ITEM 5.1 Highlands of River Pointe Natural Resources Management Plan Item 5.1
1
TO: Parks and Recreation Commission
FROM: Nick Jacobs, Parks and Recreation Director
DATE: April 8, 2025
RE: Highlands of River Pointe Natural Resources Management Plan
Background Information
Friends of the Mississippi River has drafted a comprehensive Natural Resources
Management Plan (NRMP) for Highlands of River Pointe Park. The following reasons
are why having a plan is important:
1. Sustainable Growth- A NRMP ensures that development is balanced with
conservation. It provides a framework for integrating natural resource protection
into land use planning, zoning, and infrastructure development.
2. Water Quality and Flood Mitigation- Protecting wetlands, shorelines, and
floodplains help maintain water quality in the Crow River which leads into the
Mississippi less than two miles downriver.
3. Biodiversity and Habitat Preservation- Otsego is home to many native species
and natural landscapes. A NRMP can help identify and protect priority
conservation areas such as Highlands of River Pointe Park.
4. Recreation and Quality of Life- Parks, trails, and natural spaces improve the
quality of life for everyone. Ensuring that these spaces are preserved for future
generations.
5. Climate Resilience- Natural systems can buffer the impacts of climate change
including heat, drought, and severe storms. Strategically managing trees, soils,
and water resources enhance the environment.
Item 5.1
2
6. Economic and Fiscal Benefits- Investing in natural resources protection can
reduce long-term infrastructure costs, increase property values, and promote
eco-tourism and outdoor recreation.
The Highlands of River Pointe Plan addresses all these issues and how Friends of the
Mississippi River and the City of Otsego are going to collaboratively work together to
accomplish this restoration. This plan will only enhance the park and make this a more
enjoyable space for all. Friends of the Mississippi River and the City of Otsego have
worked together since 2022 and have an active restoration site at Davis Farm Park,
which would be concurrently ongoing with this proposed NRMP.
Requested Commission Action
Staff requests the Parks and Recreation Commission review the Natural Resources
Management Plan for consideration of adoption.
Possible recommendation:
A motion to adopt the Highlands of River Pointe Natural Resources Management Plan
as written and presented by Friends of the Mississippi River.
Attachments:
• Highlands of River Pointe Park Natural Resources Management Plan
1
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
HIGHLANDS OF RIVER
POINTE PARK
Natural Resources Management Plan
Prepared for:
The City of Otsego, MN
Parks and Recreation
Prepared by:
Friends of the Mississippi River, St. Paul, Minnesota
April 2025
2
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
This Natural Resources Management Plan and Work Plan has been reviewed and approved
by:
City of Otsego Parks and Recreation Chair
_________________________________________ Date: _________________________
Kitty Baltos
City of Otsego Parks and Recreation Director
_________________________________________ Date: _________________________
Nick Jacobs
This document can be changed only by written agreement between the City of Otsego and
Friends of the Mississippi River.
3
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
SITE INFORMATION
Owner name, address, city/township, county, and contact
Otsego, MN Parks and Recreation
13400 90th Street NE, Otsego, MN 55330
Wright County, Minnesota
CONTACT PERSON: Nick Jacobs, Otsego Parks and Recreation Director 763.334.3170
Section, township, and range
Sections 1 and 12 of Township 120 North, Range 23 West
Parcel Identification Number
118320000010
Watershed
North Fork of the Crow River Watershed
Rare Features
Black sandshell mussel (Ligumia recta)
4
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SITE INFORMATION 3
OWNER NAME, ADDRESS, CITY/TOWNSHIP, COUNTY, AND CONTACT 3
SECTION, TOWNSHIP, AND RANGE 3
PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 3
WATERSHED 3
RARE FEATURES 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7
BACKGROUND 8
SURROUNDING LAND USE 11
BENEFITS TO RESTORATION 14
INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT 14
UNITS 1A, 1B, 1C, AND 1D.: UPLAND GRASSLANDS 14
UNIT 2: WET MEADOW/SHRUB CARR 14
UNIT 3: OAK FOREST 15
UNIT 4: TERRACE FOREST 15
UNIT 5: OPEN WATER 15
PRIORITY ISSUES 17
PRIORITY FEATURES 17
PRIORITY FEATURE 1: 17
PRIORITY FEATURE 2: 18
PRIORITY FEATURE 3: 18
ECOLOGICAL CONTEXT 18
GEOLOGY AND GROUNDWATER 18
TOPOGRAPHY & ASPECT 19
SOILS 21
SURFACE WATER RESOURCES 23
HISTORICAL VEGETATION 27
CONNECTIVITY 27
ADJACENT LAND USE 27
PROXIMITY TO ECOLOGICAL CORRIDORS 28
ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE AND WILDLIFE VALUE 28
COMMUNITY VALUE 29
RARE SPECIES 29
MANAGEMENT UNITS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 31
BACKGROUND DATA 31
MANAGEMENT UNITS OVERVIEW 33
MANAGEMENT UNIT 1 (SUBUNITS A-D): UPLAND GRASSLAND 35
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES AND GOALS 37
DESIRED FUTURE CONDITIONS 38
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 38
5
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
MANAGEMENT UNIT 2: WET MEADOW-SHRUB CARR 40
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES AND GOALS 41
DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION 42
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 42
MANAGEMENT UNIT 3: OAK FOREST 45
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES AND GOALS 46
DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION 47
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 47
MANAGEMENT UNIT 4: TERRACE FOREST 49
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES AND GOALS 53
DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION 54
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 55
MANAGEMENT UNIT 5: OPEN WATER 58
WORKPLAN 59
WORKPLAN PRIORITIZATION 59
5-YEAR WORK PLAN 59
LONG TERM MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT 64
SEEDING AND PLANTING (ALL UNITS, AS NEEDED) 64
INVASIVE SPECIES MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT (ALL UNITS) 64
PRESCRIBED BURNING (MU1 UPLAND GRASSLAND) 64
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 66
RESTORATION PROCESS 66
RESTORATION GOALS 66
TREE DISEASE 68
DUTCH ELM DISEASE AND EMERALD ASH BORER 68
OAK WILT AND BUR OAK BLIGHT 69
COMMUNITY USE, SITE ACCESS AND SIGNAGE 70
INFORMATION SOURCES 71
APPENDICES 72
APPENDIX A. MLCCS UNITS, SOIL TYPES, AND RESTORATION TARGET PLANT COMMUNITIES FOR MANAGEMENT
UNITS 72
APPENDIX B. PLANT SPECIES FOR RESTORATION AT HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE PARK 72
APPENDIX C. METHODS FOR CONTROLLING NON-NATIVE AND INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES 76
APPENDIX D. ECOLOGICAL CONTRACTORS 84
6
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
Figures and Photos
FIGURE 1: HISTORIC PLANT COMMUNITIES OF HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE PARK ....................................................................... 9
FIGURE 2: 1940, 1953, 1963, AND 1970 AERIAL IMAGERY OF THE HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE SITE ........................................... 10
FIGURE 3: CROW RIVER REGIONAL TRAIL PLANNED, THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT .................................................................... 12
FIGURE 4: EXISTING AND PLANNED TRAILS NEAR HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE PARK ................................................................. 13
FIGURE 5: MANAGEMENT UNITS OF HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE PARK ................................................................................... 16
FIGURE 6: TOPOGRAPHY CONTOURS AT HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE PARK ............................................................................. 20
FIGURE 7: SOIL UNITS WITHIN HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE PARK .......................................................................................... 22
FIGURE 8: FLOOD ZONES OF HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE PARK ............................................................................................ 24
FIGURE 9: WETLANDS IN THE AREA OF HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE PARK ............................................................................... 26
PHOTO 1: MUSSEL SHELLS DISCARDED BY RACCOONS OR OPOSSUMS. ....................................................................................... 29
FIGURE 10: ECOLOGICAL SUBSECTION OF HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE PARK .......................................................................... 32
FIGURE 11: TARGET PLANT COMMUNITIES FOR MANAGEMENT UNITS OF HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE PARK ................................. 34
PHOTO 2. MU1 GRASSLAND WITH WOODY ENCROACHMENT. ................................................................................................... 35
PHOTO 3: UNIT 1B DRY BASIN. .......................................................................................................................................... 36
PHOTO 4. MU2 BASIN. ..................................................................................................................................................... 40
PHOTO 5. BUR OAK IN MU3, OAK FOREST ........................................................................................................................... 45
PHOTO 6. SOUTH-CENTRAL SECTION OF MU4, TERRACE FOREST ............................................................................................ 49
PHOTO 7: EASTERN LEG OF MU3, TERRACE FOREST .............................................................................................................. 51
PHOTO 8: WESTERN LEG OF MU3, TERRACE FOREST ............................................................................................................. 52
Tables
TABLE 1: RARE SPECIES AND SPECIES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED (SGCN) IN BOLD WITHIN 5-MILE RADIUS OF SITE. ............ 30
TABLE 2: COMMON AND NOTABLE SPECIES OBSERVED IN UNIT 1 .............................................................................................. 37
TABLE 3: MANAGEMENT UNIT 1 POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT ACTIONS. ....................................................................................... 39
TABLE 4: COMMON AND NOTABLE SPECIES OBSERVED IN UNIT 2 .............................................................................................. 41
TABLE 5: MANAGEMENT UNIT 2 POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT ACTIONS. ....................................................................................... 43
TABLE 6: COMMON AND NOTABLE SPECIES OBSERVED IN UNIT 3 .............................................................................................. 46
TABLE 7: MANAGEMENT UNIT 3 POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT ACTIONS. ....................................................................................... 48
TABLE 8: COMMON AND NOTABLE SPECIES OBSERVED IN UNIT 4 .............................................................................................. 53
TABLE 9: MANAGEMENT UNIT 4 POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT ACTIONS ........................................................................................ 56
TABLE 10. RESTORATION SCHEDULE AND COST ESTIMATES BY MANAGEMENT UNIT .................................................................... 60
TABLE 11: LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE AND COST ESTIMATES .................................................................................. 65
7
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Natural Resources Management Plan presents the site analysis and recommended land
management activities for the 62-acre Highlands of River Pointe Park property in Otsego,
Wright County, MN. This document was drafted by Friends of the Mississippi River (FMR) in
2024-25 and is based on documentation of site characteristics, including natural resource and
community access priorities, issues, and corrective actions. These actions reflect community
values regarding the unique features of the Highlands of River Pointe Park (HRP). The
protection of HRP’s features points to restoration and improvement of access for the health
and well-being of the community. This natural resources management plan (NRMP) provides
a framework for those goals, including recommended restoration and public use
enhancement activities, timing and costs for those activities, long-term management
objectives, and funding opportunities.
Highlands of River Pointe Park is facing threats and pressures related to habitat loss and
fragmentation, non-native species abundance and native plant community suppression, uses
that are incompatible with habitat protection, and climate change. These threats are
meaningful even if they only affect certain aspects of the site, as the park is seen as a
contiguous habitat. As a result, taking no action will ultimately result in the degradation of
the system.
This NRMP recommends targeted restoration of the grasslands, which would include woody
removal, invasive species management, supplemental seeding and planting, and
reintroducing a disturbance regime through prescribed fire. The NRMP also recommends
woody invasive shrub management in the oak woodland and terrace forest, followed by
replacement shrub planting. Lastly, the NRMP guides the improvement of the stormwater
basins by ruderal tree removal, invasive species management and enhancement seeding and
planting. Over a five-year restoration timeline, total costs are estimated at $313,000. These
restoration activities will be responsive to any infrastructure improvements to the park,
including trail improvements and the addition of park signage.
8
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
BACKGROUND
Highlands of River Pointe Park’s location on the Crow River and the site’s adjacency to the
Crow River’s confluence with the Mississippi River may point to a long history of Indigenous
use, and this is likely given archaeological records of nearby locations on the river. The Office
of the State Archaeologist notes 2 cultural resource sites within the land section where HRP is
located. While cultural resources have not been identified on the site itself, their presence is
possible based on its location.
The land cover around the time of the public land survey of Minnesota (1847-1907) was
classified as “River Bottoms Forest” and “Big Woods-Hardwoods (oak, maple, basswood,
hickory)”. This cover type is most closely associated with present-day Minnesota native plant
communities of forested floodplain/terrace forest and maple-oak-basswood forest,
respectively.
While the landscape has changed considerably since the late 1800s, these plant communities
can still be referenced when setting broad restoration goals and considering target plant
communities.
9
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
Figure 1: Historic Plant Communities of Highlands of River Pointe Park
10
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
Aerial imagery of Minnesota was captured starting in the 1930s, with image quality improving
as technology advanced. The four aerial images below show the progression of land use and
changing plant communities over a 30-year period from 1940 to 1970.
Figure 2: 1940, 1953, 1963, and 1970 aerial imagery of the Highlands of River Pointe site
These images tell a story of relatively stable and consistent land use over these thirty years.
During most of the 20th century, the site was part of a large family farm with diverse row crop
agriculture dominating most of the landscape to the north of today’s parkland. A large
woodland has been present on the site since at least the 1930s, and a portion of that
woodland remains today. The Crow River streambank has been lined with floodplain trees
over the last century, and in the 1980s, buckthorn began to dominate the understory. In 2017,
the property was subdivided and sold for residential development. An outlot containing the
land adjacent to the Crow River was deeded to the City of Otsego as part of the park
dedication required by the plat approval, and this parkland is the subject of this natural
resources management plan. The City of Otsego’s 10-Year Comprehensive Plan (2023)
describes the park in its adjacency to the Crow River and notes that the floodplain and
1940 1953
1963 1970
11
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
surrounding uplands are to be “kept in a natural state and accessible as part of the City’s trail
system.”
The park also includes a large stormwater retention area that serves the housing
development to the north. As such, there are four primary landcover types across the site:
upland grassland, wet meadow/shrub carr, oak forest, and terrace forest near the river. These
landcover types are discussed in greater detail in the management unit sections that follow.
SURROUNDING LAND USE
Land use adjacent to HRP is primarily single-family residential and rural areas that are
developing into residential neighborhoods. Across the Crow River in Hennepin County, land
use is also single-family residential, but lots are considerably larger, and homes sit above an
unvegetated 40-foot vertical and undercut bank. Hennepin County has two planned trails
that reach the Wright-Hennepin County border near the west and east sides of the park.
Additionally, the Crow River Regional Trail Master Plan developed by Three Rivers Park
District plans a trail corridor through Hennepin and Wright Counties with a river crossing into
HRP (Figure 3) and connecting to the present alignment of the River Trail shown in Figure 4.
The park dedication of the 61 acres of HRP included land for the regional trail corridor.
12
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
Figure 3: Crow River Regional Trail planned, Three Rivers Park District
13
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
Figure 4: Existing and Planned Trails near Highlands of River Pointe Park
14
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
BENEFITS TO RESTORATION
Driven by the desire to preserve natural areas in this matrix of developing residential and
agricultural lands, this plan recommends managing invasive species within the park,
restoring native plant communities on the site, and improving public access. Restoration of
floodplain terrace forest, oak forest, and grassland communities on the site is prioritized as
invasive species and erosion imperil these habitats. Yard waste dumping in the park and the
extension of residential landscaping into the park call for attention to the site and public
outreach and education. Because the recreational use of the site is not well understood and
site orientation is poor, the community should be involved in decision-making and
stewardship of the park. This is vital to the park’s success as a community asset.
