Houlton Farm Planning Committee Meeting 2016-02-02Regular Meeting
Houlton Farm
Planning Committee
AGENDA
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. CONSIDER AGENDA
3. CONSIDER DECEMBER 21, 2015
4. DISCUSSION ITEMS
4.1 Hunting Plan Status and Update
4.2 Review Natural Resource Management Plan
4.3 Parking Lot
4.4 Master Plan
4.5 Utilities
4.6 Wayfinding and Signage Plan
4.7 Fishing Plan
4.8 Buildings Demolition Update
4.9 Farm Lease Agreement
5. ADJOURNMENT
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
5:30 p.m.
Elk River City Hall
Meeting Protocol
■ No sidebar discussions
■ No interruptions
■ State your concern
■ Ensure you understand
■ Don't take things personally
■ Adhere to time limits
■ Come prepared
■ Ensure all are heard
This agenda is available in alternate formats upon a 72 hour advanced notice. Auxiliary aids and services are also available upon a 72 hour
advanced notice. Please contact the City Clerk at 763. 635. 1000 to make a request Examples of alternate formats may include: large print,
Braille, audio tape, etc. Examples of auxiliary aids may include a sign language interpreter, assistive listening device, etc.
Future Items:
I. Survey estimate and completion by 6/1/2016.
PONEAII 11
[NATURE]
Meeting of the Houlton Farm Planning Committee
Held at the City of Elk River
Monday, December 21, 2015
Members Present: Chairman Stewart Wilson; Dave Anderson, Dylan Church, Michael
Hecker, Kristin Mroz, Councilman Jerry Olsen
Members Absent: Sue Seeger, Michael Schroeder
Partner Agencies: Bob McGillivray, Trust for Public Land
Tom Lewanski, Friends of the Mississippi River
Alex Roth, Friends of the Mississippi River
Staff Present: Tim Sevcik, Park Superintendent
Justin Femrite, City Engineer
Guests: John Kuester
2.
3.
4.
Call Meeting to Order
Chairman Wilson called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
Consider 12/21 / l 5 Agenda
The agenda was accepted as submitted.
Consider 10/25/2015 Minutes
The minutes were accepted as submitted.
Discussion Items
4.1 Friends of the Mississippi River (FMR) Update
Mr. Roth used a PowerPoint to present the Natural Resource Management Plan for
the Houlton property. The plan is based on a field survey, walking the property,
vegetation surveys and historical data. The restoration plan focuses of the following
units:
1) Floodplain forest: Some areas are in good shape with a variety of size, class and
species; some areas are in rough shape due to invasive species. Funding for this
area will concentrate mostly on invasive species removal (Buckthorne, Japanese
Barberry, etc.) This is priority number one.
2) Conversion of agricultural field into prairie and savannah: Right now there are
pockets of existing savannah that give an idea of how it looked historically,
Houlton Farm Planning Committee Page 2
December 21, 2015
however the plant species in these existing pockets is non-native and will be
replanted with native species.
3) Floodplain Island: This will be its own management unit.
There will be phases of restoration. Timing and methodology might change but there
will be no more substantive changes to the plan. Erosion and other issues are not a
top priority but they can be addressed eventually if funding, time and desire allows.
The concern about the ash tree population and the emerald ash -bore is something
for future discussion/funding.
Mr. Roth would like input from the Committee before they begin the RFP process
so he will email the full work plan out to Committee members by January 2016.
4.2 Hunting Plan Status and Update
Mr. McGillivray does not have an update. He said DNR is trying to standardize their
procedures and the plan is probably caught up in their reorganization efforts.
4.3 Utilities
Mr. Sevcik reported that the asbestos tests will be done on December 22d. As soon
as the City is ready, Elk River Municipal Utilities can start the demo of the power
and will coordinate on the building removal.
4.4 Fishing Plan
Mr. Anderson reported this sub -committee has not met since the November
meeting.
4.5 Property Rules and Signage Committee Report
Mr. Anderson reported this sub -committee has not met since the November
meeting.
4.6 Surveyor Monuments at Property
Mr. Anderson asked if we should get a bid for property boundaries and staking. Mr.
Sevcik agreed to get pricing for a survey by June 1, 2016 so we could have signs
completed by July 1, 2016. It was also agreed that surveyor monuments are needed at
the western and northern boundaries only.
4.7 Signage at Property Separate from City's Wayfinding Standard
Mr. Anderson stated the City's wayfinding project is back to the drawing board.
The Committee agreed that the Houlton property has to have signage in place by
July Vt and cannot wait for finalization of the City's wayfinding plan. Mr. Hecker is
�OMEREO BY
Pr Xi' 4 E
Houlton Farm Planning Committee
December 21, 2015
Page 3
on the Wayfinding Committee and agreed to talk to them to ensure one won't affect
the other. He will provide information at the next meeting.
4.8 John Kuester
Mr. Kuester stated he has a great love of barns and wanted to talk with someone
who could explain why the Houlton barn was not selected as the one outbuilding the
City is allowed to keep. Chairman Wilson offered to meet with Mr. Kuester after the
meeting or at another time to discuss his concerns with him.
S. Action Items
5.1 New Student Representative
Dylan Church is the new student representative for the Committee. His appointment
to the Committee will be the Consent Agenda at the City's next council meeting.
Chairman Wilson welcomed Mr. Church to the Committee.
5.2 Meeting Dates for 2016
The meeting dates for 2016 were reviewed and agreed upon by the Committee.
6. Adjournment
There being no further business, Chairman Wilson adjourned the meeting of the
Houlton Farm Planning Committee at 5:15 p.m.
p 0 W E R E I I r
NATURE
William H. Houlton Conservation Area
Natural Resource Management Plan
Prepared by. -
Alex Roth
OF Friends of the Mississippi River
C 360 North Robert Street, Suite 400
St. Paul, MN 55101
Ph: 651-222-2193 x33
VII December 2015
Friends of the Mississippi
1
W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
This Natural Area Management Plan and Work Plan has been reviewed
and approved by:
Landowner
Name,
Minne
Name,
Date:
Friends of the Mississippi
OA
W H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
EXECUTIVESUMMARY............................................................................................................S
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................8
SITEINFORMATION..............................................................................................................10
LANDSCAPE CONTEXT.........................................................................................,.12
SITE GEOLOGY AND GROUNDWATER......................................................... ........................15
SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY........................................................................... ..................17
RARESPECIES.......................................................................................................................... 20
ExistingWildlife. .................................................... ...........,............21
HISTORICAL VEGETATION.........................................................:e .................................... 42
HISTORICAL AND EXISTING LAND USE ...........................................................................— 26
WATERRESOURCES..............................................................:...............:.............................. .:....... 29
Surface Waters (Lakes, Streams, Rivers, etc.) .......... t ...... ..,o .............. ......... -A .................................. 29
StormwaterManagement Issues............................................................................................................30
ADJACENTLAND USE.....................................................................:.............................................30
EXISTING LAND COVER & ECOLOGICA AGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 31
Floodplainforest (140.92 ac)............................:........®...........................Z.,....................................,...34
Farmfield (180 ac)...............................................,................................................................................. 45
Grassland with sparse deciduous trees (1. c...........................................................................48
Mesic oak savanna (2.82 ac).................................................A..........................................................50
Altered non-native decid :forest (1.48 ac..............................................................51
Non-native grassland sparse trees (1.48..........................................................51
RESTORATION............................................................................................................................... S3
Targetplant communi .:..............................................................................53
Restoration process .................
Restorationgoals.........................................................................................................................................61
WORKPLAN......................................... o ........ ........................................................................................ 63
ManagementPriorities............................................................................................................................64
Restorationtimetable.................................................................................................................................72
Long -Term Monitoring and Maintenance..........................................................................................75
OTHERCONSIDE TIO 5..................................................................................................76
1194
S.................................................................................................... 80
APPENDICES............................................................................................................................ 81
APPENDIX A. Plant Species Recorded at the WHHCA......................................................... 81
APPENDIX B. Plant Species for Restoration at the WHHCA.............................................. 84
APPENDIX C. Methods for Controlling Exotic, Invasive Plant Species ..........................86
APPENDIXD. Ecological Contractors.......................................................................................94
Friends of the Mississippi
W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
Figures
1.
