. Blue beech is much more important in all height layers in MHs49b than in MHs49a. Other species that help to distinguish MHs49b from MHs49a include black walnut, nannyberry, cut-leaved toothwort, appendaged waterleaf, two-leaved miterwort, woodmint, cow parsnip, squirrel corn, silvery spleenwort, white bear sedge, Wood’s sedge, and graceful sedge.
155
Deciduous Forest - Southern Terrace Forest (FFs59)
Wet-mesic deciduous forests on silty or sandy alluvium on level, occasionally flooded sites along small streams to large rivers in the southern half of Minnesota.
• Ground-layer cover is mostly interrupted to continuous (50–100%); often with abundant wood nettle. Other typical species include Virginia waterleaf, spotted touchme-not, tall coneflower, stinging nettle, cleavers, common blue violet, honewort, aniseroot, Virginia bluebells, and eastern narrowleaf sedge. Reed canary grass is highly invasive on sites where the canopy has been opened by disturbance. • Woody vines are sparse to patchy (5–50% cover), mostly present in lower strata; Virginia creeper and wild grape are typical. • Shrub layer and subcanopy are sparse to patchy (5–50% cover); typical species include American elm, hackberry, box elder, Missouri gooseberry, prickly ash, and chokecherry. • Canopy is interrupted to continuous (50–100% cover). Species composition is variable, but American elm, green ash, hackberry, basswood, box elder, silver maple, black ash, and cottonwood are often common. Swamp white oak is important in some stands in southeastern Minnesota.
Natural History In the past, catastrophic disturbances were rare in FFs59. There are no references to fire in the Public Land Survey records, and the rotation of catastrophic windthrow was about 310 years. Events that result in partial loss of trees, especially flood damage (and possibly light surface fires), were much more common, with an estimated rotation of just 40 years. Based on the historic composition and age structure of these forests, FFs59 had three growth stages. • 0–35 years—Young forests recovering from severe flooding or wind, often dominated by elm (most often American elm, but red elm was present as well). Basswood, willows (Salix amygdaloides and S. nigra), and green ash are also present. • 35–155 years—Mature forests dominated by elm and ash, including American elm, red elm, green ash, and black ash. Basswood, bur oak, silver maple, hackberry, black walnut, and butternut are minor components. Willows are essentially absent. • > 155 years—Old forests similar in composition to mature forests except walnuts, silver maple, and bur oak are more abundant, and basswood is mostly absent.
Native Plant Community Types in Class • FFs59a Silver Maple - Green Ash - Cottonwood Terrace Forest: Present on terraces of medium to large rivers. The most common canopy trees are American elm, silver maple, box elder, and green ash, with occasional cottonwood and hackberry. Most of these species are also important in the understory. Important shrubs include wahoo, red-berried elder, hawthorns, and prickly gooseberry. Important ground-layer species include Ontario aster, jack-in-the-pulpit, Maryland black snakeroot, Clayton’s sweet cicely, early meadow-rue, and virgin’s bower. • FFs59b Swamp White Oak Terrace Forest: Present on terraces of the lower Mississippi River. Swamp white oak is diagnostic for this type, occurring in the canopy of all known examples and often in the understory as well. Other common canopy and understory trees are green ash, hackberry, silver maple, bitternut hickory, 156
American elm, and basswood, with occasional cottonwood and river birch. Important shrubs include prickly ash, wild black currant, and gray dogwood. Climbing poison ivy, greenbrier, wild grape, and Canada moonseed are important vining species. Important ground-layer species include Virginia knotweed, moneywort, green dragon, sensitive fern, rough bedstraw, obedient plant, false nettle, Virginia wild rye, nodding fescue, Gray’s sedge, and muskingum sedge. • FFs59c Elm - Ash - Basswood Terrace Forest: Present on terraces of small to large rivers. The most common canopy trees are American elm, box elder, basswood, black ash, and red elm, with occasional cottonwood, hackberry, silver maple, black maple, black walnut, and rock elm. Most of these are likewise important in the understory. Important shrubs include Missouri gooseberry and chokecherry. Important ground-layer species include Virginia waterleaf, cleavers, stinging nettle, aniseroot, blue phlox, false rue anemone, stemless blue violets, hispid buttercup, Virginia bluebells, cow parsnip, mayapple, and yellow trout lily.
Conifer Plantation - Southern Mesic White Pine – Oak Woodland (FDs27b)
Dry-mesic (or dry) hardwood or pine-hardwood woodlands on sand deposits, primarily in the blufflands of southeastern Minnesota.