These benefits align with goals set in the City of Otsego Parks and Recreation System Master
Plan, which lists “existing streambank stabilization and woodland restoration projects,
potential forest and river shoreland restoration, soft-surface hiking and mountain bike trails,
connection to the Crow River Regional Trail, and a canoe/kayak launch.”
INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT
FMR ecologists conducted a natural resources inventory and assessment during the summer
and fall of 2024 to document existing plant and wildlife communities, identify opportunities
for restoration, and develop guidance for long-term public use. HRP consists of four primary
vegetation cover types: upland grassland, wet meadow/shrub carr, oak forest, and terrace
forest along the river (Figure 5). The wet meadow/shrub carr, oak forest, and terrace forest
occur in single distinct units across the park, and the upland grassland occurs in four
geographically distinct units separated by other cover types.
Units 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d.: Upland Grasslands
Units 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d, the Upland Grasslands, are characterized by pockets of native prairie
forbs (wildflowers) and grasses within larger swaths of non-native grasses, weedy forbs, and
significant non-native woody encroachment. Some native plants may occur because of site
restoration following the construction of the housing development, but based on species
assemblages, there are also likely remnant plant communities within the grasslands. Recent
aerial imagery indicates that the upland has been maintained with prescribed fire, which is
key to the persistence of prairie species and suppression of shrubs and trees, as well as
weedy cool season grasses. Units 1c and 1d sit on either side of two stormwater basins and, in
high-water years, can be temporarily saturated. The natural surface trail creates the southern
boundary of Unit 1c and the eastern boundary of Unit 1d.
Unit 2: Wet Meadow/Shrub Carr
Unit 2, the Wet Meadow/Shrub Carr, is a constructed stormwater basin that receives piped
runoff from the residential subdivision to the north of the park. Recent aerial imagery
documents that this area also receives flood flows from the Crow River during high-water
events and can be nearly entirely inundated. Willows and eastern cottonwood are well-
15
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
established in the basin, and in non-treed areas, sedges, cattails, and reed canary grass
comprise the herbaceous layer. Fluctuating soil moisture, soil type variability, and slight
elevation differences have led to a high degree of vegetation community diversity in the unit.
Unit 3: Oak Forest
Unit 3, the Oak Forest, is likely the most unchanged plant community within the site. Aerial
images from 1937 and 1940 show an oak woodland or dense oak savanna with an open
understory within the larger matrix of agricultural fields. The woodland may have been
grazed or burned to maintain its open character throughout most of the 20th Century, but in
the last 20 years, the understory has filled in considerably and is now dominated by invasive
common buckthorn and Tatarian honeysuckle.
Unit 4: Terrace Forest
Unit 4, the Terrace Forest, lies slightly higher in elevation than the floodplain of the Crow
River and is characterized by a sometimes-dense tree canopy and shrubby understory, as well
as open sandy areas that receive frequent disturbance from flood flows. The unit is the inside
bend of a large oxbow in the river, where waterborne sediment drops out as water slows,
making the wide turn of the oxbow. Large floodplain trees such as silver maple and eastern
cottonwood line the banks, but the invasive tree Siberian elm is also present, which is the
likely seed source for the Siberian elm in the grassland. The most common understory shrub
in the unit is common buckthorn, some of which are very large and produce fruits. Several
“social trails” lead from the mowed natural surface trail to the river through this unit. The
Terrace Forest would be bisected by a trail when the Crow River Regional Trail connects to
HRP via a new bridge across the river from the south.
Unit 5: Open Water
Unit 5, Open Water, is 9.9 acres of open water on the Crow River within the park property's
parcel boundary. This management unit is only designated to account for those acres in the
overall delineation of management units and in consideration of the total property acreage of
61.8 acres. No specific management is prescribed in open water areas.
16
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
Figure 5: Management Units of Highlands of River Pointe Park
17
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
PRIORITY ISSUES
Priority Issues are concerns that pose the greatest risk or threats to the ecological integrity of
the site. They can be addressed through a variety of management actions over time. If left
unmanaged, current conditions will persist or worsen.
Priority Issues for Highlands of River Pointe Park include:
1. The abundance of non-native and invasive species degrades habitat and displaces
native species that would otherwise create much-needed habitat and provide other
ecosystem services.
2. The low plant species diversity within native plant communities across the site creates
poor habitat, including a lack of floral resources for pollinators throughout the
growing season.
3. The misuse of parkland for yard waste dumping and the extension of lawn mowing
into park natural areas diminishes habitat value and leads to phosphorus and other
nutrient runoff into the Crow River.
PRIORITY FEATURES
Priority Features are key components identified to require management to sustain ecological
integrity and build resiliency in the face of Priority Issues. This NRMP will focus on three
Priority Features and provide associated management recommendations.
Priority Features at Highlands of River Pointe Park include:
1. The remnant and re-established prairie plant communities within the grassland and
the potential to expand and enhance these plant communities to provide critical
habitat for pollinators and grassland songbirds.
2. The oak forest plant community and the potential to preserve and enhance this
historic habitat within the site.
3. The terrace forest and the potential to restore its degraded understory plant
community while also enhancing access and providing for climate resiliency.
Natural resources management recommendations associated with each Priority Feature
incorporate the resource assessment conducted by FMR, past land use and management
activities, the goals and perspectives of Otsego Parks and Recreation, and the community’s
values for the park. The recommendations stem from general ecological guidelines for these
types of landscapes set by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) in and
address the Priority Issues mentioned above.
PRIORITY FEATURE 1:
Remnant and re-established prairie plant communities within the grassland and the potential
to expand and enhance these plant communities to provide critical habitat for pollinators
and grassland songbirds and improve aesthetics for the community.
18
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
Priority Management Objectives include:
1) Reduce or eliminate invasive herbaceous plants and eliminate invasive woody shrubs
and trees
2) Reestablish mesic-wet prairie plant communities
3) Establish a 3–4-year prescribed burn rotation
4) Reduce or eliminate yard waste dumping and mowing and underground fence
encroachment
The primary goals will be to reduce non-native plant cover, increase native vegetation cover,
diversity, and habitat structure, reintroduce a historical disturbance regime, and increase
habitat for rare features like Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN).
PRIORITY FEATURE 2:
Oak forest plant community and the potential to preserve and enhance this historic habitat
within the site.
Priority Management Objectives include:
1) Reduce or eliminate invasive herbaceous plants and eliminate invasive woody shrubs.
2) Reestablish an earthworm-resistant herbaceous plant community.
3) Reestablish a fire-resistant native shrub layer
4) Close and revegetate redundant trails within the forest to increase habitat integrity
and limit habitat edge effects.
The primary goals will be to reduce non-native plant cover, increase native vegetation cover,
diversity, and habitat structure, reintroduce a disturbance regime, and increase habitat for
rare features like Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN).
PRIORITY FEATURE 3:
The terrace forest and the potential to restore its degraded understory plant community
while also enhancing access and providing for climate resiliency.
1) Reduce or eliminate invasive herbaceous plants and eliminate invasive woody shrubs
and trees.
5) Reestablish an earthworm-resistant and flood-tolerant herbaceous plant community.
6) Establish safe and maintainable river access points
ECOLOGICAL CONTEXT
GEOLOGY AND GROUNDWATER
The site’s geologic history is from the Cambrian era, and bedrock is comprised of sandstone,
siltstone, shale, and dolostone with rift-flanking sandstone from the Hinckley, Fond du Lac,
and Solar Church formations. These formations are from ~1,000,000,000 years ago and
developed from deposition in eolian, fluvial, and lacustrine environments. (Jirsa, et al.,
Geologic Map of Minnesota Bedrock, 2011.)
19
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
The depth of groundwater across the eastern and central portions of the site is between 0 and
10’, and the northwestern portion has groundwater at a depth of between 10 and 20’. The
shallow depth of groundwater increases its sensitivity to pollution from contaminants that
might move through the soil profile.
TOPOGRAPHY & ASPECT
The site is slightly sloped from north to south, with a 10-foot elevation drop from the northern
edges of the park (860 FASL) to the Crow River streambank (850 FASL). This slight change in
elevation creates a minor south-facing aspect that accelerates soil warming on the northern
edge of the park, but the floodplain treeline shades the southern edge of the site during the
fall, winter, and early spring when the sun is lower in the sky.
20
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
Figure 6: Topography Contours at Highlands of River Pointe Park
21
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
SOILS
Three soil types are dominant across the site, with several subtypes of these filling out the
remainder of the park. Adjacent to the Crow River floodplain at the southern tip of the park,
Elkriver fine sandy loam covers approximately 18.0 acres. It is a somewhat poorly drained,
deep alluvial floodplain soil with more than 60 inches to a restrictive feature.
The central area of the park, where the oak forest and stormwater basins are located, has
another type of Elkriver fine sandy loam covering 20.5 acres. This soil is moderately well-
drained, rarely flooded, and very deep, with alluvial parent material. It can be assumed that
the soil profile within the stormwater basin's construction limits has changed.
The western edge and extreme northeast corner of the park’s terrace forests covering 6.0
acres have Dorset-Two Inlets/Dorset-Almora complex soils, which are very deep, well-drained
sandy loams. These soils typically occur on hills on outwash plains and stream terraces.
The western upland lobe of the park contains two silt loams, Bygland and Lindaas silt loam,
covering 4.5 acres. Bygland silt loam is a very deep, moderately well-drained soil that
typically occurs on hills in lake plains, with glacial lake sediments as its parent material.
Lindaas silt loam is also very deep but moderately well-drained, with glacial lake sediments
as its parent material. (Figure 7).
Soil types within each management unit are listed in Appendix A.
The remaining acreage within the park boundaries is open water.
22
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
Figure 7: Soil Units within Highlands of River Pointe Park
23
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
SURFACE WATER RESOURCES
RIVERS
The North Fork of the Crow River borders the park to the south and is a tributary to the
Mississippi River. It is impaired for fecal coliform, fish biodiversity, invertebrate biodiversity,
nutrients, and turbidity. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, which monitors stream
health in Minnesota, has determined that a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study is
required for this reach of the Crow River. The City of Otsego has an opportunity here to work
with the North Fork of the Crow River Watershed District to advance a TMDL study so that
water quality improvements are targeted toward measurable and achievable reductions.
Highlands of River Pointe Park has a high degree of interaction with the Crow River, and the
landform itself is the result of river-borne sediment deposition. The meander in the river
south of the park slows the current, and sediments suspended in the water drop out as the
water slows around bends in the channel. These deposits have built up over time and created
a small peninsula of land on which the park is located.
Healthy streams are connected to their floodplains with shallow banks that gradually rise in
elevation to wide, flat terraces. During periods of high water, flood flows exceed the banks
and are stored within the floodplains, where sediments and debris drop out before water
levels recede. At HRP, the floodplain and adjacent terrace forest provide that water quality
benefit while protecting nearby homes and infrastructure from flooding (Figure 8).
24
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
Figure 8: Flood Zones of Highlands of River Pointe Park
25
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
WETLANDS
According to the National Wetland Inventory (NWI), one wetland type is present within the
boundary of HRP: “Unconsolidated Bottom-Open Water,” which is associated with the Crow
River (Figure 9). Any management within this boundary, such as streambank restoration,
must adhere to Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act rules and would require an official
wetland delineation to provide certainty of exact wetland boundaries. The addition of
material to potentially rebuild areas of erosion in the riverbank would also be restricted by
watershed regulatory rules for floodplain fill.
The stormwater basin within the park, while characterized for management purposes as a
“wet meadow-shrub carr,” is not a naturally occurring wetland.
26
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
Figure 9: Wetlands in the Area of Highlands of River Pointe Park
27
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
HISTORICAL VEGETATION
Based on data transcribed from the original Public Land Survey of Minnesota from 1847-1907,
the Crow River flowed through uplands of hardwood forest and lowlands of river bottom
forests (Figure 1).
In the historical hardwood forests of the uplands, oaks, maples, and basswoods would have
filled the canopies of the forest, and this would have been the cover type of the eastern two-
thirds of the park around the time of the public land survey.
In lower-lying areas, where the streambanks gently sloped to meet uplands, higher stream
flows would have reached hundreds of feet into river bottom forests with early successional
species such as silver maple, box elder, and eastern cottonwood. Historically, the western
“leg” of the park would have had this cover type.
Further supporting this characterization of historical vegetation is the recording of five
bearing trees near the present-day park, those trees marked during the Public Land Survey as
a standard way to facilitate the relocation of a lost or moved section corner marker. The
species of these five trees are American elm, red maple, red or rock elm, American basswood,
and sugar maple, which are all species of hardwood forests and river bottom forests.
Historical aerial photos can also help to understand vegetation and land use changes over
the last 75 years (Figure 2).
CONNECTIVITY
ADJACENT LAND USE
Highlands of River Pointe Park is located within an area of rapid development and conversion
of natural and agricultural lands to residential development. While the park itself is a
significant area of protected and naturalized land, its shape creates a significant amount of
“edge habitat,” where vegetation types creating blocks of habitat are in linear strips rather
than large contiguous areas. Some wildlife species require larger blocks of habitat and can be
adversely affected by an increased ratio of edge to total interior habitat. These “edge effects”
are parasitism or predation, adverse microclimate conditions, and competition from invasive
species. In response to this unavoidable arrangement of habitat types across the park, efforts
should be made to improve each habitat type through vegetation restoration and
encouraging native habitat landscaping throughout neighboring residential areas. Nearby
habitat is especially useful to species with short dispersal ranges, such as insects and insect-
pollinated plants.
Related, the park’s location within a residential and developing area also lends itself to future
introduction of invasive species and escaped garden plants. As park use increases and
naturalized spaces near the park shrink, the likelihood that people will transport weedy
species on their shoes, yard waste dumping may establish populations of cultivated plants,
28
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
and wildlife will move invasive species to the site. Ongoing attention to the plant community
conditions and responsive management will abate these issues.
The 62 acres of the park do create a small link in a larger habitat corridor between the
restored prairie across 840 acres of the Crow-Hassan Park Reserve five miles to the west and
the Mississippi River Flyway migration corridor two miles to the east.
PROXIMITY TO ECOLOGICAL CORRIDORS
Metro Conservation Corridor
Highlands of River Pointe Park is located within a lobe of the Metro Conservation Corridors
(MeCC), a series of connected habitat corridors throughout the greater Twin Cities area. The
MeCC was originally developed from natural resource analysis work completed by the
MNDNR in the 1990s. Subsequently, this work has been refined through the partnership of
many metro organizations, with the goal of providing communities with open space, wildlife
habitat, and water quality benefits. Restoration within HRP will contribute to all three of
those goals.
Mississippi River Habitat
Highlands of River Pointe Park is less than 2 miles upstream of a Mississippi River reach
designated by the MNDNR as a “medium-high” quality aquatic habitat based on an
exceptional Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) score as determined by Minnesota Wildlife
Action Network or WAN. The MNDNR developed the WAN as a part of the 2015-25 Minnesota
Wildlife Action Plan revision. Habitat enhancement at HRP will further extend this corridor,
supporting both migratory and resident wildlife populations.
ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE AND WILDLIFE VALUE
Nearly all forms of wildlife depend on rivers for sustenance, especially invertebrates,
amphibians, reptiles, and fish. Mammals and birds also benefit greatly from the water,
shelter, and nutrients provided by the river, and birds use the river corridor as an important
migratory flyway. While HRP is not ranked for ecological significance by the Minnesota County
Biological Survey, its adjacency to the Crow River confers habitat value in that it is upland of
this river system. The site is also upstream and downstream of areas of high and moderate
biodiversity, and habitat restoration within the park would create additional habitat linking
these areas, which is highly valuable for species with larger ranges or higher dispersal rates.
Wildlife observed at the park during 2024 site surveys included a bald eagle, ruby-crowned
kinglet, yellow-rumped warbler, white-tailed deer, and evidence of racoon and opossum
consuming mussels (Photo 1). FMR ecologists encountered abundant deer and wood ticks in
2024, potentially related to the white-tailed deer population and high precipitation.
29
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
COMMUNITY VALUE
In addition to the habitat and water quality benefits provided through restoration at HRP,
removal of dense invasive woody plants and the enhancement of the plant communities will
create a beautiful destination for the community to spend time, exercise, enjoy nature, and
learn about Minnesota’s ecology. The value of community open spaces like HRP cannot be
understated.
Photo 1: Mussel shells discarded by raccoons or opossums.
RARE SPECIES
According to the DNR natural heritage database, there is one rare species recorded within the
site: black sandshell mussel. However, 17 additional rare species have been recorded within 5
miles of the site. Thirteen of these rare species are designated as species of greatest
conservation need (SGCN) in Minnesota (Table 1). Habitat loss and degradation have been
primary drivers of decline for SGCN.
30
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
Table 1: Rare Species and Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) in bold within 5-mile
radius of site.
Common Name Scientific Name Category Status*
American ginseng Panax quinquefolius Vascular plant SPC
Black sandshell Ligumia recta Invertebrate SPC
Blanding’s turtle Emydoidea blandingii Vertebrate animal THR
Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus Vertebrate animal SPC
Butternut Juglans cinerea Vascular plant END
Common gallinule Gallinula galeata Vertebrate animal SPC
Creek heelsplitter Lasmigona compressa Invertebrate animal SPC
Gray’s sedge Carex grayi Vascular plant SPC
Henslow’s sparrow Ammodramus henslowii Vertebrate animal END
Leadplant flower moth Schinia lucens Invertebrate animal SPC
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Vertebrate animal END
Plains hog-nosed snake Heterodon nasicus Vertebrate animal SPC
Red saltwort Salicornia rubra Vascular plant THR
Regal fritillary Speyeria idalia Invertebrate animal SPC
Rusty patched bumblebee Bombus affinis Invertebrate animal Watchlist**
St. Lawrence grapefern Sceptridium rugulosum Vascular plant SPC
Tricolored bat Perimyotis subflavus Vertebrate animal SPC
Trumpeter swan Cygnus buccinator Vertebrate animal SPC
*Status refers to conservation status in Minnesota. SPC=special concern, THR=threatened, END=endangered.
Rusty patched bumblebee is federally endangered but not listed in the state of Minnesota.
The species of greatest conservation need listed above are species of prairies (Henslow’s
sparrow, leadplant flower moth, loggerhead shrike, plains hog-nosed snake, regal fritillary,
rusty patched bumblebee), woodlands and forests (big brown bat, tricolored bat), and rivers,
marshes, and sandy uplands (black sandshell, Blanding’s turtle, common gallinule, creek
heelsplitter, trumpeter swan). Highlands of River Pointe Park has the diversity of all three
habitat types, and restoring native plant communities and returning historical disturbance
regimes, such as fire, to this landscape will create conditions to support these and other
species suffering from habitat loss.
31
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
MANAGEMENT UNITS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
BACKGROUND DATA
This natural resources management plan uses two primary data sets to characterize the
property’s existing land cover and identify target plant communities for restoration: the
MNDNR Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS), which integrates cultural and
vegetation features of the landscape into one comprehensive land classification system, and
the Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota: The Eastern Broadleaf Forest
Province (MNDNR, 2005) which identifies ecological systems and native plant community
types in the state based on multiple ecological features such as major climate zones, origin of
glacial deposit, and plant composition.
To simplify and summarize these data, Native Plant Community conditions (grades) were
identified for each intact community and are ranked from A (excellent), B (good), C (fair), to D
(poor). This ranking considers the abundance of non-native species, diversity and health of
native species, level of disturbance and degradation, and impacts or alterations to water
features. Condition ranks are only assigned to native plant communities classified according
to DNR guidelines; other plant communities are considered land cover types and are not
assigned condition ranks.
The following site-specific factors were also considered when determining the target plant
communities for restoration (Appendix A): historic conditions, existing conditions, relative
effort to derive benefits, and community values for the park. These considerations help to
determine the optimal and most suitable goals for restoring plant communities within the
park.
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. Highlands of River Pointe Park is classified as follows (Figure 8):
Ecological Province: Eastern Broadleaf Forest
Section: Minnesota and Northeast Iowa Morainal
Subsection: Big Woods
The Big Woods subsection coincides with a large block of deciduous forest present at the time
of European colonization. To the west, tallgrass prairie was the dominant vegetation type,
which suggests differences between the two subsections in climate, topography, and natural
disturbance. East of the Big Woods subsection, oak savanna and tallgrass prairie
communities are indicative of varied topography and disturbance regimes, as well as the soil
parent material. Presently, most of this region is farmed.
32
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
Figure 10: Ecological Subsection of Highlands of River Pointe Park
33
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
MANAGEMENT UNITS OVERVIEW
FMR ecologists conducted a natural resources inventory and assessment from May to
November 2024 to determine the existing plant and wildlife communities, identify
opportunities for restoration, and develop guidance for long-term community use.
Highlands of River Pointe Park consists of four primary management units, with one primary
unit divided into 4 subunits.
The following section includes a description of each management unit and subunit, the plant
communities or land cover types within each management unit, and possible management
strategies. Each unit description also includes a recommended plant community based on
the MNDNR Native Plant Communities, which can be used to guide restoration, and full
descriptions of each native plant community recommended for the property can be found in
Appendix A.
This section also contains representative photos of each Management Unit, and Figures 4 and
11 are maps of the management units and target plant communities for each management
unit, respectively.
34
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
Figure 11: Target Plant Communities for Management Units of Highlands of River Pointe Park
35
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
MANAGEMENT UNIT 1 (Subunits a-d): Upland Grassland
Photo 2. MU1 Grassland with woody encroachment.
Management Unit 1 (MU1) consists of four grassland subunits located in the northwest,
south-central, and northeast portions of the site totaling 17.9 acres. The existing plant
communities are graded ‘D’ based on low native plant diversity, high non-native and invasive
species presence, and lack of disturbance regimes.
The existing plant community is dominated by cool-season, weedy grasses, such as smooth
brome, Kentucky bluegrass, and reed canary grass, invasive forbs (flowers), such as Canada
thistle, white sweet clover, bird’s foot trefoil, and absinthe wormwood, and encroachment
from Siberian elm. Pockets of native tallgrass prairie plants are present in Subunits 1b and 1c,
including big bluestem, junegrass, side-oats grama, and gray-headed coneflower.
Species assemblages indicate a grazing or agricultural history, and more recent soil
disturbance is likely related to nearby residential construction. Subunits 1c and 1d are also
affected by periodic flooding of the Crow River during very wet periods, but the soils in these
areas are fine sandy loams characterized as occasionally or rarely flooded, so saturated soil
36
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
conditions do not greatly influence the plant communities. The topography within the unit
has a more significant impact on soil moisture and localized plant communities with
floodplain tree (eastern cottonwood, box elder) encroachment in the unit’s boundaries with
the stormwater basins. Higher and drier areas have significant encroachment of Siberian elm,
which has seeded in from Unit 4, the Terrace Forest. The western subunits, 1a and 1b, exhibit
a higher degree of degradation with very few native species present and overall low species
diversity.
In terms of infrastructure in this unit, the park also receives piped stormwater from the
adjoining neighborhood. Unit 1b contains a very large stormwater basin that was without
standing water during any 2024 field visits despite above-average precipitation. One of the
two trail connections from the neighborhood to the north enters the park through Subunit
1d. This asphalt trail has mowed edges, and its terminus in the unit connects to the mowed
River Trail that traverses the east edge of the park and most of its southern tip.
Photo 3: Unit 1b Dry Basin.
Subunits 1a, 1b, and 1d border the neighborhood to the north, and 42 houses’ rear property
lines adjoin the units. There are several instances of private landowner encroachment,
37
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
including an underground “invisible fence” marked with pin flags, which appears to be
located beyond the home’s property line, extensions of backyard landscaping, and yard
waste dumping. These uses should end so as not to conflict with community use of the site
and water quality protection from phosphorus inputs.
Table 2: Common and notable species observed in Unit 1
CANOPY TREES MIDSTORY SHRUBS & TREES GROUND COVER (WILDFLOWERS,
GRASSES, SEDGES, FERNS, VINES)
None Siberian elm
White mulberry
Box elder
Eastern cottonwood
American basswood
Quaking aspen
Willow species
Smooth brome
Kentucky bluegrass
White sweet clover
Canada thistle
Canada goldenrod
Early sunflower
Junegrass
Side-oats grama
Big bluestem
BOLDED: Non-native and/or invasive species
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES AND GOALS
OBJECTIVE 1: Reduce or eliminate non-native, invasive plants and trees and reduce
aggressive native plant species.
Primary Goals:
● Reduce cover of non-native woody species such as Siberian elm and white mulberry
through mechanical and chemical removal methods.
● Reduce cover of herbaceous, non-native, invasive species through mechanical and
chemical removal methods.
● Minimize impacts to existing herbaceous native plant community.
OBJECTIVE 2: Enhance habitat through native planting and seeding and adaptive
management.
Primary Goals:
● Increase native vegetation cover, diversity, and habitat structure.
● Increase habitat suitability of grassland areas for Species of Greatest Conservation
Need (SGCN) and other wildlife such as Henslow’s sparrow, loggerhead shrike, rusty
patched bumblebee, and leadplant flower moth.
38
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
DESIRED FUTURE CONDITIONS
A reasonable trajectory for the communities in MU1 is towards a B-quality dry-mesic native
prairie plant community with reduced cover of non-native/invasive species. Woody cover
should be eliminated to support the establishment of prairie plants and the use of periodic
prescribed burning, which is essential to the persistence of prairies and grasslands. Native
plant communities to consider include Southern Mesic Prairie (UPs23), and if moisture
regimes trend drier, Southern Dry Prairie (UPs13).
Based on MNDNR Native Plant Community guidelines, desired vegetation composition may
include:
Continuous graminoid cover of 75–100% with tallgrasses dominating, but several midheight
grasses also present. Species composition is fairly uniform, although relative abundances
shift across the moisture gradient within the community. Big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii)
and yellow prairie grass (Sorghastrum nutans) are the dominant tallgrasses, with prairie
dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepis) either a codominant or subdominant component. On the
drier end of the gradient, little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), porcupine grass
(Hesperostipa spartea), and side-oats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula) are important. On
moister sites, switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) may be common, and prairie cordgrass
(Spartina pectinata) is usually present. Leiberg’s panic grass (Panicum leibergii) 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 (Zizia aptera), heath aster (Aster
ericoides), stiff and Canada goldenrods (Solidago rigida and S. canadensis), purple and white
prairie clovers (Dalea purpurea and D. candida), silverleaf scurfpea (Pediomelum
argophyllum), stiff sunflower (Helianthus pauciflorus), white sage (Artemisia ludoviciana),
northern bedstraw (Galium boreale), and smooth blue aster (Aster laevis). Maximilian’s
sunflower (Helianthus maximiliani), tall meadow-rue (Thalictrum dasycarpum), prairie phlox
(Phlox pilosa), and gray-headed coneflower (Ratibida pinnata) are most common on the
moister end of the gradient. Rough blazing star (Liatris aspera), Missouri and gray goldenrods
(Solidago missouriensis and S. nemoralis), and bird’s foot coreopsis (Coreopsis palmata) are
common in the drier end. Rattlesnake master (Eryngium yuccifolium) and compass plant
(Silphium laciniatum) are typical species in southeastern Minnesota but rare to absent in the
community elsewhere.
The shrub layer is sparse (5–25% cover). The low semi-shrubs leadplant (Amorpha canescens)
and prairie rose (Rosa arkansana) are generally common. Sparse patches of wolfberry
(Symphoricarpos occidentalis) are occasional. Gray dogwood (Cornus racemosa), American
hazelnut (Corylus americana), and wild plum (Prunus americana) are rare.
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
The following section summarizes the various actions that will support the Management
Objectives for Management Unit 1. The table below identifies the timeline and likely
39
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
trajectory of the habitats associated with various actions, and the following paragraphs
describe the sequence of management, expected outcomes, and potential methods of
adaptive management given site conditions. Specific tasks, timing, and costs are summarized
for all Management Units in Table 10.
Table 3: Management Unit 1 Potential Management Actions.
MANAGEMENT
NEED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS LIKELY TRAJECTORY TIMELINE
Reduce or
eliminate non-
native, invasive
herbaceous
species.
Broadcast herbicide application
followed by spot herbicide
application followed by site
mowing or prescribed burning.
Target invasive species will diminish
over time with some persistent
perennial weeds requiring additional
spot treatments.
3 years
Eliminate
invasive woody
species.
Extraction or cutting and stump-
treating of Siberian elm and
white mulberry. Follow-up foliar
spot herbicide application to
control seedlings and resprouts.
Target invasive woody species will be
greatly reduced with initial treatments,
and follow-up herbicide work will
further reduce woody encroachment.
Prescribed fire will further suppress
woody encroachment.
3-4 years
Establish native
mesic prairie
species.
Spring drill seeding or fall
broadcast seeding depending on
woody removal method.
Germination of 3-4 forb species and 1-3
graminoid species in first growing
season after seeding with progressively
greater plant diversity over successive
years.
3-4 years
Maintain newly
establishing
native mesic
prairie species.
Full unit establishment mowing.
Mowing to a height of 4-5” twice during
the first two growing seasons will
suppress aggressive, cool season weeds
and allow sunlight to reach seedlings of
native plants.
2 years
Reintroduce fire
through
prescribed
burning.
Prescribed burn of Subunits 1a
and 1b.
In spring of third growing season after
seeding, burn western grassland
subunits to suppress woody
encroachment, diminish weedy cool
season grasses, accelerate soil nutrient
cycling, and stimulate further
germination of seeded species.
1 year at
Year 3
Reintroduce fire
through
prescribed
burning.
Prescribed burn of Subunits 1c
and 1d.
In spring of fourth growing season after
seeding, burn eastern grassland
subunits to suppress woody
encroachment, diminish weedy cool
season grasses, accelerate soil nutrient
cycling, and stimulate further
germination of seeded species.
1 year at
Year 4
40
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
MANAGEMENT UNIT 2: Wet Meadow-Shrub Carr
Photo 4. MU2 Basin.
Management Unit 2 (MU2) is a single contiguous constructed stormwater basin that receives
piped stormwater runoff from the neighborhood to the north via two inlets at the northwest
and northeast corners of the unit. The unit’s topography is tied to its use as a stormwater
basin with edges that blend into the contours of the surrounding grassland Subunits 1c and
1d and gently slope to the center of the basin with an elevation change of approximately 6
feet. In addition to piped stormwater, the basin also receives overland flow and, during
periods of high water, flood flows from the Crow River. The basin discharges treated
stormwater to the river through an outlet at the southeastern edge of the park. Given the
elevation of this outlet below the ordinary high-water level of the Crow River, it can be
assumed that flood flows from the river flow into the outlet and back up into the basin during
periods of high water.