Property Parcels
2.
Ecological Subsections
3.
Landscape Context Map
4.
Surficial Geology Map
S.
Soils Map
6.
Pre -settlement Vegetation Map
7.
Historical Aerial Photo, 1939
8.
Historical Ground Photo, 1957
9.
Historical Ground Photo, 2003
10.
Ecological Subsections Map
11.
Existing Landcover Map
12.
Target Plant Communities Map
13.
Restoration Work Units
14.
Potential Oak Copse Locations
Tables
1.
2.
3.
4.
P11
p13
p14
p16
P19
p24
Friends of the Mississippi
4
W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Bac round
This document was assembled by Friends of the Mississippi River (FMR) to guide the
restoration and management of the William H. Houlton Conservation Area. The property
encompasses 335 -acres in Elk River, MN and is located at the confluence of the Elk and
Mississippi Rivers. Once the Houlton family decided to sell the property, FMR worked with
various partners, including the City of Elk River, the Minnesota Land Tr and the Trust
for Pulic Land, to explore options for the property. In 2015, the Cityver - in
partnership with the Trust for Public Land - purchased the propeds from the
Outdoor Heritage Fund. FMR came on board in 2015 to write thurce
management plan and to help fund and manage the restorati !thCey. The
property will open to the public in 2016, with hunting occ ' n ough e property;
restoration is also slated to begin in 2016.
Prior to European settlement, the area including t lton erty was primarily
prairie and oak savanna, with some floodplain forest rivers. There has been a
long history of agriculture in this area of the County and pure continues to dominate
the overall landscape. However, the area ly around th ,ty is now mostly
residential development, reflecting the co f agricult nd pasture lands as the
City of Elk River expands.
Since European settlement, the property
continual woody encroachment 1 nta non.
and savanna habitat on
species. Existing cond
proliferation and dome
Driven by a lac
and degrad n froi
restorin rive plant c
and sa MMUnitie
need of rest n in this
Vegetation an ding..
plant and bird diV
whether the site's
)pe'
to the
ow e d ence of i
' farmoFand grazed, and has experienced
d areas. Historically, conversion of prairie
f many native plant and animal
h disturbance to the site, especially a
al eco s in this matrix of residential and agricultural lands
Sive sp and other land use practices, this plan recommends
unitie on the site. This plan focuses on restoration of prairie
hich are targeted by the MN DNR as being among the most in
ological subsection (Anoka Sandplain/Big Woods subsections).
lYrd surveys are recommended by this plan to monitor the site for
lie measure of which would show trends that would indicate
is improving for wildlife.
Natural Resource Inventory and Assessment
A natural resource inventory and assessment was conducted by FMR ecologists in the
summer of 2015. The Houlton property consists of three primary areas. The main focus of
the property is the 160 -acre agricultural field. A floodplain forest surrounds the field and
is a mix of grassy openings that were once grazed, and a silver maple and green ash
dominated floodplain forest. A 70 -acre, floodplain island - a matrix of grassland with
Friends of the Mississippi
5
W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
sparse trees and floodplain forest - is located on the southwestern portion of the property
along the Mississippi. Finally, a degraded non-native woodland and grassland area runs
along the western edge of the property.
There have not been any significant restoration efforts on the property, though the City of
Elk River has maintained access and fire breaks around the farm field and has done
minimal spot spraying of invasive herbaceous plants. The majority of the property is highly
degraded, both in terms of low native species diversity and in the presence of non-native
invasive species. A lack of fire has allowed woody species - both native and non-native - to
become overabundant in historically prairie and savanna areas, leading to a loss of these
habitats. The few remaining grassland pockets are small, encroached upon by woody
plants, and dominated by non-native species such as smooth brome and Kentucky
bluegrass. Common buckthorn dominates many areas of the woodland understory, while
prickly ash is overabundant in some areas and creeping Charlie is present throughout the
property. Other non-native herbaceous species are present, especially along the edges of
the agricultural field. Other issues include the numerous rock and debris piles throughout
the property and the significant natural erosion along a portion of the Mississippi on the
south side of the property. While these are lower priority issues in terms of restoration of
the property, they should be given consideration if time and budgets allow. Finally, future
issues should be considered as well. For example, the large contingent of ash trees on the
property is at risk from the emerald ash borer. Understanding these risks and their
likelihoods can help design and prepare future management strategies.
Natural Resource Management Recommendations
Based on the natural resource inventory and assessment, the landowner's past
management activities, the city's current goals, as well as general ecological guidelines for
this landscape set by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, this plan
recommends restoring native prairie and savanna plant communities on the site.
Restoration is divided into two phases. The first phase focuses on the removal of non-
native woody brush from the entire property, concentrating first on the floodplain forest
ring around the farm field. As time and budget allows, overabundant native woody species
should be thinned on these same units. Removal should be conducted in the fall and winter,
and may be done through a combination of cutting and treating and brush mowing in
certain areas. Follow-up treatment in subsequent years will focus on treating re -sprouts
and newly emerged seedlings.
The second phase would focus on prairie and savanna restoration and enhancement
Specific restoration activities include conducting controlled burns and prudently targeting
invasive species with systemic herbicides. Conversion of the agricultural field to prairie
should occur in the fall after the crop is harvested, and may occur in multiple stages. Fall
seeding should be followed by three maintenance mows the following year. Planting and
seeding other units with appropriate native shrubs, grasses, sedges, and fortis will also help
to add species and structural diversity to the site. Continued maintenance of these areas
will involve follow-up herbicide treatments, rotating prescribed burns and supplemental
Friends of the Mississippi W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRAIP
N.
seeding. In addition, vegetation and breeding bird surveys are recommended to monitor
the site for plant and bird diversity, the measure of which would indicate whether the
management activities are successful and wildlife habitat is improving.
The estimated cost for removing non-native species is $285,030. Conversion of the farm
field to native prairie and savanna will cost an estimated $259,800. These are the biggest
priorities and should be undertaken as soon as possible. A comprehensive restoration
process would take approximately five years at an estimated cost of $568,830 if all
activities are undertaken and contracted. FMR will continue to assist with obtaining grant
funding for restoration and enhancement, as well as with the coordination and
management of restoration activities.
Friends of the Mississippi W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
7
INTRODUCTION
This Natural Resource Management Plan presents the site analysis and recommended
management and land use activities for the 335 -acre William H. Houlton Conservation Area
in Elk River, Minnesota (Figure 1). This document can be changed only by written
agreement by both the City of Elk River, MN and Friends of the Mississippi River.
The William H. Houlton Conservation Area is owned by the City of Elk River, Minnesota. As
indicated by its name, the majority of the property is farmland = once ow by the Houlton
family. The farm is located at the confluence of the Elk and Mississipp' els and is
bounded by the Elk River to the north/northeast, the Mississippi t south/southeast,
and their confluence to the east. The Mississippi river flows free h this area and
has many small channels that created islands on the south Sid the ty. Two of
these islands occur within the property boundary, while o s e part o to Scientific
and Natural Area (SNA). On the north side of the prope Elk River flo f the
Orono Dam, which divides the river into two distinct tions[.ake Orono a is outflow
to the Mississippi.
The property is approximately 3,834 feet long and 5,138'q
of Elk River lies just to the north of the prgffigrty, while the
101/US-169 lies to the east. Private
and northwest edges.
the p
at its maxima. The city
Pon of US -10 and MN -
boundaries on the west
The property can be divided into three prim •eas: 47arm field and associated
farmstead in the centerthe n forests grounding the field, and the floodplain
oc
The William H. w.ulton Cdnservation Area is located at the southern edge of the Anoka
Sandplain ecological. subsection, just north of its boundary with the Big Woods subsection,
as designated by the, Minnesota DNR (Figure 2). This subsection lies within the Minnesota
and Northeast Iowa Morainal section in the Eastern Broadleaf Forest province of the state.