Vegetation Structure & Composition • Ground-layer cover is variable, ranging from sparse to interrupted (5–75%), with prairie species often present. Important species include flowering spurge, pussytoes, harebell, elliptic shinleaf, white rattlesnakeroot, round-lobed hepatica, downy rattlesnake plantain, heart-leaved aster, and yarrow. Other common species include northern bedstraw, Clayton’s sweet cicely, lopseed, columbine, hog peanut, white snakeroot, bracken, and Pennsylvania sedge. The community provides important habitat for several rare sand- loving plants, especially Canada forked chickweed and marginal shield fern and also rough-seeded fameflower, goat’s rue, ebony spleenwort, and seaside three-awn. • Climbing plants and vines are common but generally short. Common species include Virginia creeper and wild grape. • Shrub-layer cover is mostly patchy to interrupted (25–75%). White pine, bitternut hickory, white oak, pin cherry, and eastern red cedar are important tree saplings, while ninebark, bush juniper, and black raspberry are important shrubs. Other common shrub-layer species include American hazelnut, prickly ash, black cherry, gray dogwood, and common poison ivy. Pipsissewa and leadplant are typical half-shrubs. • Subcanopy is sparse to patchy (25–100% cover) and often poorly differentiated from the canopy. White pine, eastern red cedar, black cherry, black oak, and white oak are often present. • Canopy cover is patchy to interrupted (25–75%). Canopy is typically dominated by one or more of the following: white pine, jack pine, black oak, or bitternut hickory. Other common species include bur oak, northern pin oak, white oak, and paper birch. Northern red oak, black cherry, quaking aspen, and basswood are occasional.
Natural History In the past, fires were very common throughout the range of FDs27. An analysis of Public Land Survey (PLS) records indicates that the rotation of catastrophic fires was about 135 years, and the rotation of mild surface
157
fires about 15 years. The rotation of all fires combined is estimated to be 14 years. Windthrow was not reported in the surveyors’ notes for this community.
Native Plant Community Types in Class • FDs27a Jack Pine - Oak Woodland (Sand): Dry to dry-mesic pine-hardwood woodlands. The presence of jack pine in the canopy and understory differentiate FDs27a from the other types in this class. Important halfshrub and ground-layer plants include pipsissewa, lowbush blueberry, pussytoes, bluets, round-headed bush-clover, hairy puccoon, and starry false Solomon’s seal. FDs27a is rare and has been documented at only three sites in the Blufflands of SE MN. • FDs27b White Pine - Oak Woodland (Sand): Dry-mesic pine-hardwood woodlands. The presence of white pine and northern red oak in the canopy and understory helps to distinguish FDs27b from the other types in this class. Important herbaceous plants include wild sarsaparilla, zigzag goldenrod, common enchanter’s nightshade, harebell, bastard toadflax, and carrion flowers. FDs27b is uncommon. • FDs27c Black Oak - White Oak Woodland (Sand): Dry to dry-mesic hardwood woodlands. The presence of northern pin oak or black oak as canopy dominants helps to distinguish FDs27c from the other types in this class. Pin cherry is also more likely to occur in FDs27c. Important ground-layer plants include woodland sunflower, Indian pipe, wild strawberries, and elm-leaved goldenrod. FDs27c is the most common of the three community types in this class.
Wet Meadow/Shrub Carr - Northern Wet Meadow/Carr (WMn82)
Open wetlands dominated by dense cover of broad-leaved graminoids or tall shrubs. Present on mineral to sapric peat soils in basins and along streams.
Vegetation Structure & Composition • Moss cover most often is < 5% but can range to > 75%. Brown mosses are usually dominant, but Sphagnum can be dominant on some sites. • Graminoid layer consists of dense stands of mostly broad-leaved graminoids, including bluejoint, lake sedge, tussock sedge, and beaked sedge. • Forb cover is variable, with tufted loosestrife, marsh bellflower, marsh skullcap, and great water dock common, and small or three-cleft bedstraw, bulb-bearing water hemlock, northern bugleweed, linear-leaved, marsh, or downy willow-herb, water smartweed, and northern marsh fern occasional. • Shrub cover is variable. Tall shrubs such as willows, red-osier dogwood, and speckled alder can be dense, along with meadowsweet. Paper birch, black ash, red maple, American elm, and tamarack saplings are occasionally present in the shrub layer. • Trees taller than 16ft (5m) are rarely present and if so, have low cover (< 25%).