Although this unit functions as part of the neighborhood’s stormwater management system
and does not fall into a standard native plant community type, the vegetation composition is
most like a wet meadow-shrub carr cover type with moisture-tolerant woody and herbaceous
41
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
species present and still holds high potential for habitat value. Fluctuating water levels and
consistent inputs of weedy propagules carried in stormwater have resulted in a non-native
plant-dominated community within the unit. Reed canary grass and hybrid cattail are
abundant. The existing plant communities are graded ‘D’ based on low native plant diversity
and high non-native and invasive species presence. The nearby Crow River’s floodplain has
many large cottonwood trees, which have dispersed seed into the unit, and dense
cottonwood saplings and small trees are present in the basin, which, over time can decrease
the basin’s function and limit its habitat potential for pollinators.
Table 4: Common and notable species observed in Unit 2
CANOPY TREES MIDSTORY SHRUBS & TREES GROUND COVER (WILDFLOWERS,
GRASSES, SEDGES, FERNS, VINES)
None Eastern cottonwood
Willow species
Box elder
Reed canary grass
Hybrid/narrow-leaf cattail
Red clover
Dark green bulrush
Canada goldenrod
Broad-leaf arrowhead
BOLDED: Non-native and/or invasive species
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES AND GOALS
OBJECTIVE 1: Reduce or eliminate non-native, invasive plants and reduce aggressive native
plant species.
Primary Goals:
● Reduce cover of herbaceous, non-native, invasive species through mechanical and
chemical removal methods.
● Minimize impacts to existing herbaceous native plant community.
● Eliminate native woody cover to maintain stormwater management function and
preserve habitat benefits
OBJECTIVE 2: Enhance habitat through native seeding and planting and long-term adaptive
management.
Primary Goals:
● Increase native vegetation cover, diversity, and habitat structure.
● Increase habitat suitability of wet meadow for Species of Greatest Conservation Need
(SGCN) and other wildlife such as American bittern, black-crowned night heron, sedge
wren, and declining damselflies and dragonflies.
42
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION
A reasonable trajectory for the plant communities in MU2 is towards a B-quality wet meadow-
shrub carr with reduced cover of non-native/invasive species. Although this unit was not
historically this cover type, its current soil moisture level and species assemblages resemble a
wet meadow and is the best analog for targeting a native plant community through
restoration. Non-native and invasive plant species should be reduced to a level that allows for
establishment and dominance of native plants that provide higher habitat value. A native
plant community to consider is Southern Wet Meadow/Shrub Carr (WMs92). WMs92 has
become uncommon across much of its range as a result of invasion by non-native species,
especially reed canary grass, following alterations in wetland hydrology. General guidelines
for desired vegetation composition include:
WMs92
● Continuous graminoid cover (75–100%); typically dominated by slough sedge,
sometimes with bluejoint, prairie cordgrass, red-stalked spikerush, or lake sedge.
● Forb cover is variable, ranging from absent to sparse (< 25%); common species
include water smartweed, cattails, common mint, rough bugleweed, water parsnip,
and swamp milkweed.
● Shrub cover is sparse; pussy willow, slender willow, and red-osier dogwood may be
present.
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
The following section summarizes the various actions that will support the Management
Objectives for Management Unit 2. Table 5 below identifies the timeline and likely trajectory
of the habitats associated with various actions, and the following paragraphs describe the
sequence of management, expected outcomes, and potential methods of adaptive
management given site conditions. Specific tasks, timing, and costs are summarized for all
Management Units in Table 10.
43
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
Table 5: Management Unit 2 Potential Management Actions.
MANAGEMENT
NEED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS LIKELY TRAJECTORY TIMELINE
Reduction of
non-native,
invasive
herbaceous
plants.
Successive years of mowing in
late spring and early fall to
suppress growth of reed canary
grass and cattail followed by spot
herbicide application to suppress
established plants.
Because of weedy propagules entering the
unit in stormwater, weedy species will
continue to reestablish in the basin.
Consistent management will reduce the
cover of these species and allow for the
establishment of native vegetation to
enhance habitat value and stormwater
management.
4+ years
Establishment of
native plants
tolerant of soil
moisture
fluctuations and
competitive with
invasive wetland
species.
As pockets of bare ground open
with invasive species
management, seeding and
planting to supplement native
species that may return from the
seedbank.
Native plant establishment will be slow in
response to effective invasive species
management. Better outcomes will be
realized if planted and seeded species are
selected for their tolerance of moisture
gradients and ability to compete with
aggressive invasive species.
4+ years
Elimination of
native woody
cover.
Removal of trees and saplings by
forestry mulching.
Trees will continue to establish in the
basin given its proximity to moisture-
tolerant tree species in the Crow River
floodplain. Increasing shade in the basin
will limit herbaceous species
establishment and restrict plant diversity.
Reduced herbaceous cover will lead to
areas of bare ground which can be
vulnerable to washout, and lack of
vegetative cover limits stormwater
pollutant filtration. Eliminating tree cover
will remove these negative effects and
promote a more diverse cover type and
habitat and better stormwater
management.
Long-term
Removal of
sediment.
Periodic excavation of sediment
deposits at stormwater inlets.
Over time, maintenance of the basin
should include periodic removal of
sediments at the inlets as to allow
unobstructed flow across the basin and
appropriate stormwater residence time.
Periodic,
long-term
Restoration of Management Unit 2 will require native woody vegetation management
followed by herbaceous non-native vegetation management. The quick establishment of
native tree species is a result of recent disturbances from construction and flooding, which
created bare ground. There is also a ready seed source for these trees from nearby floodplain
trees such as eastern cottonwood and box elder. Many priorities were considered when
determining the appropriate level of tree removal in the basin. Dense woody cover will
prevent the persistence of a more diverse herbaceous layer, and the result will be diminished
pollutant removal and weediness. Poor herbaceous cover will also result in gullies and
44
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
washouts as stormwater floods the basin during heavy precipitation events. A conflicting
concern is that the initial removal of the existing trees would be quite costly and dramatically
change the appearance of the park for neighbors and park users that have grown accustomed
to the landscape.
FMR ecologists and Otsego Parks and Recreation staff weighed these costs and benefits.
Together, it was decided that the long-term benefits provided by tree removal outweighed
the labor and cost of removal and that the aesthetics of a diverse, pollinator-supporting wet
meadow may be equally valuable to the community. Parks and Recreation staff will remove
the trees with a forestry mulcher as an in-kind contribution to future state grant-funded
restoration.
Management of invasive herbaceous vegetation, specifically reed canary grass and hybrid
cattail, will be a significant undertaking requiring multiple years of management and follow-
up work as stormwater brings new weed seeds into the basins. With persistence, a native
herbaceous ground layer that will be competitive with weedy encroachment can be
established by seeding and bare root or deep-rooted plug planting.
45
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
MANAGEMENT UNIT 3: Oak Forest
Photo 5. Bur oak in MU3, Oak Forest
Management Unit 3 (MU3) is the oak forest in the west-central portion of the park that has
been present for over one hundred years, as evidenced by historical aerial photos and the
estimated age of some bur oaks in the canopy that exceed 30 inches in diameter. The oak
forest was likely grazed at various times over the last century, given the composition of the
understory vegetation, which includes Missouri gooseberry and white snakeroot—telltale
species indicative of historic grazing. Historic aerial imagery also tells the story of increasing
buckthorn abundance in woodlands and forests in the Upper Midwest during the 1970s and
1980s. Imagery from 1963 shows a relatively open understory indicative of an oak woodland
cover type, but by 2008, just 45 years later, the understory had a continuous shrub layer.
Today, the oak forest has a moderately dense understory below towering oaks. In addition to
moderately dense buckthorn, the shrub layer includes native shrub species such as black
cherry, pin cherry, prickly ash, red osier dogwood, gray dogwood, and American plum.
46
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
The herbaceous layer has moderate to high diversity, which has persisted despite the cover of
buckthorn and the allelopathy of garlic mustard, an invasive species present in this unit.
Native species in the ground layer include Virginia waterleaf, Solomon’s seal, Jack-in-the-
pulpit, wood sedge, graceful sedge, starry false Solomon’s seal, and wood violet. Unlike many
woodlands and forests in Minnesota, this oak forest does not show evidence of invasive
earthworms. A thick duff layer of slowly decomposing leaves and twigs is distributed across
the soil surface, and the ground has a “spongy” quality, which was noticed while walking
through the unit.
Table 6: Common and notable species observed in Unit 3
CANOPY TREES MIDSTORY SHRUBS & TREES GROUND COVER (WILDFLOWERS,
GRASSES, SEDGES, FERNS, VINES)
Bur oak
White oak
American basswood
Hackberry
American elm
Box elder
Missouri gooseberry
Black cherry
Prickly ash
Red-osier dogwood
Arrowwood viburnum
American plum
Northern white cedar
Pin cherry
Hackberry
Ironwood
Green ash
Common buckthorn
Virginia waterleaf
Jewelweed
Solomon’s seal
Jack-in-the-pulpit
White snakeroot
Graceful sedge
Virginia creeper
Hog peanut
Starry false Solomon’s seal
Garlic mustard
Common buckthorn
BOLDED: Non-native and/or invasive species
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES AND GOALS
OBJECTIVE 1: Reduce or eliminate non-native, invasive plants and shrubs
Primary Goals:
● Reduce cover of non-native woody species such as common buckthorn through
mechanical and chemical removal methods.
● Reduce cover of herbaceous, non-native, invasive species such as garlic mustard
through mechanical methods.
● Minimize impacts to existing herbaceous native plant community.
47
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
OBJECTIVE 2: Enhance habitat through native planting and seeding and adaptive
management.
Primary Goals:
● Increase native vegetation cover, diversity, and habitat structure.
● Increase habitat suitability of woodland for Species of Greatest Conservation Need
(SGCN) and other wildlife such as big brown bats, tricolored bats, red-shouldered
hawks, many warblers, and eastern spotted salamanders.
DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION
A reasonable trajectory for the communities in MU3 is to work towards a B-quality oak forest
plant community with reduced cover of non-native/invasive species. Native plant
communities to consider are Southern Mesic Oak-Basswood Forest (MHs38) or, possibly more
fitting, the subtype Basswood-Bur Oak-(Green Ash) Forest (MHs38b). MHs38b includes mesic
hardwood forests on hummocky topography or near lakes on till plains and stagnation
moraines with slopes that are generally not steep, which nearly perfectly describes the
geologic history of the site. General guidelines for desired vegetation composition in this
plant community include:
• The ground layer is patchy to continuous (25-100%) with plants such as zig-zag
goldenrod, large-flowered bellwort, Virginia waterleaf, Clayton’s sweet cicely, Virginia
creeper, bloodroot, common enchanter’s nightshade, early meadow-rue, wild
sarsaparilla, Pennsylvania sedge, honewort, yellow violet, wild leek, blue cohosh, cut-
leaved toothwort, dutchman’s breeches, blue phlox, Virginia spring beauty, white bear
sedge, cleavers, wood nettle, tall coneflower. The ground layer often has abundant
Virginia waterleaf, starry false Solomon’s seal and nodding trillium.
• The sub-canopy is variable with shrub cover of species such as chokecherry and
gooseberry. Ironwood is often abundant.
• The canopy is interrupted to continuous and dominated by basswood, bur oak, or
green ash. It is further distinguished by a lower frequency of northern red oak and an
almost complete lack of sugar maple in the canopy.
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
The following section summarizes the various actions that will support the Management
Objectives for Management Unit 3. The table below identifies the timeline and likely
trajectory of the habitats associated with various actions, and the following paragraphs
describe the sequence of management, expected outcomes, and potential methods of
adaptive management given site conditions. Specific tasks, timing, and costs are summarized
for all Management Units in Table 10.
48
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
Table 7: Management Unit 3 Potential Management Actions.
MANAGEMENT
NEED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS LIKELY TRAJECTORY TIMELINE
Reduction or
elimination of
non-native,
invasive
herbaceous
plants.
Through hand-pulling or mowing
or spot herbicide application,
manage garlic mustard,
motherwort, and creeping
Charlie while avoiding off-target
damage to native plants.
Of the three primary invasive plants in the
unit, garlic mustard is the primary target.
Garlic mustard seed can remain viable in
the seedbank for up to 10 years, and a
single plant can produce up to 12,500
plants. Motherwort is in the mint family
and is quite aggressive. Creeping Charlie
can be pervasive and difficult to fully
eradicate. Because of these
characteristics, management will require
several years.
5-6 years
with
reduced
inputs over
time.
Elimination of
common
buckthorn.
Cut all mature buckthorn to
ground level and treat stumps
with a triclopyr-based herbicide
to prevent resprouts. Buckthorn
under 1” diameter should be
treated with a foliar application
of triclopyr in late September or
early October when plants are
actively photosynthesizing.
Common buckthorn seed remains viable
for 3-4 years in the seedbank. After initial
removal of mature plants, 2-3 years of
follow-up foliar herbicide applications will
be needed to eliminate new buckthorn
germinants.
4 years
Enhancement of
native plant
diversity in the
herbaceous
layer.
Through seeding after buckthorn
removal and targeted
enhancement deep-rooted plug
planting, enhance the
herbaceous/ground-layer.
Seeding with a simple, shade-tolerant
graminoid-dominated native mix will help
to establish a more continuous ground
layer that will be more resistant to future
invasive plant issues and reduce
buckthorn resprouts. Targeted deep-
rooted plug planting will further diversify
the plant community supporting
improved habitat especially for
pollinators.
2 years
Potential
reduction of
duplicative
internal trails
Blocking and seeding internal
trails within the unit to create
more contiguous habitat.
Large logs could be laid across two
internal trails that are duplicates of other
trails that provide access throughout the
unit. Reseeding and planting of trees and
shrubs in these trails could prevent further
use if the routes become unpassable with
vegetation.
3 years
Restoration of MU3 will require woody non-native vegetation management in conjunction
with herbaceous non-native vegetation management. Common buckthorn is pervasive within
MU3 and is a priority to manage to preserve the native forest diversity present within the unit.
Cutting and treating stumps with herbicide is the best way to minimize chemical drift and
avoid unnecessary impacts on the existing native plant community. After the initial clearing
of buckthorn, garlic mustard may increase from its current known abundance. Given its
current level of establishment, mechanical removal by hand-pulling or mowing second-year
49
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
garlic mustard plants is recommended. If populations expand to mass monocultures,
chemical removal may be considered. Hand-pulling by a neighborhood group of volunteers
would be very effective and build stewardship of the park.
After initial management of non-native and invasive species, re-establishment of a native
herbaceous/ground layer is recommended. Mass planting of bare root plants or deep-rooted
plugs within the understory will provide diversity and forest structure while ensuring some
survival considering anticipated deer browse. Increased density of planting should be
prioritized in areas adjacent to trails for improved aesthetics.