The property is also situated directly within the Metro Conservation Corridors system
(Figure 3), an important habitat network defined by the DNR for both sedentary and
migratory plant and animal life in and around the Twin Cities. The property is also
surrounded by a variety of land units identified by the Minnesota County Biological Survey
(MCBS) as areas of biological significance (Figure 3).
island separated by a bac ann the Miss i. The site's topography is relatively
flat, with only a slight down owards t east and south (toward the confluence o
the Elk and Mississipi Ri character across an east -west gradient.
f
p . S
Soils at the western end of t are deep, floodplain soils formed in loamy to sandy
alluvium that floode is in the middle part of the site consist of sandy alluvial
sediments san 1 outw At the eastern end of the park, the soils are well -
drained shallow on 'race
Friends of the Mississippi
E
W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
a
d form a thin mantle of loamy glacial drift underlain by
limest k.
Friends of the Mississippi
E
W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
The William H. Houlton Conservation Area presents a unique opportunity to restore a large
area of land back to pre -European conditions, improving habitat for a variety of wildlife
species. Given its unique position on the landscape - at the confluence of two rivers and
located within the Metro Conservation Corridors - restoration of this property would have
a large impact by providing habitat for migrating species. The amount of farmland
currently present also presents an opportunity to restore a large contiguous area of prairie
and oak savanna habitat that would benefit wildlife species, especially pollinators, which
are currently experiencing population declines due to habitat loss and other factors.
The DNR recommends stabilizing and increasing SGCN populations inZegrasslands
vanna and
prairie areas by managing invasive species, using prescribed fire an hractices to
maintain savanna and prairie, to encourage restoration efforts, t
adjacent to native prairie to enhance habitat, and to provide t ica nce and
protection opportunities to interested individuals and orgaWz ns.
The pre -settlement vegetation for this site was
savanna grading into prairie just to the west of theand i
forest on the south side of the site where it curren y s
site has been greatly altered through its history of agric
other native plant communities will be on of the top prio
Also improving and expanding the buffer lk and Miss
stabilizing certain badly degraded riverba ities,
herein.
The purpose of this mar
• Identify the exist
• Identify best mal
improve water, q
Specific
Mings and barrens" or oak
bottom or floodplain
:'In its current state the
use. Restoring prairie and
of this management plan.
i4tivers, as well as
will be explored in depth
property
wildlife values, and retain and
diversity
of the property
this property are to:
of native plant species and minimize non-native,
other natural areas in the landscape and along the river
• Maintain i ge the property for water quality through erosion control and
stabilization riverbanks, and by controlling runoff and nutrient loading
• Create a model for responsible public land stewardship
• Utilize this property to guide surface water management activities on adjacent land
in a manner that protects and fosters natural community establishment
• Utilize this property to enhance and expand the ecological functions of the area
Friends of the Mississippi
9
W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
SITE INFORMATION
Owner name, address, city/township, county and phone:
City of Elk River, Minnesota
1801 Main St.
Elk River, MN 55330
Sherburne County
Contact Person: Michael Hecker, Parks and Recreation Director
763-365-1161
Town:
T32N,
T33N,
Water
Clearm
Parcel
75-00,1
75-00!
75-13:
75-13:
75-40;
75-41":
75-41:
Rare F
No occ
Friends of the Mississippi W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
Rol
FIGURE 1. PROPERTY PARCELS
Friends of the Mississippi W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
11
LANDSCAPE CONTEXT
Proximity to established greenways
This property is located within the Metro Conservation Corridors (Figure 3), a regional
land protection plan of the DNR. The Conservation Area is also adjacent to Bailey Point, an
Elk River city park that occurs at the confluence of the Elk and Mississippi rivers and
Oxbow Park, an Elk River city park that occurs along the western edge of the floodplain
island. Finally, the property is located adjacent to the Mississippi Islands SNA, a chain of
seven islands formed by outwash deposited by the Mississippi river designated as a
Scientific and Natural Area by the MN DNR. o
Ecological significance and wildlife value
The property, although not ranked by the Minnesota County l
biologically significant, is situated adjacent to areas ranked
ecological significance by the MCBS, including the Missis '
Elk and Mississippi rivers, this property has inherent dlife
wildlife depend on these rivers for sustenance, es p inv
reptiles, and fish. Mammals and birds also benefit gr
nutrients provided by the river, and birds use the Missis
important miaratnry f xnn7av
%gica ey as
i
Oslan
r.
r p
t ' water, shelter and
river corridor as an
ng hi
ficance.
rates,
moderate
ds SNA.
f tli e
Al
ms of
am h
bians,
Friends of the Mississippi W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
12
FIGURE 2. ECOLOGICAL SUBSECTIONS
Ecological Subsections
- Anoka Sand Plain
i Big Woods
_ Hardwood Hills
Friends of the Mississippi W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
13
FIGURE 3. LANDSCAPE CONTEXT
fir
p
US10
Houlton Farm Boundary
Roads
rnty2a17
rParkfard
1
Metro Conservation Corridors
MCBS Biodiversity Significance
- Outstanding
High
Moderate
NA
Data Source: Minnesota Geospatial Commons
1:150,000 0 1 2 4 6 8 ■�r�- Miles
Friends of the Mississippi W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
14
SITE GEOLOGY AND GROUNDWATER
The surficial geology consists primarily of terraces - areas that were once the river channel
or floodplains carved by the torrential flow of the Glacial River Warren in the Pleistocene
epoch. These occur above current floodplain areas but below nearby moraine or outwash
areas. The property itself is located within the Mississippi Sand Plain (Figure 4).
These terraces are principally sand, gravel, and some finer materials, especially along the
Mississippi and its smaller tributaries (Hobbs and Goebel 1982). In and around the
Conservation Area, the depth from surface to bedrock is roughly 200 fee Olsen and
Mossler 1982).
Throughout the site, the depth to groundwater ranges from 15
shallow. Groundwater flows to the south/southeast across they
of the confluence of the Elk and Mississippi Rivers. `
which is quite
k in the direction
Friends of the Mississippi
15
W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
FIGURE 4. SURFICIAL GEOLOGY
N Data Source: Minnesota Geospatial Commons
1:60,000 A 0 0.5 1 2 3
I V Miles
Friends of the Mississippi W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
16
TOPOGRAPHY AND SOILS
TOPOGRAPHY
The site has a generally flat topography with an overall slope to the south and southeast, or
towards the direction of the confluence of the Elk and Mississippi Rivers. On a smaller
scale, the land slopes slightly toward the rivers as it approaches the Elk toward the north
and east and the Mississippi to the south. Some varied topography is present on the
northwest side of the property, owing in part to the neighboring housing development and
to the old gravel pit that once operated on the property. Here, the land s steeply
upward from a slight depression west of the field edge up to the ho ; t i slope ranges
from 6 to 35%, while the majority of the site is between 0 and6°/ tion of the site
ranges from a low of 854 ft above sea level to a high of 872 ft.
Soils vary in character across the site and are heavily
of the soils on the site are loamy soils, meaning th
amounts of sand and silt, with lesser amounts of clay.
rich and are ideal for agriculture. Along the river char
loam, meaning it contains a large percent ine s;
areas experience rare to occasional floodi
the north and northwest side of the site, th oils a
and are more typical of loamy coarse sand. c
the soils are wetter and more drained, flood
summary of soils and their charact tics
visualized in Figure S.
Soil formation is the
climate, organism&&
tures. Most
Rkoximately equal
are nutrient and moisture
)il is generally fine sandy
Cind
ythe river flow. These
y deposit new soil. On
influenced by the river,
the eastern end of the site,
.inf occurs more frequently. A
is listed in Table 1, and can be
erf five soil -forming factors: parent material,
ition or slope, and time (Foth,1990). Taken
armine the dominant floral and faunal communities
that helpe rm the s rodale6paston, Etter, Terril, Wadena, and Waukegan are all
mallisol ich are Arai oils, generally deep, dark in color, and rich in cations, and thus
would ha dominat by graminoid vegetation (prairie or savanna) prior to
Europeanse t. All a soils of the project area are well drained or excessively well
drained. None o considered hydric soils, which indicates that they are not wet
enough for long en to develop organic matter accumulations and anaerobic conditions.