Natural History WMn82 is subjected to moderate inundation following spring runoff and heavy rains, and periodic drawdowns during summer. Peak water levels are high enough and persistent enough to prevent trees (and often shrubs) from becoming established, although there may be little or no standing water much of the growing season. As a result of water-level fluctuations, the surface substrate alternates between aerobic and anaerobic
158
conditions. Any organic matter that may accumulate over time is usually oxidized during drawdowns following drought or is removed by fire. Where deep peat is present in the community, it likely was formed previously on the site by a peat-producing community—such as a forested rich peatland—that was flooded by beaver activity and ultimately converted to a wet meadow. Deep peat may also develop from debris settling into basins with standing water, forming sedimentary peat. Because surface water in WMn82 is derived from runoff, stream flow, and groundwater sources, it has circumneutral pH (6.0–8.0) and high mineral and nutrient content. Although mosses are typically sparse in WMn82 because of alternating flooding and drawdown, moss cover can be relatively high in settings where water levels have become stabilized. In these situations, it appears that Sphagnum can quickly invade the community, especially on floating mats that are completely above the water surface. The water chemistry in these sites can be rapidly converted by Sphagnum to rich fen or even poor fen conditions before characteristic wet meadow species, especially wide-leaved sedges, have been replaced by plants of rich or poor fens such as narrow-leaved sedges. The process of succession of WMn82 to rich or poor fens is readily reversed by return of higher or more variable water levels, such as from beaver activity or variation in precipitation.
Native Plant Community Types in Class • WMn82a Willow - Dogwood Shrub Swamp: Open wetlands with abundant broad-leaved graminoids, and shrub cover typically > 25%. Shrubs that may be abundant include willows, red-osier dogwood, speckled alder, and occasionally bog birch. • WMn82b Sedge Meadow: Open wetlands with abundant broad-leaved graminoids, and shrub cover typically < 25%. The invasive species common reed grass and reed canary grass have become increasingly abundant in this community type over the past several decades, reducing species diversity in many occurrences. WMn82b is divided into four subtypes, based on dominant graminoid species. - WMn82b1 Bluejoint Subtype - WMn82b2 Tussock Sedge Subtype - WMn82b3 Beaked Sedge Subtype - WMn82b4 Lake Sedge Subtype
Wet Meadow/Shrub Carr - Southern Wet Prairie (WPs54)
Grass-dominated but forb-rich herbaceous communities on poorly drained to very poorly drained loam soils formed in lacustrine sediments, unsorted glacial till, or less frequently outwash deposits. Typically in slight depressions, sometimes on very gentle slopes. Flooded for brief periods at most; upper part of rooting zone is not saturated for most of growing season, but saturation usually persists in lower zone for much of season.
Vegetation Structure & Composition • Graminoid cover is usually continuous (75–100%). Tallgrasses dominate, but several midheight and low grasses and sedges are also important. Prairie cordgrass and big bluestem are the dominant tallgrasses; Indian grass and switchgrass are frequently important. Narrow reedgrass is a major species in the western part of the state. Woolly sedge is often an important component, and rigid sedge and flattened spikerush are frequently present. Mat muhly grass is sometimes abundant, growing under taller species or even forming most of the cover on saline sites in western Minnesota. 159
• Forb cover is sparse to patchy (5–50%). Canada goldenrod and giant, sawtooth, or Nuttall’s sunflower are typically most common. Other common taller forbs are giant goldenrod, tall meadow-rue, eastern panicled aster, and great blazing star. Common midheight species are heath aster, clasping dogbane, Virginia mountain mint, and golden alexanders. Common strawberry, golden or false golden, and northern bog violet are typically common in the lowest layer. Forb diversity and height decrease where soil salinity is elevated. • Shrub layer is absent to sparse (0–25% cover). The low semi-shrub prairie rose is most frequent; red-osier dogwood and pussy willow are occasional.
Natural History Although WPs54 is characterized by wet-mesic or wet conditions, WPs54 is not as strongly influenced by wetland processes associated with inundation and soil saturation as Wet Meadow communities. Flooding episodes are brief following snowmelt and heavy rains. The water table typically remains within the rooting zone of most plants for several weeks during the growing season, but at least the upper part of the zone is not saturated for most of the season. In some situations on slopes, groundwater seepage maintains continuously moist but not saturated soil conditions. The dominant plant species in WPs54 lack the physiological and morphological adaptations to tolerate anoxic soil conditions that typify the plants of wetter communities. In western Minnesota, local areas of salt accumulation within wet sites favor species tolerant of salinity, including several species associated with droughty upland sites that can tolerate osmotically induced moisture stress. Recurrent fire is essential for the existence of WPs54, as environmental conditions are otherwise favorable for the development of forest. Fire also recycles nutrients bound up in litter and promotes flowering and seed production; fire temporarily opens up the soil surface and so probably plays an important role in plant regeneration. Before Euro-American settlement, grazing and trampling by large ungulates were presumably regular occurrences in WPs54, although it is possible that wet prairies were less favored than upland prairies. The contribution of this disturbance to the composition and structure of the vegetation is not well understood, although confined grazing by domestic livestock can quickly destroy wet prairies, promoting the replacement of most of the native species by introduced ones. Disturbance can be especially severe when soils are saturated. Episodic grazing probably allows for the persistence of some native species that cannot otherwise reproduce in the dense canopy of tall grasses and forbs of WPs54; these would include shorter- stature species and especially annual or biennial plants. Spatial patchiness in grazing intensity also influenced fire behavior, providing a shifting patchwork of refugia for fire-sensitive animal species.