MANAGEMENT UNIT 4: Terrace Forest
Photo 6. South-central section of MU4, Terrace Forest
Management Unit 4 (MU4) is the narrow terrace forest that nearly rings the park along its
southern perimeter between the uplands and floodplain. The width of the terrace forest is
approximately 50 feet at its narrowest at the northwestern extent of the unit and around 250
feet at its widest at the east end of the unit. The plant community and soil moisture
conditions in the unit are indicative of a “terrace” which is slightly higher in elevation than the
50
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
floodplain associated with the Crow River, but the line between these areas is indistinct and
depends on seasonal and temporal water levels in the river and on microtopography, or small
landform variation, across the unit.
The south-central portion of the unit is very sandy and silty where the terrace is flat and well-
connected to the floodplain. Here, only pioneering plant species are present in the
groundlayer as they re-establish after the most recent flood conditions in spring 2024. Typical
floodplain/terrace canopy trees are present including massive eastern cottonwood and silver
maple. American elm and hackberry are dominant in the subcanopy. The tree cover in this
section of the unit is interrupted in two places. One location is adjacent to MU3 where a
grassy opening extends toward the river and offers an open and gently sloped location for
people to be near the water. The other location is at the stormwater outlet to the river, which
is armored with articulated concrete block.
At the east end of the unit, the terrace features a steeper slope of 6-8 feet, and flood flows
have a shorter residence time here. This leg of the unit is along a straight run in the river
where the current is fast-moving. Here, some bank erosion is occurring with tree roots
exposed, and large woody debris has accumulated on the banks. This area also has a former
dump with considerable broken glass and metal fragments. Common buckthorn is the
dominant plant in the understory, with many large, fruit-bearing trees present along the
trail’s edge.
The western leg of the unit is yet another terrace type, with a flat terrace perched above a
sheer bluff with a 38-foot drop to the river below. The bluff has calved over time, with high
river flows eroding sandy soils with little vegetative cover for stabilization. Common
buckthorn is a minor component in the shrub layer, but Tatarian honeysuckle is prevalent, as
is the native shrub prickly ash. Very large white oak and basswood are present in the western
end of MU4, and the oaks are showing signs of oak wilt.
51
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
Photo 7: Eastern leg of MU4 Terrace Forest
52
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
Photo 8: Western leg of MU4, Terrace Forest
53
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
Table 8: Common and notable species observed in Unit 4
CANOPY TREES MIDSTORY SHRUBS & TREES GROUND COVER (WILDFLOWERS,
GRASSES, SEDGES, FERNS, VINES)
White oak
Bur oak
American basswood
Eastern cottonwood
Silver maple
Hackberry
Box elder
Siberian elm
Common buckthorn
Box elder
Eastern cottonwood
American basswood
Quaking aspen
Nannyberry
Red elderberry
Willow species
Virginia waterleaf
Jewelweed
Cut-leaf coneflower
Northern bedstraw
Bristly greenbrier
Solomon’s seal
Twisted stalk
Wood sedge
Woodland violet
Wood nettle
Poison ivy
Virginia creeper
Riverbank grape
Garlic mustard
Common buckthorn
White sweet clover
Motherwort
Reed canary grass
BOLDED: Non-native and/or invasive species
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES AND GOALS
OBJECTIVE 1: Reduce or eliminate non-native, invasive herbaceous plants and shrubs
Primary Goals:
● Reduce cover of non-native, invasive woody species such as Siberian elm and
common buckthorn through mechanical and chemical removal methods.
● Reduce cover of herbaceous, non-native, invasive species through mechanical and
chemical removal methods.
● Minimize impacts to existing herbaceous native plant community.
OBJECTIVE 2: Enhance habitat through native planting and seeding and adaptive
management.
Primary Goals:
● Increase native vegetation cover, diversity, and habitat structure.
54
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
● Increase the habitat suitability of grassland areas for Species of Greatest Conservation
Need (SGCN) and other wildlife, such as the tricolored bat, big brown bat, and rusty
patched bee.
DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION
A reasonable trajectory for the communities in MU4 is to work towards a B-quality terrace
forest plant community with reduced cover of non-native/invasive species. Invasive woody
cover consisting of Siberian elm in patches and common buckthorn, which is dominant in
several areas of the understory, should be reduced to support the establishment of a native,
habitat-supporting shrub layer. A shrub layer with some openings will allow for the
development of a more continuous herbaceous layer that is more resistant to future invasion
by weed species and protective against erosion and bluff/bank loss. Native plant
communities to consider are Southern Terrace Forest (FFs59) in the more upland areas, and
specifically, Silver Maple-Green Ash- Cottonwood Terrace Forest (FFs59a), which is typically
present on terraces of medium to large rivers. Southern Floodplain Forest (FFs68) is a better
target plant community in the lower areas more affected by flood flows and heavy rains.
FFs59
• Mostly interrupted to continuous ground layer cover (50–100%), often with abundant
wood nettle. Other typical species include Virginia waterleaf, spotted touch-me-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 riverbank 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 com
FFs59a
• 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 eastern 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.
FFs68
• 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 species. Important herbaceous
55
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
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 Bidens species. 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, riverbank 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.
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
The following section summarizes the various actions that will support the Management
Objectives for Management Unit 4. The table below identifies the timeline and likely
trajectory of the habitats associated with various actions, and the following paragraphs
describe the sequence of management, expected outcomes, and potential methods of
adaptive management given site conditions. Specific tasks, timing, and costs are summarized
for all Management Units in Table 10.
56
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
Table 9: Management Unit 4 Potential Management Actions
MANAGEMENT
NEED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS LIKELY TRAJECTORY TIMELINE
Reduction or
elimination of
non-native,
invasive
herbaceous
plants.
Through hand-pulling or mowing
or spot herbicide application,
manage garlic mustard,
motherwort, white sweet clover,
reed canary grass, and buckthorn
seedlings while avoiding off-
target damage to native plants.
Of the three primary invasive plants in
the unit, garlic mustard is the primary
target. Garlic mustard seed can remain
viable in the seedbank for up to 10
years, and a single plant can produce up
to 12,500 plants. Motherwort is in the
mint family and is quite aggressive.
Reed canary grass is extremely
aggressive and will become dominant
especially in canopy gaps. Because of
these characteristics, management will
require several years.
5-6 years
with reduced
inputs over
time.
Elimination of
common
buckthorn.
Cut all mature buckthorn to
ground level and treat stumps
with a triclopyr-based herbicide
to prevent resprouts. Buckthorn
under 1” diameter should be
treated with a foliar application of
triclopyr in late September or
early October when plants are
actively photosynthesizing.
Common buckthorn seed remains viable
for 3-4 years in the seedbank. After
initial removal of mature plants, 2-3
years of follow-up foliar herbicide
applications will be needed to eliminate
new buckthorn germinants.
4 years
Elimination of
Tatarian
honeysuckle.
Cut all honeysuckle to ground
level and treat stumps with a 20%
concentration of glyphosate to
prevent resprouts.
Tatarian honeysuckle can completely
shade understory herbaceous
vegetation causing soil erosion and loss
of habitat. The species responds well to
treatment and can be eradicated where
it is abundant.
3 years
Enhancement of
native plant
diversity in the
herbaceous
layer.
Through seeding after buckthorn
and honeysuckle removal and
targeted enhancement deep-
rooted plug planting, enhance the
herbaceous/ground-layer.
Seeding with a simple, shade-tolerant
graminoid-dominated native mix will
help to establish a more continuous
ground layer that will be more resistant
to future invasive plant issues and
reduce buckthorn resprouts. Targeted
deep-rooted plug planting will further
diversify the plant community
supporting improved habitat especially
for pollinators.
2 years
57
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
MANAGEMENT
NEED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS LIKELY TRAJECTORY TIMELINE
Potential
removal of white
oak affected by
oak wilt.
Remove single trees confirmed to
be infected by oak wilt during
winter months.
While oak is not a dominant species in
MU4, it is dominant in MU3 where
specimen white and bur oaks are
present. Removal of trees confirmed to
be infected will reduce the spread and
limit the loss of other oaks within the
park.
1-2 years
Removal of farm
dump/trash.
Organize a community clean-up
supported by Otsego Parks and
Recreation to remove garbage on
the riverbank.
Garbage is concentrated in the eastern
leg of the unit which appears to be the
site of a former farm dump. Floodwaters
may also be contributing to the debris
here. A one-day clean up with follow-up
maintenance could greatly improve the
situation.
Ongoing
after initial
clean-up
Restoration of Management Unit 4 will require woody non-native vegetation management
followed by herbaceous non-native vegetation management. Common buckthorn and
Tatarian honeysuckle are pervasive within MU4 in distinct areas and are a priority to manage
to preserve the native forest diversity present within the unit, especially in the herbaceous
ground layer. Cutting and treating stumps with a water-safe herbicide is the best way to
minimize chemical drift and avoid unnecessary impacts on the existing native plant
community. The stumps and their roots will also aid in maintaining stabilization of the
riverbank. After the initial clearing of buckthorn, garlic mustard and reed canary grass may
increase in abundance. Given its current level of establishment, mechanical removal by hand-
pulling or mowing second-year garlic mustard plants is recommended. If populations expand
to mass monocultures, chemical removal may be considered. Repeated early- and late-
season mowing of reed canary grass followed by spot herbicide application is the best course
of action.
After initial management of non-native and invasive species, reestablishment of native shrub
and ground layers is recommended. Mass planting of bare root shrubs within the understory
will provide diversity and forest structure while ensuring some survival in light of anticipated
deer browse. Targeted revegetation in areas of new canopy openings and a higher likelihood
of erosion should be prioritized.
58
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
MANAGEMENT UNIT 5: Open Water
Management Unit 5 (MU5) is 10.2 acres of open water on the Crow River within the park
property's parcel boundary. This management unit is only designated to account for those
acres in the overall delineation of management units and in consideration of the total
property acreage of 61.8 acres. No specific management is prescribed in open water areas.
59
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
WORKPLAN
The following tasks and budget are based on known costs and project needs at the time of
the natural resource management plan writing. All parties will agree upon additional future
tasks prior to implementation. Management Units are shown in Figure 4.
WORKPLAN PRIORITIZATION
The highest priority for plant community restoration at HRP is MU1, the Upland Grassland.
Here, remnant and restored native plant communities are imperiled by invasive herbaceous
plant species and heavy woody encroachment. Complete removal of invasive Siberian elm
and Eastern cottonwood and willows established in the adjacent basins of MU2 is needed.
These units should be maintained with both follow-up mowing and spot herbicide treatment,
as well as prescribed fire on a 3-4-year rotation.
Secondly, invasive woody and herbaceous species (common buckthorn, Siberian elm,
Tatarian honeysuckle, garlic mustard, and reed canary grass) should be eliminated from MU3
and MU4. This removal should be followed by seeding and planting to restore the native plant
community.
5-YEAR WORK PLAN
These tables are proposed schedules and approximate costs of restoration and management
tasks for HRP. Note that the timing and year for any given task may shift depending on the
outcomes of previous steps and funding. Note also that the costs shown are estimates based
on similar work at other sites bid at the prevailing wage for the State of Minnesota, but actual
costs may be higher or lower depending on bids received.
60
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
Table 10. Restoration Schedule and Cost Estimates by Management Unit
Management units correspond with those shown in Figure 4.
MU1: UPLAND GRASSLAND (17.9 ACRES)
TARGET: SOUTHERN MESIC PRAIRIE UPs23
Year Season Activity Acres
Unit
cost Total
1
Summer Site prep broadcast spray. Avoid areas of high
native diversity as indicated by project manager. 17.9 $ 490 $ 8,771
Fall Site prep broadcast spray. Avoid areas of high
native diversity as indicated by project manager. 17.9 $ 490 $ 8,771
Fall Extract all Siberian elm. 4.5 $ 380 $ 1,710
Winter Pile pulled material and burn with at least 2”
snow cover during the following winter. 9.5 $ 580 $ 5,510
Winter
Forestry mow cottonwood, mulberry, and willow
within unit boundaries not crossing into adjacent
basins.
5.5 $ 3,600 $ 19,800
2
Spring Site prep broadcast spray. Avoid areas of high
native diversity as indicated by project manager. 17.9 $ 490 $ 8,771
Spring Spot mow reed canary grass. 0.5 $ 175 $ 88
Late
Spring/Early
Summer
Spot herbicide application of reed canary grass.
Avoid areas of high native diversity as indicated
by project manager.
0.5 $ 375 $ 188
Summer
Spot herbicide application of reed canary grass.
Avoid areas of high native diversity as indicated
by project manager.
0.5 $ 375 $ 188
Early Fall Spot herbicide treatment of persistent weeds and
foliar herbicide application of woody resprouts. 10.5 $ 470 $ 4,935
Fall
Spot herbicide application of reed canary grass.
Avoid areas of high native diversity as indicated
by project manager.
0.5 $ 375 $ 187.50
Fall Prescribed burn for site preparation. 17.9 $ 1,400 $ 25,060
Fall Broadcast seed native mesic prairie seed mix.
Includes seed cost. 17.9 $ 1,560 $ 27,924
3
Spring Establishment mow. 17.9 $ 330 $ 5,907
Summer Establishment mow. 17.9 $ 300 $ 5,370
Late
summer
Spot herbicide treatment of persistent weeds and
foliar herbicide application of woody resprouts. 10.5 $ 375 $ 3,937
61
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
MU1 TOTAL YEARS 1-5 $150,325
4
Spring Establishment mow. 17.9 $ 300 $ 5,370
Fall Broadcast seeding of thin areas post-burn.
Includes seed cost. Assume 1/4 of unit. 4.5 $ 390 $ 1,755
Spring Prescribed burn of 1/2 of unit. 9 $ 460 $ 4,140
5
Fall Prescribed burn 1/2 of unit. 9 $ 460 $ 4,140
Fall Enhancement overseeding. Assumes 1/3 of unit
needs overseeding. 6 $ 1,300 $ 7,800
MU2: WET MEADOW/SHRUB CARR (12.2 ACRES)
TARGET: SOUTHERN WET MEADOW/SHRUB CARR (WMs92)
Year Season Activity Acres
Unit
cost Total
1
Summer Spot mow reed canary grass. 2.5 $ 175 $ 438
Fall Spot herbicide application of mowed and
resprouted reed canary grass 2.5 $ 375 $ 938
Winter Forestry mow/mulch all trees and saplings in
basins. 12.2 Otsego
in-kind
2
Spring Spot herbicide treatment of invasive perennial
weeds. 12.2 $ 375 $ 4,575
Spring Spot mow reed canary grass. 2.5 $ 175 $ 438
Summer Spot herbicide treatment of persistent invasive
weeds and reed canary grass. 12.2 $ 475 $ 5,795
Fall Spot herbicide application of mowed and
resprouted reed canary grass. 2.5 $ 375 $ 938
Fall Follow up foliar treat invasive woody resprouts,
new germinants and seedlings. 12.2 $ 460 $ 5,612
Fall Broadcast seed native wet meadow seed mix.
Includes seed cost. 12.2 $ 2,360 $ 28,792
3
Spring Establishment spot mow. 12.2 $ 175 $ 2,135
Summer Establishment spot mow. 12.2 $ 175 $ 2,135
Fall Follow up foliar treat invasive woody resprouts,
new germinants and seedlings. 12.2 $ 460 $ 5,612
62
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
MU2 TOTAL YEARS 1-5 $65,948
MU3: OAK FOREST (4.9 ACRES)
TARGET: BASSWOOD-BUR OAK-(GREEN ASH) FOREST (MHs38B)
Year Season Activity Acres Unit
cost
Total
1
Summer Spot herbicide application of perennial invasive
plants. 4.9 $ 375 $ 1,838
Fall /
Winter
Cut/treat/pile/burn common buckthorn and
Tatarian honeysuckle. Create no more than 4 burn
piles in mowed turf area south of unit or in mowed
trails. Alternatively, Otsego Parks staff handles
disposal.