Due to the fine, san nature of some of the soils, the erosion potential is mostly medium;
none of the soil types present have a high erosion potential, though all types are susceptible
to some erosion by wind, water, or both.
Friends of the Mississippi W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
17
TABLE 1. SOILS
Friends of the Mississippi W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
W3
d
C
L
0
p a
.t
N
d
00
� S
=
v
V C
'O a 3
Soil
W
Code*
Soil Name
a
Soil Family
=
�' 3
Sandberg
loamy
Sandy, mixed, frigid
,essively
258B
coarse sand
1 to 6
1.29
Calcic Ha ludolls
N
ined
Wi
Sandberg
loamy
Sandy, mixed, frigid
Ex I
258C
coarse sand
6 to 12
0.58
Calcic Ha ludolls
drain
Wi, Wa
Sandberg
loamy
12 to
Sandy, mixed, fr'
Excessively Yr
258E
coarse sand
35
0.97
Calcic Ha lu
Coarse -loamy,
drained
W, Wa
Elkriver fine
sandy loam,
mixed, superactive,
rarely
frigid Cumulic
Moderately
771
flooded
0 to 2
81.76
Haghlilglis
II drained
Wi
Udorthents-
Pits, gravel,
Mixe ona
1028
complex
NA
2.56
Udort t
N
NA
NA
Elkriver fine
e
Coarsmy,
sandy loam,
mixed, s ra tive,
Somewhat
occasionally
frigid Cu
poorly
1255
flooded
64.
ludoll
N
drained Wi
amy,
Elkriver-
mixe ,superactive,
Mosford
frigid Cumulic
complex,
apludolls / Sandy,
ra y
mixed, frugus Typic
Moderately
1257
d
0
16
Ha ludolls
N
well drained Wi, Wa
rd
loa nd,
Miss!
Sandy, mixed, frigid
Excessively
D67B
River Va
6
4.29
Entic Hapludolls N
drained Wi
W
Pr
Water
0
6.14
NA
Y
NA
NA
Friends of the Mississippi W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
W3
FIGURE S. SOILS
= HouRon Farm Boundary
soils
1028
1255
1257
2588
258C
258E
771
D67B
w
1:14,253
N
A
Friends of the Mississippi
19
W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
RARE SPECIES
According to the DNR natural heritage database, there are no rare species recorded on the
William H. Houlton Conservation Area. However, there were three elements recorded
within five miles of the site. The closest element of occurrence exists about 0.6 miles to the
east in the Mississippi River. There, surveys found Ligumia recta, or the black sandshell
mussel, a species of special concern in Minnesota. Further to the east and southeast
(roughly 3.5 to 4.2 miles from the property border), remnants of the native plant
communities Dry Sand Gravel Oak Savanna (UPs14b), a state -threaten nt community,
and Dry Barrens Oak Savanna (Ups14a2) occurred. The Dry Sand -G el anna was last
observed in 1989 and had a "fair" estimated viability, while the D ens Oak Savanna
was observed in 1989 and had a "poor" estimated viability. Th el read as follows:
"Pin and bur oak dry sand savanna. Parklike canopy do
and Quercus macrocarpa (DBH 2O-30cm) with occasio
approximately 25%: Zanthoxylum americanum, Ju
and Rubus occip. Ground cover dominated by dis
intermis, Agropyron repens and a few Linaria vulgaris,
and Achillea millefolium."
This description could be similar to the
land at the site - minus the non -native. -
historically savanna - then called "oak c
description as indicative of w
Although there may not
potentially be harbore4
nature and disturbed hi
Habitat loss and d ad,
the subsectio
species aff ed. The p
it an im nt potentia
recomme bilizing
by managing i*ne
savanna and pr
native prairie to
opportunities to i
rub layer
9-Poa
na, Corylus+fimericana,
pratensis, Bromus
incana, Verbena stricta
is now agricultural
ies within what was
- lending support to this
ed on the property.
Conservation Need (SGCN) that could
Conservation Area, due to its more urban
i habitat is still a priority for this plan.
m the primary causes of problems for SGCN species in
.a, and grassland currently containing the most
on at the confluence of two water bodies also makes
itat For myriad plant and animal species. The DNR
increasing SGCN populations in oak savanna and prairie areas
s, using prescribed fire and other practices to maintain
courage restoration efforts, to manage grasslands adjacent to
habitat, and to provide technical assistance and protection
A individuals and organizations.
Friends of the Mississippi
NEI
W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
EXISTING WILDLIFE POPULATIONS
As stated in previous sections, there are no rare species occurrences recorded on the
property. However, a rare mussel species was found in the Mississippi River to the east of
the property. It is possible that this species and others are present throughout this reach of
the Mississippi, and indeed mussels - both live and dead - were found in the waters
bordering the property (likely to be Strophitus undulatus, or the creeper mussel, though
identification is difficult to confirm).
Although no longer a rare species, bald eagles remain on the DNR wa
frequently seen at the Houlton property. Besides the numerous ea
river and across the property (there is a nearby nest at Bailey Po'
the floodplain island. The nest, located in a large hackberry at ed€
been recently successful, as three eagles fledged from the n t 01
opening to the public in 2016, care must be taken not to _ the r
the nesting season. While the nest is in a more remot ea of the pro
posted at the edge of the clearing advising visitors prop y to
the nest (USFWS standard).
Other wildlife seen in regularity at the Wil
white-tailed deer, turkeys, red tail hawks
numerous insects, including honeybees, bi
butterflies. On occasion, foxes, rabbits, fox
been seen on the property. There is also ei
Stumps left by beavers are
seem to be old and were ra
Friends of the Mississippi
21
lying along the
nest occurs on
learing, has
e property
during
i could be
0 ft from
servation Area include
blue herons, and
damselflies, and monarch
jtrels and gray squirrels have
activity on the property.
forest, though most if not all
W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
HISTORICAL VEGETATION
Based on interpretation of the 1850s public land survey (PLS), in which the dominant tree
(bearing tree) and other vegetation was recorded at every one -mile interval, the
boundaries of the William H. Houlton Conservation Area lie within what would have been
both floodplain forest and oak openings and barrens in pre -European settlement times
(Figure 6). The landcover type in this region was mosaic of different habitats ranging from
oak openings and floodplain forests, to prairie, big woods forests, and aspen -oak
woodlands. The most common land cover type of the region was oak openings and barrens,
which we today would call savanna. Savanna is an area of scattered tr esP primarily bur
oak, with areas of open prairie between them. Prairie was an area i nated by mixed
heigh grasses and forbs (wild flowers), with patches of shrubs a
difference between prairie and savanna is created by frequen nd
Generally, frequent fire (every 2 to 5 years) will result in pr .ri h
frequent fire (3 to 8 years) will result in savanna.
However, whether trees lined the entirety of the ri am
the current floodplain forest areas were likely floodp r
areas of the river may have been lined with savanna or
savanna grasses would have grown rightto the %channe ,
banks and stabilizing the bank slopes, as occurs in
property, including the small savanna are east
to no trees. The
y of fire.
KY less
much of
ettlement times,
vegetation. Prairie and
ops forming lips over the
mall areas of the
Bearing trees were noted by the 1850s PLS sW
ors tolp identify each section of land.
If no trees were in the sectio as also n d. Two bearing trees were recorded
within the William H. Hou Co ation A undary: both about 100m apart in
what is currently the a iltural a . Both tr were identified as "bur oak", providing
further evidence that i w f prairie and oak savanna vegetation. Note
that the soils data and the ementW
ation data concur: soils are prairie soils and
pre -settlement
and savanna land cover.