Native Plant Community Types in Class • WPs54b Wet Prairie (Southern): Grass-dominated, forb-rich herbaceous communities. Big bluestem and prairie cordgrass are the usual dominant species, either together or separately. Switchgrass and Indian grass are frequently present and often are major components. Woolly sedge and mat muhly grass are often common. The forb component of WPs54b is species rich. Canada goldenrod is usually present and often abundant. Other common forbs are tall meadow-rue, eastern panicled aster, Virginia mountain mint, clasping dogbane, heath aster, great blazing star, golden alexanders, giant, sawtooth, or Nuttall’s sunflower, and giant goldenrod.
Emergent Marsh - Northern Mixed Cattail Marsh (MRn83)
160
Emergent marsh communities, typically dominated by cattails. Present on floating mats along shorelines in lakes, ponds, and river backwaters or rooted in mineral soil in shallow wetland basins.
Vegetation Structure & Composition • Floating-leaved and submergent aquatic plant cover is sparse, with species such as duckweed and greater duckweed frequent, and common bladderwort and common coontail occasionally present. Seasonally prolific, floating clones of the liverworts Riccia fluitans and Ricciocarpos natans may be present, becoming stranded during watertable drawdown. • Graminoid cover is variable, with lake sedge and bristly sedge commonly present. • Forb cover is strongly dominated by cattails, usually with > 50% cover. Other common forbs include emergent species such as broad-leaved arrowhead, marsh skullcap, small or three-cleft bedstraw, and bur marigold and beggarticks. • Shrubs are absent or very sparse. • Notes: Vegetation is often composed of dense stands of cattails interspersed with pools of open water. Associated species are highly variable. MRn83 and other shallowwater wetlands throughout much of the state (particularly the agricultural region) have been invaded by dense stands of the non-native species narrow- leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia) and hybrid cattail (T. x glauca). Invasion and dominance of marshes by non- native cattail species is likely related to alterations in wetland hydrology, commonly from drain tiling, ditching, and impoundments; high levels of nutrient-rich runoff from agricultural fields; and salt-containing runoff from roads. Marshes dominated by non-native cattail species are considered to be low-quality or disturbed examples of MRn83. Marshes dominated by the native species broad-leaved cattail (T. latifolia) are considered higher-quality examples of MRn83 and are increasingly rare in Minnesota.
Natural History MRn83 develops in areas where standing water is present most of the year, providing conditions favorable for hydrophytic plants. Occurrences of the community with plants rooted in muck or peat substrates may succeed to shallow aquatic communities if the water table rises for prolonged periods, or to wet meadows if the water table drops or if silt or sedimentary peat accumulation causes the substrate surface to become elevated above the water surface. Floating mats, which rise and fall with changes in water level, are presumably successionally stable but may be fragmented by strong winds or beaver activity. Variation in species composition observed in the class is likely due to differences in water depth, the permanence of standing water, and variation in substrate. Fires during severe droughts can remove accumulated peat in fens or wet meadows, effectively lowering the growing surface and creating the wetter conditions that favor marsh over fen or wet meadow vegetation.
Native Plant Community Types in Class • MRn83a Cattail - Sedge Marsh (Northern): Emergent marshes typically dominated by cattails but with a significant component of graminoids including sedges, woolgrass, and bluejoint. MRn83a is more likely than MRn83b to be dominated by the native species broad-leaved cattail and is uncommon. • MRn83b Cattail Marsh (Northern): Emergent marshes dominated by nearly pure stands of cattails. If sedges and grasses are present, they are minor components. MRn83b is the most common of the two community
161
types in this class and often is dominated by the non-native species narrowleaved and hybrid cattail. Marshes dominated by pure stands of the native species broad-leaved cattail were likely more common in the past but are now rare across much of the range of the community
162
Appendix H: Acceptable Source Origin of Native Seed for Dakota County Native seed source origin should be from within circle shown below. Some allowance may be made to accommodate facilitation of more southerly species into the county to respond to climate change.
163