4.9 $ 1,470 $ 7,203
2
Spring Hand pull or mow garlic mustard before seed set.
Present within 2.5 acres of unit. 2.5 $ 3,000 $ 7,500
Summer Spot herbicide application of perennial invasive
plants. 4.9 $ 375 $ 1,838
Late
Summer
Follow up foliar treat invasive woody resprouts,
new germinants and seedlings. 4.9 $ 460 $ 2,254
Fall /
Winter
Broadcast seed graminoid/forb buckthorn
replacement mix. Cost includes seed mix. 4.9 $ 1,659 $ 8,129
3
Spring Mow garlic mustard before seed set. 2.5 $ 170 $ 425
Late
Summer
Follow up foliar treat invasive woody resprouts,
new germinants and seedlings 4.9 $ 460 $ 2,254
4
Spring Mow garlic mustard before seed set. 2.5 $ 170 $ 425
Summer Enhancement planting of 500 plugs along internal
trails of unit. 500 $ 7 $ 3,500
5 Summer Mow garlic mustard before seed set. 2.5 $ 170 $ 425
MU3 TOTAL YEARS 1-5 $35,800
4
Early summer Spot herbicide treatment of persistent invasive
weeds. 12.2 $ 350 $ 4,270
Late summer Spot herbicide treatment of persistent invasive
weeds. 12.2 $ 350 $ 4,270
63
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
MU4: TERRACE FOREST (16.6 ACRES)
TARGET: SOUTHERN TERRACE FOREST FFs59
Year Season Activity Acres/Ea Unit
cost
Total
1
Early fall
Hand cut Tatarian honeysuckle; immediately
treat stumps with 20% solution of glyphosate.
Pile in adjacent grassland for winter burning. No
more than 3 piles.
4.0 $ 2,730 $ 10,920
Winter
Cut/treat/pile burn all buckthorn over 1”
diameter. Burn cut honeysuckle piles with
buckthorn piles.
4.5 $ 2,730 $ 12,285
2
Spring Hand-pull 2nd year garlic mustard (optional
volunteer event). 2.0 $ 3,000 $ 6,000
Spring Mow patches of smooth brome and reed canary
grass at boot stage. 1.0 $ 175 $ 175
Early
Summer
Treat regrowth of smooth brome and reed canary
grass with aquatic-approved glyphosate at 1.5%
solution.
1.0 $ 375 $ 375
Fall
Treat foliar resprouts of Tatarian honeysuckle
with aquatic-approved glyphosate at 1.5%
solution.
4.0 $ 470 $ 1,880
Fall
Hand-broadcast moisture-tolerant woodland
seed mix in open areas of unit assuming one-
quarter of unit has bare ground; includes seed
cost.
4.0 $ 1,835 $ 7,340
Winter Removal of hazard ash trees near trails. $ 7,000
3
Spring Hand-pull 2nd year garlic mustard (optional
volunteer event). 2.0 $ 3,000 $ 6,000
Fall
Plant 150 bare root shrubs in open areas of unit
and along riverbank; protect with Plantra tree
tubes (optional volunteer event)
150 $ 20 $ 3,000
4 Spring Hand-pull 2nd year garlic mustard and water new
trees (volunteer event) $ 2,000
5 Fall
Hand-broadcast moisture-tolerant forb and
graminoid seed mix in open areas where garlic
mustard has been suppressed; includes seed cost.
2.0 $ 2,060 $ 4,120
MU4 TOTAL YEARS 1-5 $61,095
HIGHLANDS OF RIVERPOINTE PARK YEARS 1-5 TOTAL
$ 313,168
64
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
LONG TERM MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT
Restored areas will need to be regularly monitored to identify ecological issues, such as
erosion and sedimentation, invasive species, and tree disease. Early detection of concerns
enables quick, cost-effective responses to address them before significant problems evolve.
Once the primary restoration tasks are completed, the restoration process converts to an
adaptive management phase. Long-term management for all units is an important piece of
maintaining the habitat over time. It is difficult to predict specifically how these areas will
change over time, so being flexible and responding to needs as they arise is important.
Without continued monitoring and management, these areas will likely degrade rapidly, and
efforts will be undone in 5-10 years. Three critical long-term management actions are
described below.
SEEDING AND PLANTING (ALL UNITS, AS NEEDED)
Over time, it is likely that some areas may benefit from additional seeding and planting to
maintain ground cover or increase species diversity. The sloped areas of the park are prone to
erosion and may require occasional reseeding along trail edges. Additionally, as the tree
canopy changes in the ag field and wooded field edge units, it may be necessary to seed with
a mix more adapted to updated light conditions. Planting trees, shrubs, and plugs can be a
faster way to increase diversity and respond to changing light conditions in units with tree
canopy. If the primary park trail is rerouted, seeding and planting will be necessary to
revegetate the slope.
INVASIVE SPECIES MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT (ALL UNITS)
Both herbaceous and woody invasive species are a continued threat to the ecosystem health
of these restored areas. Seeds from invasive species are constantly being transported by
wind, water, and wildlife, so there is no way to mitigate this threat. The best long-term
strategy to prevent invasive species establishment is to both increase diversity at the site
level and monitor the area to ensure any presence of invasive plants regularly can be caught
early. It is relatively easy to manage a small population in the first or second year after arrival.
If left to proliferate, invasive species can rapidly expand and have much larger ecological and
monetary impacts over time.
PRESCRIBED BURNING (MU1 Upland Grassland)
The future prairie unit will be dependent upon regular prescribed fire. Prescribed burns are
an essential tool for managing woody encroachment and controlling invasive species.
Additionally, burns stimulate grass and herbaceous growth in the understory by warming the
soil and encouraging early growth and regeneration of these plants. Prairie burns should be
conducted every 3-4 years. Planning to burn a subset of the acres annually is a good long-
term strategy to allow refuge for pollinators. Fires near homes often raise concerns about
safety and risks to property. As natural areas are increasingly interfaced with residential and
65
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
commercial areas, prescribed burning training and operations have evolved to increase
safety and create burn plans that move fire and smoke away from homes, businesses, and
roadways. Prescribed fire in urban areas is increasingly common with even small residential
prairies managed with fire.
Table 11: Long-Term Management Schedule and Cost Estimates
UNIT
NAME LONG-TERM MGMT TASK FREQUENCY COST RANGE
All Units Seeding As needed
Seed cost: $300 - $1,000 per acre.
Contractor implementation cost:
$600 per acre
All Units Planting* As needed
Plant material cost: $4 - $30.
Volunteer event advised for
implementation and follow-up
watering.
Upland
Grassland Prescribed burning
Every 3-4 years. Half the
acres should be burned at
any given time.
$1,000 - $1,200 per acre
All Units Invasive species monitoring 3x annually $1,000 - $1,500 annually
All Units Invasive species spot-
treatment As needed Contractor cost: $1,000 per acre
All Units
Invasive species
management/planting
volunteer event
Annually, as needed $2,000 - $2,500 for FMR-sponsored
public event
* Items with an asterisk are supplemental and should be undertaken only if funds and logistics allow.
66
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
RESTORATION PROCESS
When embarking on natural areas restoration and management, it is essential to accept that
restoration is a process that takes considerable time. Returning ecosystems to their former
functionality and diversity is complex and can sometimes only be approximated. Restoration
success or completion can also be difficult to measure.
For this reason, it is important to set specific and measurable restoration goals for stages of
the restoration and to allow for flexibility in management if methods do not elicit intended
outcomes. The 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 key to continual progress at HRP. Adaptive management is a strategy
commonly used by land managers that integrates thought and action into the restoration
process. It can be described as a strategy that uses evaluation, reflection, and
communication while incorporating learning into planning and management. It is set up like
a feedback loop and looks like this:
Thus, moving forward with restoration, each round of adaptive management refines and
hones the process to better suit the site's changing conditions. This strategy should be
emphasized at HRP.
RESTORATION GOALS
The restoration goals for HRP are to enhance the Priority Features and address the Priority
Issues. The specific and measurable goals set forth below can be used to assess restoration
outcomes and adaptively manage the site, if necessary.
1) Reduce invasive woody stems over ½ inch diameter to <10% on-site by the end of the
second year.
Assess
Design Implement
Monitor
Evaluate Adjust
67
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
2) Establish at least 25 native pollinator plant species in the grassland unit, including an
abundance of milkweed species. These pollinator species will have at least 30% coverage in
MU1 by the end of the fifth year.
3) Reduce cover of native shrubs to 5-10% in forest units and increase native species richness
and abundance in the herbaceous layer.
4) Stabilize the eastern riverbank through erosion control practices and planting.
5) Explore options to increase community use of the park through signage and outreach.
6) Engage the community and local volunteers through restoration events, including
plantings and invasive species removals.
Overall management practices to achieve those goals are:
● remove non-native, invasive, woody species,
● control non-native invasive herbaceous species,
● remove or thin out native woody species encroaching on grassland areas,
● restore ground layer diversity in prairie areas,
● conduct periodic prescribed burning to maintain prairie vegetation and reduce
invasive shrubs and overabundant tree seedlings,
● monitor annually for potential erosion, as well as for non-native invasive woody and
herbaceous species,
● institute a monitoring plan to track the effectiveness of management and restoration
activities,
● follow guidelines to protect species of greatest conservation need,
● engage volunteers in restoration activities and educational events,
● explore other opportunities to create wildlife habitat, including but not limited to
snake hibernaculum, osprey towers, bat houses, and turtle nesting exclosures.
Toward achieving these goals, restoration will aim to improve the diversity, composition, and
structure of the plant communities throughout the property, which will also better reflect
historical plant communities that provide improved habitat. This includes the addition of
prairie habitat that has been lost throughout the state but restoration will not artificially
convert current natural communities to what may have been present in the past. However,
adding new habitat and restoring degraded areas will improve the ecological functions that
both historic native plant communities and current healthy communities provide, including:
● habitat for a diversity of wildlife species,
● nutrient and water cycling,
68
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
● carbon storage,
● moderation of water-table levels,
● erosion control,
● filtration of nutrients, sediments and pollutants,
● development and enrichment of soils,
● local temperature moderation.
Though degraded by past uses, the existing plant cover retains a good variety of native
species and could be readily improved. A healthy and diverse plant community can provide
much greater wildlife value than a degraded one and tends to be much more stable and less
susceptible to disease, invasive species, and other disturbances.
TREE DISEASE
Dutch Elm Disease and Emerald Ash Borer
There are many elms and large green ash trees growing within the floodplain forests along
the Crow River at the site. These trees are not only ecologically valuable but are also at high
risk to attack from non-native tree pests. Elms are susceptible to Dutch Elm Disease, and ash
are susceptible to Emerald Ash Borer. These tree pests have caused widespread mortality of
elms and ash throughout the eastern United States and in Minnesota.
Dutch Elm disease is a fungal infection caused by the fungus Ceratocystis ulmi, which is native
to Asia, and is spread by both native and non-native bark beetles (family: Curculionidae).
Once the fungus is introduced onto a tree, the tree reacts by sealing its own xylem tissues
(conduits of water and nutrients) to prevent further spread. This effectively prevents water
and nutrients from reaching the upper branches, causing gradual die-off as more and more of
the xylem is sealed. Symptoms include a yellowing and browning of leaves that spreads from
the outer crown toward the trunk. Dutch elm disease was first recorded in Minnesota near
Monticello in 1961 and has since spread throughout the state. Minnesota relied heavily on
American Elms (Ulmus americana) as shade trees on streets, with about 140 million in the
state at the time of the outbreak. The disease is now present in all Minnesota counties,
though elms remain an important component of many Minnesota forests.
Emerald ash borer (EAB) is a non-native wood-boring beetle from Asia that was first identified
in the United States in the summer of 2002. Likely transported from Asia to Michigan in ash
wood used for pallets and other shipping materials, the beetle has now been confirmed in 36
states, including Minnesota. The beetle works by depositing larvae under the bark of the tree;
these larvae then feed on the wood, eventually disrupting enough of the phloem to prevent
the transport of nutrients throughout the tree. While Minnesota’s cold weather can stymie the
spread of the beetle, it continues to infect and kill ash trees within the Metro area. At HRP, the
removal of dying and dead ash trees can be focused on those trees nearest trails to maintain
safety for park users.
69
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
When such large trees die, a pronounced effect will be apparent on the vegetation and the
water in the river. These trees act to shade the water, provide habitat, and improve water
quality for fish and other species. The loss of large trees also opens the canopy and creates
gaps, which in turn releases the understory that was formerly suppressed by the shade from
such trees. If desirable species like native forbs, grasses, sedges, and shrubs exist in the
understory, then the impact can be positive since the result will probably be a net increase in
bank stability and diversity. In the case of this property, these canopy gaps will likely be filled
by buckthorn and Tatarian honeysuckle, which are poised to take advantage of such a
situation. In order to avoid this undesirable scenario, active management is recommended.
Removal of undesirable shrub species and replacing them with desirable native shrubs and
herbaceous plant species is a recommended management strategy.
For green ash in particular, the situation is particularly important, as this species makes up
over 30% of the canopy in many areas of the terrace forest. The principle of risk is highly
applicable here. In the case of EAB, the consequences will be large and quite negative, as a
loss of a third of the canopy along the river could have cascading consequences for invasive
species, water quality, and wildlife. Ultimately, hazard removal should occur once invasive
species are removed and could occur in stages (10-20% per year) to minimize disturbance to
the community.
Oak Wilt and Bur Oak Blight
Oak wilt is an increasingly common tree disease caused by the fungus Ceratocystis
fagacearum. While the disease is present in many eastern US states, it is most prevalent in the
Midwest US. Within Minnesota, it is an issue of serious concern in and around the seven-
county metro area, including Wright County. Oak wilt affects all of Minnesota’s most common
oak species (red oak [Quercus rubra], pin oak [Q. ellipsoidalis], bur oak [Q. macrocarpa], and
white oak [Q. alba]), though it does not affect these species equally. Red and pin oak are the
most susceptible species, with infected individuals wilting in six weeks or less. Bur and white
oaks may take years to wilt completely and may only do so one branch at a time. The fungus
can be transported from tree to tree by sap beetles, but most commonly spreads through
root grafts. The beetles are attracted to the fungal mats created when mature oaks die from
oak wilt, and also to wounds on uninfected oaks, providing a convenient pathway of spread
for the fungus. Oaks commonly form root grafts between individuals, allowing direct transfer
of the fungus from infected to healthy individuals.
While HRP has a moderate number of red oaks, there is a sizeable number of large bur oaks
and midstory bur oaks, especially around and in MU3, the Oak Forest. While this provides
some hope that an outbreak of oak wilt at the property is less likely, there is some suspected
oak wilt in the canopy of MU3, and these trees should be carefully monitored. This monitoring
will be necessary to identify and manage infected individuals. If infected individuals are
found, root barriers may be installed around infected trees using a vibratory plow. Other
70
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
options include soil sterilization and inoculation of high value individual trees. Care should
also be taken to avoid injuring trees during the early growing season (April to July) when trees
are most susceptible to the fungal spread. If a tree is injured during this time, covering the
wounds is recommended. If pruning or other activities must be done, waiting for the winter is
the safest option.