Historica rial photos also haus reconstruct what the vegetation was like during
the las irs. The of aerial photo that we have for this site is from 1939 (Figure 7),
and sheds Sli
co tions of the area. At that time, the present day cropland was
being croppe ,e the natural areas of the property were much more open than
present conditiof the floodplain forest areas had a sparser canopy and looked
more similar inre to vegetation found in a savanna -type landscape. While a thin
strip of tree covthe majority of the riverbanks, some areas were relatively open
right up to the rivers' edge. Moreover, in what is now some of the larger floodplain areas, it
is easy to see the more open nature of the habitat, with trees interspersed with more open
grassy areas. This is especially true on the northeast side of the property, where a small
savanna patch remains, and the northwest side, where what is now scrubby, mainly non-
native forest once looked largely open. Furthermore, there is an increase in tree cover in
the floodplain areas on the south side of the property.
Friends of the Mississippi W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
22
The same changes can be noted on the south banks of the Mississippi River; trees were
present but sparse - they did not form closed canopied forests. Currently, the vegetation
there is largely forested, with pockets of grassland interspersed throughout. A progression
of historical photos helps us to understand how the vegetative structure has changed over
time (Figure 7; Figure 8; Figure 9). This all points to the likelihood that parts of what is now
classified as floodplain forest or woodlands were once savannas 75 years earlier.
l
Friends of the Mississippi W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
23
FIGURE 6. PRESETTLEMENT VEGETATION
Aspen -Oak Lend
Aspen -Oak Lend
Aspen -Oak Land
Sogs and
Oat: openings and barrens
Prairie
River Bottom Forest
t al �•.t,4*n
Prairie
Oak openings and Q Houton Farm Boundary
Presettlement Vegetation
:ut prare Aspen -Oak Land
Big Woods- Hardwoods
Conifer Bogs and Swamps
YY ,..r :" • r •,•... x L� ;w. ,a nr.;r�r,i Lakes (open water)
Oak openings and barrens
Prairie
River Bottom Forest
c • • .: Wet Prairie
N Data Source: Minnesota Geospatial Commons
1:60,000 A 0 0.5 1 2 3
Miles
Friends of the Mississippi
24
W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
FIGURE 7. 1939 AERIAL PHOTO
1957 AERIAL PHOTO
HYi��'"YY `°6 i
Friends of the Mississippi
25
W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
FIGURE 9. 2013 AERIAL PHOTO
HISTORICAL AND EXISTIN21WA79�E
Records of land use b rap are lacking, but some evidence exists that
this site may have been us -,-
s a -Eur settlement days. Aside from the site's
obvious importa t the co ce of two major rivers, the site is located in proximity to
a number of . ere a 0 of native American activity was found. A number of
quartz fla and proj points a arrowheads, spearheads etc) have been found in
and ar k River, inc ing just east of the site across highway 10. In 2005, researchers
from St. Cl ate Unive ty conducted archaeological investigations on site. Apart from
evidence of t 77.. ill s- , they uncovered quartz and non -quartz flakes and a probable
projectile point i hern half of the farm field. While the investigation was halted,
their report recom ed further investigation of the entire property.
In the 1939 aerial photos, agricultural fields dominated the landscape to the west of the
site, and many occurred where they do not occur today. For example, the agricultural fields
west of the property are now residential subdivisions. North and east of the property, the
city of Elk River looked much as it does today, though with fewer houses and other
structures. The major streets throughout the area, including Main St., were all present in
1939. New road construction occurred when developing the neighborhoods to the west. By
1963, a number of houses were beginning to be constructed west of the property, with
accelerated development occurring between the 1970s and 2003. The aerial photo from
Friends of the Mississippi
26
W H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
2013 (Figure 9) shows a dramatic increase in residential housing having replaced the
agricultural fields.
In the immediate area of the property, the river channels do not seem to have been altered,
though the size and number of islands south of the farm in the Mississippi has changed.
Comparing the 1939 and 2013 aerial photos, the water level was much lower, creating a
number of smaller islands around what is now the large SNA island to the south of the
Houlton property. While this may simply be due to yearly fluctuations, aerial photos from
the intervening period (1957 and 1991, not shown) seem to show a grad al loss of these
islands. These smaller islands were both sandy and vegetated, creatin small
channels that wove through this stretch of river.
On the property itself, there have been a variety of changes in last ry. In terms of
structures and usage, the current farmhouse was built in 19 is to 'ust behind
where the old house once stood. There was also another re behind t that
was present from the 1930s until at least 2003. Curre , the house, a large b , two
smaller linear barns, and some storage structures r in on t roperty. In a 1930s, six
holes of a nine -hole golf course existed on the pro ei e
eastern side of the property adjacent to what is now Bal
holes of the course were located on the Ba' ey Point side a
properties. It is unclear when exactly the rse ceased ❑
of the holes are visible in the 1939 aerial
s were located on the
In fact, the other three
dge connected the two
Kons, but only remnants
The farm fields have been in constant produ o ince Byre the 1930s and have
remained roughly the same s. shape to a present day. According to residents of the
property, the buffer along i ippi was a larger than it is today, but that over
time they farmed closer d closer the river . The fields grew corn, oats, hay and
soybeans, and in 195 see ted. Hybrid seen corn was then grown off
and on until the Houlton fa ppe ng the land (though the land has remained in
production). The ' also chickens, pigs, horses and cattle, with the horses and
cattle gratin what -agricultural land. In particular, cattle used to graze
the 80-a Ioodplain , as w as the area to the east of the farmhouse that is now
somew en and is cl ied as grassland with sparse deciduous trees. In fact, much of
the areas t e cattle gr d were more open. The floodplain island, which is now largely
scrub-shrubl ith a n ork of trails, was described by former residents of the
property as bei n en, with large trees and an understory of nettles and thistles. The
trail network was y used for recreation, and served as a snowmobiling course during
the winter. The ca tt a kept this and other areas free of woody vegetation until the family
stopped grazing cattle in the late 1970s. Since then, these areas have become more densely
vegetated. Invasive shrubs like buckthorn and honeysuckle have come to dominate many
areas, and other shrubs and small trees have increased overall woody cover, moving some
of these areas from savanna -type vegetation to woodlands.
A sawmill operated on the property in the late 1800s and early 1900s. The mill was located
on the southwest side of the property, off the main river channel and on the smaller creek
that creates the 80 -acre floodplain island. The mill was owned by the Houlton family and
Friends of the Mississippi W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
27
began operation in 1888. The Houltons owned the mill until 1902, when William H.
Houlton sold it to a proprietor from Minneapolis. It's likely that the mill and the related
timber industry were already in decline at this point, and indeed the mill only remained
open until 1910, when it finally shut its doors. This mill cut timber that was floated down
the Mississippi from the large logging operations in the Bemidji area. During this time, the
mill ran constantly and was operational during the day and night; the red barn on the
property was even used to occasionally store timber. The logs were mainly white pine,
though some fir and other species were invariably mixed in. Remains from the foundation
of the sawmill are still present and visible today, as are pilings and other emnants in the
river channels. A steamboat landing was located just to the south and the sawmill.
This landing began operations in 1857, but there is little informatio 0 "gar its use.
Just off the north side of the property, at the current location
Orono Lake, there was a flour mill and sawmill/planing mil
on and off beginning in 1851, while the first sawmill beg
sawmill on the other side of the property, this mill (a ie p
lumber that was brought in by horsecart. In the 18 pur 1
main railroad line in town in order to reach the mi s ti
operational until 1912, when a flood washed out the
beyond repair. In 1916, a small power pla replace(
power to bring electricity to Elk River. Ting i
A gravel pit was also established on the
western edge of the farmfield, was open
the fenceline served as a roadAmbsul e(
main road. The remnants
corner of the property.,A
Apart from these more
firewood. They
including as.
area on
e d the Elk River at
104 -ent fl ills operated
prations in 1 'ke the
ming mills) han local
�ks were built ft
of the
PM'River. The mills were
damaged the flour mill
and used hydroelectric
ENWin the 1980s.
JJW�960s. This pit, located on the
N cades. The current path west of
armhouse driveway and out to the
some topography to the northwest
r&Wily also used trees on the property for
y downed trees, but occasionally felled living trees
number of these trees came from the floodplain
The farm was also irrigated from the nearby rivers. Throughout the 1900s, there were
three irrigation intakes on the property. The first was located just east of the farmhouse
along the Elk River, while the other two occurred on the southern side of the property
along the Mississippi. These two intakes occurred to the east and west of what is now the
eroded bank. These intakes provided water to the fields, which were irrigated first by
boom and later by a central pivot irrigation system installed in the 1970s. While there are
no drainage tiles throughout the field, there is a drainage system to the west of the
farmhouse. A visible swale helped drain water from the fields into the Elk River.
Friends of the Mississippi W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
WATER RESOURCES
Surface Waters - Rivers
The Elk and Mississippi rivers are the obvious surface water resources in this area. The
Orono Dam controls water flow rates in this lower stretch of the Elk River. Following large
rain events, especially in the spring, flows can be quite high. Since the river does not flood
very much, the floodplain tends to be quite narrow, and it tightly follows the course of the
river. Flood resistant vegetation would reflect this narrow band, with floodplain species
not ranging out very far from the river channel. Therefore, prairie vegewould
broadly occupy the uplands, and come very near the river valley. Fo a 'sissippi, the
story changes somewhat. There are broad stretches of floodplain along the banks,
and only in one stretch on the west side of the property does t ive almost adjacent
to the existing farm field, which is elevated well about the ri a man a floodplain
areas, standing water remains for long stretches of the ye
Floodplain
In 1965, an historic flood occurred throughout th
classes so that male students could help sandbag local
of the city. Water levels from this flood rose to cover n
Houlton property. Today, more than half
of the property is located within riverine
cover much of the remaining area.
Historically, erosion has not
the south side of the prope
least in the last century
IVrVar
recommended to prevent
out of the water
Buffer A
0"Of Elk River suspended
shments and other key areas
half of the farm fields at the
iethe floodway and more
a e 0.2% annual flood risk
rty, save for the treeless bank on
This bank was not vegetated (at
i due to the natural bend in the
inimum 50 -foot buffer is still
p excess nutrients and other pollutants
converted to prairie.
The flo "n forest su iding the property acts as a natural buffer for the waterways.
In areas w he forest i ider, is should provide very good water quality protection.
Here, runoff he feel can settle before entering the river, and the forest in turn
buffers the rest p erty from rapid changes in water levels. The buffer width on the
south side of the p ty is much narrower. This area - along the Mississippi - is a
treeless zone appr imately 800 feet in length, and agricultural production has occurred
almost right up to the edge of the bank. There are some erosion gullies and outwash areas
along the bank. Taking steps to control erosion here would be difficult. To a large extent,
erosion along this bend is a natural process, though modern day increases in flooding
frequency, duration and intensity no doubt have exacerbated historical erosion. Attempting
to vegetate the bank as much as possible and increase the buffer size may help to reduce
erosion and mitigate runoff into the river. Re -grading, stabilizing, and re -vegetating the
degraded banks would be needed for more permanent and effective bank stabilization, but
would be both intensive and expensive. Sherburne county Soil and Water Conservation
Friends of the Mississippi W.H. Houlton Conservation Area ArRMP
29
District (SWCD) staff evaluated the extent of the issue, and determined that full erosion
control would be a large scale process, though there would be no guarantee that efforts
would be successful on a river of this size. After re -grading the slope, rip -rap or gabiens
would likely be necessary to avoid any under -cutting of stabilization efforts, making for a
less natural shoreline. For now, fixing any outwash areas should be the top erosion priority.
Stormwater Management Issues
The property is not very affected by runoff from adjacent properties. The Orono dam
largely controls the flow of the Elk River along the north and east sides a property,
while the Mississippi borders the property to the south. Thus, most r o . om adjacent
land use flows into those two rivers before it can reach the Conse Area. Natural
flooding of the property can and does occur, especially on the p land, and to the
south and east sides of the property. However, there are also entia perties on the
north and west sides that supply some runoff to the site.
p operties os ly
located at a higher elevation than the farm, and rAroads and drivew Qulci
conceivably flow onto the property. However, thelow-1
marshyare hatruns
along the base of the hill that serves as a cat( ltr
rea for this water. This
small area, full of cattails and other marshy speci
protection for the rest of the
site. Currently, runoff from the farm field has created som
wash areas along the south
side of the property. Revegetating the
retain water and prevent runoff from
Land use around the
urban development I
the north and south,
the north and j�
Elk River li o the n-1
mix of red&ntial and
H.
native pecies will help to
z the rive
ACENTMND USE
Area is dominated by residential and
d Mississippi Rivers border the property to
urban land use begins on the other side of the rivers. To
I i borhoods, while the historic district of the city of
oft . operty. Across the Mississippi River to the south is a
ural se. Within the Mississippi River to the south are high
quality70 islands, wflr are part of the Mississippi Islands SNA. The Elk and
Mississippi__ s run thrJFgh rural and agricultural land to the west and north (upstream
from the site), until theyach the outskirts of Elk River, where they begin to pass through
more residential and: OF urban landscapes. This means that urban and residential
runoff, agricultural 46 trient loading, pollutants, and warm water from streets, roads,
parking lots, buildings, etc., all affect these waters before they arrive at the site. East of the
property, the Elk and Mississippi Rivers combine and turn southward, flowing southeast
through a more urban landscape and eventually reaching the Twin Cities metro area.
Friends of the Mississippi
30
W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRW
EXISTING LAND COVER & ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) developed a system called the Minnesota
Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS), which integrates cultural and vegetation
features of the landscape into one comprehensive land classification system. This
information was used as a basis for the site evaluation, which was conducted by FMR's
ecologist in the summer of 2015. AL
For determining target plant communities for restoration (Table considered the
following: 1) historic conditions, 2) existing conditions, 3) rela ' e . benefits, and 4)
the desires of the City of Elk River. Relative effort vs. benefit s y me at if the
amount of energy and work that needs to go into restori r cular coi is too
great, in terms of the benefits received, then restoratio ou not be recom ed. This
helps us determine the optimal and most suitable g for re ation. Targe
communities are in accordance with the DNR field an escribed below.
As a guideline for the target plant community goals, we u
Plant Communities of Minnesota: the East adleof Fc
book describes the system developed by to L
for identifying ecological systems and nati Ian
multiple ecological features such as major c a one
composition, and so on.
There are four ecolo;
forest, Laurentian m.
provinces, and 26 su
follows (Figure 10]-
Ecological
0]
Ecological PARTF70
Section: tiffnesota
Sand
Friends of the Mississippi
BroaWForest
east l a Morainal
31
e Field Guide to the Native
ce (DNR, 2005). This
art nt of Natural Resources
pV types in the state, based on
gin of glacial deposit, plant
1rairie parkland, eastern broadleaf
parkland), ten sections within the
ton Conservation Area is classified as
W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
FIGURE 10. ECOLOGICAL SUBSECTIONS OF SOUTHEAST MINNESOTA
12Jd
222Mc
222Mb
U
Pine Moraines and Outwash Plains (212Nc)
Tamarack Lowlands (212Nd)
Blufflands (2221-c)
Rochester Plateau (2221-f)
Hardwood Hills (222Ma)
Big Woods (222Mb)
Anoka Sand Plain (222Mc)
St. Paul Baldwin Plains and Moraines (222Md)
Oak Savanna (222Me)
C Aspen Parklands (223Na)
Red River Prairie (251Aa)
C Minnesota River Prairie a)
0 Coteau Moraines (251
0 Inner Coteau (251 B
As stated earlier in the Historical Vegetatio e/ely
rthe
ettlement vegetation of the
William H. Houlton Conservation Area was af floodplain forest, oak
savanna and prairie. This is sjjpropriate most ote, although there has been
some community
succeeded to over
they Mississippi river cm
was punctuated by groves
Management oft ' ea v
addition, sm i
current to ion of the
majoriql4fte site, ho
ap
PLANT COMM
Land Cover
yeas that 'kely been prairie and savanna have
avanna. A , the strip of eroding stream bank along
ONSIA0hinated by trees and shrubs or perhaps
ffTffw mixed with herbaceous savanna species.
on how best to stymie the continued erosion. In
)w may be recommended for the areas around the
iI is may be required for a staging area. For the
oak savanna, prairie and floodplain forest is most
ESSMENT
The following are descriptions of the various cover types found on the property. The cover
types were described and designated by Minnesota Land Cover Classification System
(MLCCS). Some of the cover types were re -designated to a more appropriate type than was
designated by MLCCS. They were then arranged in order of size of area, with the largest
cover types listed first and the smallest listed last. Cover types may be represented by
multiple units of the same cover type (e.g. Floodplain forest represented by FF -1, FF -2, FF -
Friends of the Mississippi
32
W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
3, etc.). Please refer to Figure 9 (Landcover) and Figure 10 (Target Plant Communities)
throughout this section.