Bur oak blight (BOB) may be a more serious threat to the oaks on the property. BOB affects
only bur oaks and is most injurious to upland individuals in savanna remnants. Caused by a
species of fungus in the Tubaki genus, BOB causes lesions and discoloration of the veins on
the underside of the leaves, eventually causing large portions of the leaf to die. In many cases,
severe infections will cause tree death, though individual susceptibility to the disease varies.
The fungus can overwinter on leaf petioles that remain attached to trees and is primarily
spread by rain droplets moving spores throughout the tree. Early results suggest that
inoculation of trees with fungicide may help slow or stop the spread of the disease within
individual trees. At HRP, monitoring existing oaks for symptoms will be an important first
step; moreover, if oaks are planted in the future, it may be beneficial to avoid planting the
variety Q. macrocarpa var. oliviformis, which has shown the most severe susceptibility to BOB.
COMMUNITY USE, SITE ACCESS AND SIGNAGE
As a newer park to the Otsego Parks and Recreation system, HRP is seemingly primarily used
by residents of the adjacent neighborhood. No placemaking or wayfinding signage for the
park is present, although property corners adjacent to residential lots are marked with “Park
Boundary” signage. Simple park name signage and wayfinding signage would help to orient
visitors to the site, and this will be especially important once the park is connected to the
regional system.
71
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
INFORMATION SOURCES
Bur oak blight. (http://www.myminnesotawoods.umn.edu/2010/09/bur-oak-blight-bob-in-
minnesota/).
Dutch elm disease. (http://www.extension.umn.edu/garden/yard-garden/trees-
shrubs/dutch-elm-disease/).
Emerald ash borer. (http://www.mda.state.mn.us/emeraldashborer).
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (2005) Field Guide to the Native Plant
Communities of Minnesota: The Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province. Ecological Land
Classification Program, Minnesota County Biological Survey, and Natural Heritage and
Nongame Research Program. MNDNR.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (2006) Tomorrow’s Habitat for the Wild and Rare;
An Action Plan for Minnesota Wildlife. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Division
of Ecological Services, MNDNR.
Oak wilt. (http://www.extension.umn.edu/environment/trees-woodlands/oak-wilt-in-
minnesota/).
Olsen and Mossler (1982) Geological map of Minnesota, depth to bedrock. Minnesota
Geological Survey. University of Minnesota.
Soil Conservation Service (1995) Soil Survey of Wright County. United States Department of
Agriculture.
72
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. MLCCS Units, Soil Types, and Restoration Target Plant
Communities for Management Units
Management Unit Soil Type(s) Target Plant Community
MU 1a 1377E, 1379B, 1380B UPs23: Southern Mesic Prairie
MU 1b 771, 1380B, 1381 UPs23: Southern Mesic Prairie
MU 1c 771, 1255, UPs23: Southern Mesic Prairie
MU 1d 1255 UPs23: Southern Mesic Prairie
2 771, 1255, WMs92: Southern Basin Wet Meadow/Carr
3 771, 1257 MHs38: Southern Mesic Oak-Basswood Forest
4 771, 1255, 1377D, 1377E FFs59: Southern Terrace Forest
APPENDIX B. Plant Species for Restoration at Highlands of River Pointe Park
MU1 Upland Grassland (UPs23):
Forbs, Ferns & Fern Allies
Yarrow Achillea millefolium Virginia ground cherry Physalis virginiana
Prairie wild onion Allium stellatum Tall cinquefoil Potentilla arguta
Canada anemone Anemone canadensis Smooth rattlesnakeroot Prenanthes racemosa
Long-headed
thimbleweed Anemone cylindrica Virginia mountain mint Pycnanthemum virginianum
Clasping dogbane Apocynum sibiricum Gray-headed coneflower Ratibida pinnata
White sage Artemisia ludoviciana Canada goldenrod Solidago canadensis
Common milkweed Asclepias syriaca Missouri goldenrod Solidago missouriensis
Heath aster Aster ericoides Gray goldenrod Solidago nemoralis
Smooth blue aster Aster laevis Stiff goldenrod Solidago rigida
Skyblue aster Aster oolentangiensis Tall meadow-rue Thalictrum dasycarpum
Silky aster Aster sericeus American vetch Vicia americana
Ground plum Astragalus crassicarpus Bearded birdfoot violet Viola palmata
Toothed evening
primrose Calylophus serrulatus White camas Zigadenus elegans
Flodman’s thistle Cirsium flodmanii Heart-leaved alexanders Zizia aptera
Bastard toadflax Comandra umbellata
Bird’s foot coreopsis Coreopsis palmata Grasses & Sedges
White prairie clover Dalea candida Big bluestem Andropogon gerardii
Purple prairie clover Dalea purpurea Indian grass Sorghastrum nutans
Canada tick trefoil Desmodium canadense Little bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium
Narrow-leaved purple
coneflower Echinacea pallida Prairie dropseed Sporobolus heterolepis
Daisy fleabane Erigeron strigosus Porcupine grass Stipa spartea
Rattlesnake master Eryngium yuccifolium Side-oats grama Bouteloua curtipendula
Common strawberry Fragaria virginiana Switchgrass Panicum virgatum
Northern bedstraw Galium boreale Junegrass Koeleria pyramidata
Maximilian’s sunflower Helianthus maximiliani Pennsylvania Sedge Carex pensylvanica
Stiff sunflower Helianthus pauciflorus Leiberg’s panic grass Panicum leibergii
73
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
Ox-eye Heliopsis helianthoides Prairie cordgrass Spartina pectinata
Alumroot Heuchera richardsonii
Rough blazing star Liatris aspera Semi-Shrubs
Northern plains blazing
star Liatris ligulistylis Leadplant Amorpha canescens
Great blazing star Liatris pycnostachya Prairie rose Rosa arkansana
Wood lily Lilium philadelphicum
Hoary puccoon Lithospermum canescens Shrubs
Pale-spiked lobelia Lobelia spicata Wolfberry
Symphoricarpos
occidentalis
Wild bergamot Monarda fistulosa Dogwood (wet areas) Cornus spp.
Wood betony Pedicularis canadensis Chokecherry (edges) Prunus virginiana
Silverleaf scurfpea Pediomelum argophyllum Trees
Prairie turnip Pediomelum esculentum Bur oak Quercus macrocarpa
Prairie phlox Phlox pilosa Pin oak Quercus ellipsoidalis
MU2 Wet Meadow/Shrub Carr (WMs92)
Grasses & Sedges
Slough sedge Carex atherodes Great water dock Rumex orbiculatus
Bluejoint Calamagrostis canadensis Willow-herbs Epilobium spp.
Whitetop Scolochloa festucacea Giant bur reed Sparganium eurycarpum
Prairie cordgrass Spartina pectinata Woundwort Stachys palustris
Red-stalked spikerush Eleocharis palustris Marsh vetchling Lathyrus palustris
Lake sedge Carex lacustris Clasping dogbane Apocynum sibiricum
Beaked sedge Carex utriculata Canada goldenrod Solidago canadensis
Aquatic sedge Carex aquatilis Marsh bellflower Campanula aparinoides
Tussock sedge Carex stricta Bur marigold and Beggarticks Bidens spp.
Tall manna grass Glyceria grandis Red-stemmed aster Aster puniceus
River bulrush Scirpus fluviatilis Bulb-bearing water hemlock Cicuta bulbifera
Common reed grass Phragmites australis Sweet flag Acorus calamus
Woolly sedge Carex pellita Touch-me-not Impatiens spp.
Fowl bluegrass Poa palustris Stinging nettle Urtica dioica
Soft stem bulrush Scirpus validus Large yellow water crowfoot Ranunculus flabellaris
Small-fruited bulrush Scirpus microcarpus Bog aster Aster borealis
Spotted water hemlock Cicuta maculata
Forbs, Ferns & Fern Allies Bristly buttercup
Ranunculus
pensylvanicus
Water smartweed Polygonum amphibium Arrow-leaved sweet coltsfoot Petasites sagittatus
Rough bugleweed Lycopus asper Arum-leaved arrowhead Sagittaria cuneata
Common mint Mentha arvensis Spring water starwort Callitriche palustris
Water parsnip Sium suave Giant goldenrod Solidago gigantea
Swamp milkweed Asclepias incarnata Common marsh marigold Caltha palustris
Tufted loosestrife ysimachia thyrsiflora Golden dock Rumex maritimus
Marsh skullcap Scutellaria galericulata
Germander Teucrium canadense Tall Shrubs
Spotted Joe pye weed Eupatorium maculatum Pussy willow Salix discolor
Eastern panicled aster Aster lanceolatus Slender willow Salix petiolaris
Cut-leaved bugleweed Lycopus americanus Red-osier dogwood Cornus sericea
Prickly wild rose Rosa acicularis
74
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
MU3 Oak Forest (MHs38)
Forbs, Ferns & Fern Allies Grasses & Sedges
Zigzag goldenrod Solidago flexicaulis Bearded shorthusk Brachyelytrum erectum
Red baneberry Actaea rubra Bland sedge Carex blanda
Maidenhair fern Adiantum pedatum Long-stalked sedge Carex pedunculata
Hog peanut Amphicarpaea bracteata Pennsylvania sedge Carex pensylvanica
Sharp-lobed hepatica Anemone acutiloba Starry sedge Carex rosea
Wood anemone Anemone quinquefolia Bottlebrush grass Elymus hystrix
Wild sarsaparilla Aralia nudicaulis Nodding fescue Festuca subverticillata
Jack-in-the-pulpit Arisaema triphyllum
Wild ginger Asarum canadense Shrubs
Lady fern Athyrium filix-femina Pagoda dogwood Cornus alternifolia
Rattlesnake fern Botrychium virginianum American hazelnut Corylus americana
Blue cohosh Caulophyllum
thalictroides Chokecherry Prunus virginiana
Common enchanter’s nightshade Circaea lutetiana Prickly gooseberry Ribes cynosbati
Honewort Cryptotaenia canadensis Missouri gooseberry Ribes missouriense
Pointed-leaved tick trefoil Desmodium glutinosum Poison ivy Toxicodendron rydbergii
Cleavers Galium aparine Nannyberry Viburnum lentago
Shining bedstraw Galium concinnum Downy arrowwood Viburnum
rafinesquianum
Sweet-scented bedstraw Galium triflorum Prickly ash Zanthoxylum
americanum
Wild geranium Geranium maculatum
White avens Geum canadense
Trees Canopy
Subcanopy Shrub
Layer
Virginia waterleaf Hydrophyllum
virginianum Basswood
Canada mayflower Maianthemum canadense Northern red oak
Clayton’s sweet cicely Osmorhiza claytonii Sugar maple
Lopseed Phryma leptostachya Ironwood
Bloodroot Sanguinaria canadensis Green ash
Maryland black snakeroot Sanicula marilandica Bur oak
Common false Solomon’s seal Smilacina racemosa White oak Erect, Smooth, or Illinois carrion-
flower Smilax spp. American elm
Early meadow-rue Thalictrum dioicum Paper birch
Large-flowered bellwort Uvularia grandiflora Bitternut hickory
Yellow violet Viola pubescens Red elm White pine
Woody Vines Black cherry
Virginia creeper Parthenocissus spp.
Riverbank grape Vitis riparia
75
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
MU4 Terrace Forest (FFs59)
Forbs, Ferns & Fern Allies Woody Vines Wood nettle Laportea canadensis Canada moonseed Menispermum canadense
Touch-me-not Impatiens spp. Virginia creeper Parthenocissus spp.
Virginia waterleaf Hydrophyllum virginianum Greenbrier Smilax tamnoides
Tall coneflower Rudbeckia laciniata Stinging nettle Urtica dioica Shrubs Cleavers Galium aparine Hawthorn Crataegus spp.
Honewort Cryptotaenia canadensis Chokecherry Prunus virginiana
White avens Geum canadense Prickly gooseberry Ribes cynosbati
Aniseroot Osmorhiza longistylis Missouri gooseberry Ribes missouriense
Blue phlox Phlox divaricata Common elder Sambucus canadensis
Virginia knotweed Polygonum virginianum Carrion-flowers Smilax ecirrata et al.
Ontario aster Aster ontarionis Nannyberry Viburnum lentago
Gregarious black snakeroot Sanicula gregaria Riverbank grape Vitis riparia
Rugulose or Yellow violet
Viola canadensis or V.
pubescens Prickly ash Zanthoxylum americanum
False rue anemone Enemion biternatum
Poison ivy Toxicodendron rydbergii
Trees Canopy
Subcanopy Shrub Layer Clearweed Pilea spp. American elm Hispid buttercup Ranunculus hispidus Box elder Common enchanter’s nightshade Circaea lutetiana Silver maple Maryland black snakeroot Sanicula marilandica Green ash Cow parsnip Heracleum lanatum Hackberry Sweet-scented bedstraw Galium triflorum Basswood Hog peanut Amphicarpaea bracteata Cottonwood Woodmint Blephilia hirsuta Black ash Early meadow-rue Thalictrum dioicum Red elm Starry false Solomon’s seal Smilacina stellata Swamp white oak Virginia bluebells Mertensia virginica• Bitternut hickory Ostrich fern Matteuccia struthiopteris Black walnut Wild geranium Geranium maculatum Jack-in-the-pulpit Arisaema triphyllum Clayton’s sweet cicely Osmorhiza claytonii
Grasses & Sedges Ambiguous sedge Carex amphibola Gray’s sedge Carex grayi Starry sedge Carex rosea Bland sedge Carex blanda Nodding fescue Festuca subverticillata White grass Leersia virginica Starry sedge Carex rosea Gray’s sedge Carex grayi Virginia wild rye Elymus virginicus
76
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
APPENDIX C. Methods for Controlling Non-native and Invasive Plant Species
Trees and Shrubs
Common buckthorn, Tatarian honeysuckle, Siberian elm, and black locust are some of the
most common invasive woody species likely to establish in woodlands, forests, and prairies in
Minnesota. Buckthorn and honeysuckle are European species that escaped cultivation and
became dominant in woodlands in many parts of the country. They are exceedingly
aggressive and, lacking natural diseases and predators, can out-compete native species. They
remain photosynthetically active longer than most other native shrubs and trees, which gives
them a competitive advantage. The seeds are disseminated by birds, which makes the
species especially problematic in open woodlands, savannas, and overgrown prairies. They
also benefit from the net actions of invasive earthworms, fire suppression, and high deer
populations, forming a symbiosis that helps set the stage for their establishment and
abundance. These plants eventually result in dense, impenetrable brush thickets that greatly
reduce ground-level light availability and can cause declines in native species abundance and
diversity.
Siberian elm, native to eastern Asia, grows vigorously, 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 (it was promoted as an erosion
control species and a soil stabilizer partly because it was falsely assumed to be a nitrogen
fixer) and it quickly colonizes bare slopes, so it readily invades disturbed areas. It reproduces
vigorously by root suckering and can form monotypic stands.
Biological Control
Currently there are no biological control agents for non-native woody plants in Minnesota.