FIGURE 11. EXISTING LANDCOVER
f 1 Grassland with sparse deciduous trees
QMesic oak savanna
Row craps
N
1:11,000 U0.1 5 0.^_: <7 5 0 n M A
- Miles
Friends of the Mississippi W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
33
This landcover unit is divided into five sub -units, FF -1, FF -2, FF -3, FF -4 and FF -5. These
sub -units are approximate, and serve to better aid the discussion of the vegetation types on
the property. They are roughly delineated on the map.
1717-1 (approximately 4.09 acres)
The FF -1 subunit is the northernmost floodplain forest subunit, located between the
homestead and the Elk River channel and stretching to the east. It is a na row, relatively
linear and very disturbed sub -unit. The unit as a whole is low quality, s low
vegetative diversity. As the unit contains the area with the old farm se, t e
anthropogenic influence on the land is evident. There arewoodp' _ e dumped rock,
and wire and posts from old fences in the treeline behind the se. it is unlikely that
the area has ever been plowed, it has nonetheless undergo a at dea sturbance,
likely including grazing. To the north and west of the old ouse a smal uns
from the driveway down to the river. This swale, surr ded b box elder an ckberry,
contains many non-native species, including reed c gras eeping Char ie, burdock,
buckthorn (up to 13.4 cm dbh), and motherwort. a 'slopes to the Elk River,
there is a small trenched outlet that seems to be seepin aline or oil -like substance
(Photo 1). The outlet also contains an oran a algal bloom a casionally smells of sulfur.
This area likely drains catch basins locat a barn. Th re installed to transport
rainwater runoff from the fields. However, s by B n Intertec also found an
underground storage tank used to fuel farn uip ndition of the tank is
unknown. While the tank is located east of and connection to the outlet in
unclear, it is possible th^t�hebkleaking oline or oil. The report cites this as an
"environmental conditiremedia ,leak are necessary as it continues to
drain into the Elk River
The lawn behind the farm onta_i"n'TWw large trees, including an American elm with
a 74 cm dbh. T;hDjanK
iN
ted by reed canary grass under a relatively sparse
canopy of la le () and green ash (46.5 cm cbh). To the east of this
area, ther an a eeecover before a strip of shrubby vegetation re -
'
he fa 'eld - mostly boxelder and hackberry (5.7-25.5 cm dbh), pricky
ash, and wivines. hind this fencerow vegetation, the terrain slopes down to the
river and conocke fshrubs in a matrix of non-native grasses (mostly brome).
Some native vists within this matrix, including pockets of common milkweed.
Along the rivelarge buckthorn and honeysuckle form somewhat of a natural
fence that is bin paces. A two -track parallels the farm field toward the eastern end of
the unit. At the eastern end, a few large bur oaks (:5105.1) overlook the river, hinting at the
historical presence of savanna on this unit. Overall, the unit has roughly 50% tree cover as
well as a few snags (mostly dead elm) and downed silver maples along the riverbank. The
shrub layer is patchy and mostly made up of non-native species, though scattered
gooseberry, chokecherry and raspberry are all present.
Pocket gopher mounds were found in the lawn behind the farmhouse. This is a good sign,
since pocket gophers prefer loose, native soils to compacted, altered soils. They also are a
Friends of the Mississippi W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
34
"keystone" species, meaning that they influence and affect many other species that depend
on their activities (bull snakes inhabit burrows, annual plants germinate in soil mounds,
Photo 1. Outlet from the swa
Photo 2. Sparse trees and invasive shrubs in a sea of reed canary grass
Friends of the Mississippi
35
W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
Photo 3. Open shoreline with reed canary grass.
F'-2 (approximately 19.26 acres)
The FF -2 subunit is located to the east of FF -1, directly a from a historically mowed
grassland area. FF -2 is roughly square in a and is locat en a north -south bend
in the Elk River and the farm field. To the vanna-like et separates FF -2 from
1717-3, meaning that FF -2 is bordered by tw
lower than the farm field, and a steep emb
Throughout this low section, a number of
topography. FF -2 also contaiallift
areas, as well as a footpat
end of the unit, a few 1
30 feet apart along the u
of silver maple (:_103.5 dbh
American elm fs�irlbhl. l
ra eas. T majority of FF -2 is much
a e from the farm field edge.
hu cks an mall ridges give the unit slight
tNO ck path that connects the two grassland
ly t h the middle of the unit. At the west
i8.6 dbh) are present and spaced roughly 10-
ankment. The canopy is largely composed
green (:557.2 dbh) and black (:564.3 dbh) ash,
.5 dbh) and willow (:563.0 dbh) throughout.
The port' of the unit ent to Nie farm field holds standing water for much of the year,
and ha vegetation art from the canopy trees. The more hummocky and ridgy
areas are d ted by a kthorn shrub layer. The buckthorn is quite old and very large
in some areas -21.4 dbh). The understory is a sparse mix of creeping charlie,
thistles, stinging mettle, Woodland sedge, and tree seedlings. Between the two -track path
and the river, the urdt becomes almost uniformly dominated by buckthorn. This buckthorn
stand has clearly undergone a self -thinning process, as the large stems aren't overly dense
in some areas but form a relatively complete sub -canopy. Here, the understory vegetation
is dominated by a carpet of creeping charlie. The native understory vegetation is sparse,
but still includes some white snakeroot, cleavers, gooseberry, meadow rue, horsetails, and
sedge species. Patches of prickly ash and honeysuckle are present beneath the buckthorn
sub -canopy, and scattered Japanese barberry is present as well. There were multiple small
first-year populations of garlic mustard that should removed before they are able to spread
Friends of the Mississippi
36
W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
and dominate the site. There are also seedlings of silver maple, ash, and hackberry, though
no regeneration in the sapling layer. The soil is very sandy - typical of floodplain outwash.
Photo 4. A mix of green ash and silver maple with
with large silver maple and coarse woody debris
Friends of the Mississippi W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
37
JP
Photo 6. Mature "buckthorn forest" in floodplain. Sca an se barberry
FF -3 (approximately 6.73 acres)
The FF -3 subunit begins to the east of the separatin from FF -2. This
subunit is considerably lower in elevation n is ro hly level with the
riverbank as well as the farm field. This is d on le aerial photos by the darker
areas in the field, which signal seasonally sta wate F-3 is a narrow unit that snakes
alongside the Elk River. Mov' east thr h the unit, the floodplain area narrows
considerably as the river es q close the Id edge. A very large cottonwood (too
large to measure with idard d i tape) is p ent in this narrow area and is purported
to be the largest in Sher Co a unit, a row of box elder (-20 cm dbh),
prickly ash and buckthorn a farm fie edge. In the larger floodplain forest area, large
green ash (5-5 h] an maple (:581.3 cm dbh) make up the majority of the
canopy, tho sca meric are present (11-24.9 cm dbh) (Photo 7). The
understo Is a mix of nettle earweed, and other native species, though large
patche ddy bare gr id dominate. Because of the seasonally standing water in this
unit, many have littl no buckthorn. However, buckthorn is present along the farm
field and is so at de a at the eastern end, where the subunit widens again as it
approaches the c e of the Elk and Mississippi rivers. This eastern section of the
subunit is higher in vation than the rest of the subunit, and dominated by green ash
(:559.7 cm dbh), wit some hackberry (_::38.4 cm dbh) and smaller American elm (-16.0 cm
dbh) (Photo 8). Creeping Charlie is the dominant understory species in this area, which
grades into the larger FF -4 to the east and south.