Recently, an 11-year study conducted by the MNDNR and the University of Minnesota resulted
in the conclusion that there were no viable biological control agents for common or glossy
buckthorn, based in part on the lack of damage to the host plants and a lack of host
specificity
(http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialplants/woody/buckthorn/biocontrol.html).
Newer research in Winnipeg, Canada, using the fungus Chondrostereum purpureum has led to
the approval of a biological herbicide for cut-stump and girdling applications, but this
herbicide has not yet been approved for use in the U.S.
Chemical Control
The most efficient way to remove woody plants that are 1/2 inch or more in diameter is to cut
the stems close to the ground and treat the cut stumps with herbicide immediately after they
are cut, when the stumps are fresh, and the chemicals are most readily absorbed. Failure to
treat the stumps will result in resprouting, creating the need for future management
interventions.
77
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
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 20% glyphosate concentration. Adding a marker dye helps to make treated stumps
more visible, improving accuracy and overall efficiency. An herbicide with the active
ingredient triclopyr must be used in the winter months. Garlon 4 is a common brand name,
and it must be mixed with a penetrating oil, such as diluent blue. Garlon 4 will also work
throughout the year. Do not use diesel fuel, as it is much more toxic in the environment and
to 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. Moreover, once native plants have senesced, the herbicide will have fewer
non-target effects on native vegetation. 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 possible resprouting from some of the cut plants. Herbicide can be
applied to the foliage of these plants. Early 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, triclopyr and Krenite (active ingredient – fosamine ammonium) are the
most used herbicides for foliar application. Krenite prevents bud formation, so the plants do
not grow in the spring. This herbicide can be effective, but results are highly variable.
Glyphosate or a triclopyr herbicide such as Garlon can also be used. Glyphosate is non-
specific and will kill anything green, while triclopyr targets broadleaf plants and does not
harm graminoids. Licensed applicators should apply all herbicides, and applications should
occur in low-wind conditions. 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. Basal bark herbicide treatment is another effective
control method. A triclopyr herbicide such as Garlon 4, mixed with penetrating oil, is applied
all around the lower 6-12 inches 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.
Undesirable trees and shrubs can also be destroyed without cutting them down. Girdling is a
method suitable for small numbers of large trees. Bark is removed in a band around the tree,
just to the outside of the wood. If girdled too deeply, the tree will respond by resprouting
from the roots. Girdled trees die slowly over the course of one to two years. Girdling should be
78
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
done in late spring to mid-summer when the 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. Girdling has the added benefit of creating snags for wildlife habitat. While
girdling many trees is not feasible, girdling the occasional large tree will provide a matrix of
habitat for species that depend on standing dead trees for food or nesting opportunities.
Mechanical Control
Three mechanical methods for woody plant removal are hand pulling (only useful on small
seedlings and only if few), weed wrenching (using a weed wrench tool to pull stems of one to
two inches diameter), and repeated or “critical” 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 soil 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 colonization by other non-native plants. This method is the least preferable
and is probably best used in areas that have hardly any 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, typically twice per growing season. Cutting in mid-spring (late May)
intercepts the flow of nutrients from the roots to the leaves, and 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.
Prescribed Fire
Prescribed burning is the most efficient, cost-effective, and least harmful way to control very
small stems, seedlings, and resprouts of all woody plants. It also restores an important
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 site conditions.
Native Shrubs
Prickly Ash
A common native shrub, prickly ash can become excessively abundant, especially in areas
that have been disturbed or grazed. Complete eradication may not be necessary, but
management may target reducing the extent of a population. Removal is most easily
accomplished in the same manner as for buckthorn – cutting shrubs and treating cut stumps
with glyphosate herbicide. Cutting can be completed at any time of the year.
Smooth Sumac
Like prickly ash, smooth sumac can become excessively abundant, especially in areas where
fire has been suppressed for long periods of time. It can form dense, clonal stands that
dominate other vegetation. Unlike prickly ash or buckthorn, however, controlling smooth
sumac does not require herbicide applications since that would require a tremendous
79
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
amount of herbicide, be quite labor intensive, and probably cause heavy damage to
surrounding plants. Control of smooth sumac can be easily accomplished by cutting and
burning or a combination of these two methods. To be effective, the sumac must be burned
or cut twice a year: the first time in the late spring, just after it has fully leafed out (expended
maximum energy), and the second time in late summer, after it has re-sprouted. Repeat this
method annually for two to five years to deplete the clone of its energy, working back at the
edges of the clone and reducing cover from the outside of the area towards the center. If
cutting or burning is performed only once a season, the clone will persist since this will not be
enough to drain the root system of stored energy. Cutting twice a year without burning will be
effective, but burning is doubly so since fire tends to benefit herbaceous plants and suppress
woody ones.
Disposal
The easiest and most cost-effective method to handle large amounts of woody brush is
usually to stack it and burn it. This is most typically done during winter to lessen the impacts
on soil (compaction, erosion, rutting, etc.), though often, brush will be piled soon after the
removal and burned during the winter. In areas where brush is not dense, it can be cut up
into smaller pieces, scattered, 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, or perhaps saved to be
used later as waterbars for slope stabilization.
FORBS
Spotted knapweed
Knapweed is a perennial species that has become a troublesome prairie invader. Of all the
typical prairie weeds, spotted knapweed is probably the most difficult to manage. It cannot
be controlled with burning—like sweet clover, it increases with fire. Hand-pulling individuals
or small groups of individuals can be effective for small infestations and is often a good
volunteer group task. However, knapweed has a large tap root and can be difficult to pull.
Pulling is typically more difficult when soil is hard (dry), clayey, or compacted but easier when
soil is wet (following a rain), sandy, and friable. A biocontrol (knapweed beetles--weevils) is
recommended for large knapweed populations. Knapweed beetles (weevils) are released
during the summer. Weevils can be purchased online, and they are sent via mail. Knapweed
populations should be monitored each year to keep a record of the effectiveness of the
biocontrol.
Weevils are effective for long-term control but not a good short-term control option. Spot
treatment with a systemic herbicide such as Milestone or Transline can be effective for short-
term control. Applying herbicide to prairie restoration areas should be done with care.
Remnants with high diversity should be spot-treated, not broadcast-treated. It is
recommended to treat first with the least impactful chemical, monitor to see if that works,
80
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
and then try another if it does not work. Degraded and highly disturbed areas can be treated
a little less gently, perhaps using broadcast applications. Always follow the product label
when using any chemical for weed control. Treatment should be done before the target
plants form seed, so late spring and early summer are best. Professional pesticide applicators
are required for herbicide treatment.
Canada thistle
While native thistles are not generally problematic, non-native thistles 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. Chemical control is most effective when the plants are in
the rosette stage and least effective when the plants are flowering. Where native grasses and
sedges are present, the use of a broadleaf herbicide such as 2,4-D is recommended since 2,4-
D only affects dicots. 2,4-D is most effective when applied 10-14 days before the flowering
stems bolt. It is applied at a rate of 2-4 pounds/acre using a backpack or tractor-mounted
sprayer or in granular form. Dicamba could also be used, with the advantage that it can be
applied earlier in the spring at a rate of 1 pound/acre. Another chemical that has been used
for thistles is aminopyralid (“Milestone”), which can be applied at bud stage. Aminopyralid
will affect other species, and it has longer residual activity than some other chemicals, so use
with caution—typically use it on large patches/clones of thistles and avoid areas of higher
diversity. 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 their 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 strong, rather than in an old field, where
competition is likely to be weaker.
Sweet clover
White and yellow sweet clover are very aggressive biennial species that increase with fire.
Where sweet clover is found, it should be controlled in conjunction with treatment that
attempts to eliminate smooth brome if prairie restoration occurs. Sweet clovers are common
plants in agricultural areas, so if restoration is implemented, the project area should be
surveyed for this species on an annual basis. Oftentimes, following initial brush removal
and/or burning, a flush of weedy annuals and biennials, such as sweet clover, can occur. Well-
timed mows and burnings are usually adequate to control these species. Mowing the site, as
is typically prescribed for prairie restoration maintenance, should occur when all plants on
the site (including sweet clovers) are approximately 12 inches in height. Sweet clover can
bloom even at a height of 6 inches, but if it is burned or mowed in the following year in the
81
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
late spring, it should be controlled. On steep sites, brush cutting can be substituted for
mowing. Individual plants or small populations can be removed by hand-pulling. If seed
production occurs, prodigious amounts of seed can be produced and spread, so pull before
seeds appear or bag seed-producing plants. Competition from native species also helps
control sweet clovers and other weedy annuals and biennials.
To some extent, Common burdock and common mullein can be treated similarly to sweet
clover, since they are both non-native, biennial forbs that are typically found in disturbed
areas or restoration projects.
Garlic mustard
Garlic mustard is a non-native biennial forb of woodlands and edges that is invasive and
aggressive. After just a few plants are introduced, populations can rapidly increase, and a
dramatic “explosion” of garlic mustard plants can occur. In some areas, it can form
monotypic stands that crowd out other species, while recent studies have shown that in other
locations, it may simply occupy open ecological niches. Nevertheless, garlic mustard can be
very invasive in woodlands, and monitoring and removing it as soon as it is detected (early
detection and rapid response) is recommended. Garlic mustard also produces a flavonoid
(root exudate) that suppresses mycorrhizal inoculation. Thus, mycorrhizae-dependent
species, like oaks, will become stunted and easily outcompeted by garlic mustard. The
flavonoid persists in the soil years after garlic mustard plants are removed, which is a good
reason to keep woodlands garlic mustard-free.
Probably the best way to control garlic mustard is to monitor your site closely, and if garlic
mustard is found, hand-pull it before it spreads. Hand-pulling should occur before siliques
(seed pods) form. Once siliques form, removed plants should be bagged and transported
from the site since the plant may have enough energy in the stem and root to make viable
seeds, even though it is not growing in the ground. If bagging and transporting are not an
option, making weed piles is an option, but prepare to deal with garlic mustard plants in the
future at each pile. Garlic mustard plants produce hundreds of seeds per plant—they are very
prolific. When pulling garlic mustard plants, take care to remove the entire root, since they
may re-sprout if part of the root is left in the ground. This can be difficult since roots are “S-
shaped” and tend to break off at ground level.
Chemical control is not recommended except in cases where garlic mustard is growing in
large monoculture patches. In such cases, a systemic herbicide may be appropriate.
Glyphosate is non-specific and will kill any actively growing plant. One technique that has
been effective is applying a water-soluble herbicide during warm days in the winter when no
snow cover or only a thin snow cover exists. Garlic mustard rosettes (first-year plants) remain
green mostly all year round and can be killed during the winter when nearly all other plants
are dormant. Another successful technique is to use an herbicide specific to broadleaved
plants, like triclopyr (Garlon), but one that is water soluble, which can be dispensed with a
backpack sprayer or the like; this will not kill grasses or sedges.
82
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
Studies underway by the MNDNR and the University of Minnesota show good potential for
biocontrol of garlic mustard via an introduced weevil
(http://www.legacy.leg.mn/projects/biological-control-european-buckthorn-and-garlic-
mustard). The testing phase is complete, but the approval process still needs to be
performed. If approved, this method could revolutionize garlic mustard control. However,
whether it will be effective or not on a landscape scale is yet to be determined.
GRASSES
Smooth brome
Smooth brome is a cool season grass —active early in the growing season in southern
Minnesota (April-May-June) and then going semi-dormant in July-September. It reproduces
by means of underground stems (stolons and rhizomes) called “tillers”. The most effective
treatment is timed to occur at the same time as the brome is “tillering”—mid to late May in
southern Minnesota. Burning two years in a row (late-season burns in June) followed by
seeding has been shown to be effective in controlling smooth brome. Consider that this
timing may be a week or two earlier on steep south-facing slopes or in very sandy or sand-
gravel soils. Following this method will usually be sufficient to control smooth brome.
Seeding following burns, preferably with native seed collected on-site, or purchased from a
seller that provides local ecotypes, is important for restoring cover at the site. Evaluation can
occur each year, and especially after two years. If this is not working, perhaps try a cool-
season overspray of a grass-specific herbicide either in the spring (April) or in the fall
(October). Using glyphosate as a cool-season overspray herbicide application is a last resort,
since it is non-specific.
Kentucky bluegrass and creeping fescue can be treated similarly to smooth brome, since like
smooth brome, they are both non-native, stoloniferous, cool-season grasses. Spring burns
are the most effective tool against all of these species.
Reed canary grass
This species is extremely difficult to eradicate and requires repeated treatment over a period
of one to three years. A combination of burning, chemical treatment and mowing can be used
in accessible areas, or chemical treatment alone in inaccessible areas. The combination
method starts by burning in late spring to remove dead vegetation and to stimulate new
growth. When new sprouts have reached a height of 4 to 6 inches, the site can be sprayed
with a 5% solution of a glyphosate herbicide appropriate for wetland habitat (e.g., Rodeo).
The site is then mowed in late summer, followed by chemical application after re-growth.
This treatment will stimulate new growth and germination to deplete the seed bank. The
sequence of chemical treatment and mowing is repeated for at least a second season and
possibly a third until the grass is completely eradicated. Then, native grass and forb seed can
be broadcast or drilled.
83
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
If reed canary grass is eradicated from an area, future management of the grassland, namely
burning, will likely keep the reed canary in check. However, monitoring and mapping new
individuals or clumps should continue, and those individuals should be treated if burning is
not adequately controlling them. If the plants are small, they can be removed by digging out
the entire root. Generally, though, chemical treatment is more feasible. If plants are clumped,
they can be treated by tying them together, cutting the blades, and treating the cut surface
with herbicide. Otherwise, herbicide should only be applied in native planted areas on very
calm days to avoid drift to non-target plants.
84
Friends of the Mississippi River HIGHLANDS OF RIVER POINTE NRMP
APPENDIX D. Ecological Contractors
Following is a list of contractors to consider for implementing management plans. While this
is not an exhaustive list, it does include firms with ecologists who are very knowledgeable
with natural resource management. Unless otherwise noted, all firms perform prescribed
burning. Many other brush removal companies are found online (searching tree care), but
most do not have knowledge or understanding of native plant communities. We recommend
hiring firms that can provide ecological expertise.
Friends of the Mississippi River (FMR) has extensive experience working with landowners to
implement natural resource management plans. FMR can assist landowners with obtaining
funding for restoration and management projects and providing project management,
including contractor negotiations, coordinating restoration and management work, and site
monitoring and evaluation.
Conservation Corps Minnesota
60 Plato Blvd E Ste 210
Saint Paul, MN 55107
(651) 209-9900
www.conservationcorps.org
Great River Greening
251 Starkey St #2200
St Paul, MN 55107
(651) 665-9500
www.greatrivergreening.org
Minnesota Native Landscapes (MNL)
8740 77th St NE
Otsego, MN 55362
(763) 295-0010
www.mnlcorp.com
Prairie Restorations, Inc.
31646 128th St.
Princeton, MN 55371
(763) 389-4342
www.prairieresto.com
Stantec
733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1000
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 712-2000
www.stantec.com
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
(RES)
20276 Delaware Avenue
Jordan, MN 55352
(217) 979-2415
www.res.us
Native Resource Preservation
260 Wentworth Ave E Suite 155
West St Paul, MN 55118
(320) 413-0015
www.nativeresourcepreservation.com
Landbridge Ecological, Inc.
670 Vandalia St.
St Paul, MN 55114
(612) 503-4420
www.landbridge.eco