Friends of the Mississippi W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
N.N r5 r
a
1 �rL
r'
r •
-46 WA
4 f4
a+ ' ►
4: � r
The FF-4 subunit occurs on the southeast side of the property along the Mississippi River.
The northern portion of the unit contains a two-track that runs from the corner of the farm
field northeast toward the confluence, and the remainder of the unit runs alongside the
Mississippi on the southern side of the property. This subunit is replete with large green
ash (17.2-75.1 cm dbh), and silver maple (55.6-113.8 cm dbh) (Photo 9). A good portion of
this forest is relatively open in the understory, with groundcover that includes abundant
wood nettle and clearweed, with scattered white snakeroot and woody seedlings. However,
there are some areas of dense buckthorn as well, including to the east of the two-track,
along stretches of the riverbank, and along the field edge. Further south, s the unit runs
along the Mississippi River channel, the floodplain area is terraced, wi pper level
along the farm field edge, sloping quickly down to a lower level alo a river's edge. The
upper portions contain more large ash, which the lower areas ar silver maple
dominated. Some box elder (:530.1 cm dbh) and hackberry (:55 cm are present,
especially closer to the field edge, and the subunit contains c )nal c oods (88.7
cm dbh) and willows (106.9 cm dbh) as well. The unders s ightly mo a here,
with some gooseberry and blackberry species. The to terrace is relatively of
buckthorn, with only scattered individuals present. a of t nit, especial on the
southern edge of the property, is again mostly bar g le vegetation due to
frequent flooding. Further west, the unit gets very narr d the slope from the field
edge to the river becomes steeper, eventu I reaching an where the river bank is
roughly 15-20 ft. above the water level. rstory vege s still a mix of ash,
boxelder and large hackberry, though less is pres The unit ends as the tree
cover diminishes and reaches an eroding b ve by brome and other
undesirable species.
Photo 9. Open area of FF -4 dominated by large silver maples.
Friends of the Mississippi
40
W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
FF -5 (approximately 91.09
FF -5 is the largos
the creek, a
denoting various flood levels.
asubunit. To access the unit, you must cross a creek -
i lofe
nnel - that lies at the end of the path that follows the
3property. The remains of a corner of the Houlton
ent on the north side of this channel (Photo 11). Once across
usly maintained snowmobile paths snakes throughout the
area, providing s t e entire subunit (Photo 12). In the more forested areas along
the main channel ississippi, floodplain species such as ash and silver maple
dominate. While bo species have individuals in various size classes, many of these trees
are very large, with the green ash reaching 111 cm dbh and the silver maple reaching 110.1
cm dbh. Occasional cottonwoods (84.8 and 135.6 cm dbh) and willows are present too.
However, many areas of this subunit are open, dominated by patches of brome and
Kentucky bluegrass that meander between thickets of pricky ash covered in grape vine
(Photo 13). Red cedar individuals are also present, though not in high numbers. Some
native herbaceous plants, including hoary vervain, stiff and showy goldenrod, and green -
headed coneflower, were present along the path edges. While overabundant native species
like prickly ash are often the target of restoration, the areas of abundant prickly ash and
Friends of the Mississippi
41
W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
grapevine provide an important food source for birds in the fall, and make a unique habitat
matrix on the island.
The floodplain forest along the main Mississippi River channel is relatively free of invasive
species, though other areas toward the center of the floodplain island are dominated by an
understory of buckthorn. In particular, a buckthorn sub -canopy largely dominates the west
and north sides of the floodplain island. Here, the forest is less uniform, with abundant
smaller and less valuable tree species like hackberry, elm, box elder, and green ash, and
occasional large trees like hackberry (75.4-96.5 cm dbh). The buckthorn ' often large
(-18.5 cm dbh) and multi -stemmed, creating an almost uniform sub -c ,(Photo 14). In
the buckthorn -dominated areas, groundcover is variable and range am areas of dense
Pennsylvania sedge to areas of dense wood nettle and various fo rse woody debris
is abundant throughout, though other areas are wetter and in ope are often
dominated by reed canary grass. Management of this unit w 1 he mo icult of the FF
units, owing to both the access difficulties and the hetero of the sub
Other notable features include abundant beaver ac 'Nnefj
Mississippi and a large eagle's nest that sits in a ha c
15). In 2015, three eagles fledged from this nest and
throughout the property. This nest is locat d alon%g th
is at risk of potential human disturbance property i
the edge of the clearing could warn hunte isitol
the nest - USFWS recommends 330 feet - a use
season.
Y A I
y+a A
r �-'
main chanAl of the
ledge of a clearing (Photo
n seen flying and perching
of trails on the island and
d to the public. Signs at
eep a safe distance from
especially during the nesting
�-X .OA,
r ..
7 t .-
Photo 11. Remains of the sawmill foundation are still visible on the north side of the small
channel that creates the floodplain island
Friends of the Mississippi
42
W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
Photo 12. A network of grassy openings and previously
island. These areas contain few native species and are d
trails snake through the
Photo 13. Trails meander through dense prickly ash topped with grape vines. These areas
provide important habitat for birds throughout the year.
Friends of the Mississippi
43
W H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
Photo 14. While the island contains traditional floodplain
central portion is a scrubbier green ash/qjIk&ckberry f
Friends of the Mississippi
44
around the edges, the
Awa buckthorn subcanopy.
W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
Photo 15. Bald eagle nest - with fledglings visible - in a large hackberry surrounded by a
matrix of grassland and floodplain forest species
Farmfield (180 ac)
The largest section of the property is currently in agricultural production. In 2015, this was
planted with soybeans. The area has a varied but overall relatively flat topography that has
a slight general slope toward the southeast. This unit includes what is c tly the
homestead and surrounding lands, though restoration of the homes se ion will
depend on the size of staging areas necessary to accommodate th ing lot and the
Quonset hut. Currently, the field and field edges are lined with m ricultural weeds
such as horseweed, hoary alyssum, dandelions, etc. There are desira ecies oi-
features of note, other than a small irrigation pipe and pl i the mi th field.
This irrigation pivot should be removed for restoratio take place, and wi ly be
done by City of Elk River staff (Photo 21). The unit a enco sses a Swale the eastern
side where the soil is moister than the surroundin Th' fon is often left natural
and not planted, and is a good candidate for a more me a of species.
The most notable feature of this unit is t on along the n edge of the property
(Photos 16-17). The Mississippi River has nd at the ge of the property,
meaning that the water flows into the ban the s. specially in high flow
situations, this scours the bank and leads to ' ent on. It is unclear how much
riverbank has been lost in pas des, but a is littl vegetation along the bank to
protect it from the force of Moreov he agricultural field is in production up to
roughly 10-15 ft from t verban hile this doubtedly bad for runoff and fertilizer
loads in the river, it is tha in to do with the current state of erosion,
though the shallow roots s non-native grass buffer do little to stabilize or
hold the soil. Moreover, erose llies have formed where runoff from the field flows
down to the r' and re ' g these gullies should occur when restoring this
unit. Furt ore, na ant co along the bank would help to stabilize soil and slow
future a n. Prairie s s hav deep root systems, allowing them to hold soil in place
and take u e quantiti f water. Re -vegetation of the bank and the current buffer strip
could succes mitigat a erosion problem, though large-scale grading and other
erosion measur ritually be necessary.
Friends of the Mississippi W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
45
Y) '• rr
AZO rt. -.JoRl! d
Photo 16. Erosion along the southern edge of the farmfiM
64
! f
■fit
r;.
SS
2
Photo 17. Erosion long the south side of the farmfield
Friends of the Mississippi W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
46
Photo 19. Aof turke
Friends of the Mississippi
on the north side of the farmfield
47
064
The fie IsIplanted
W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
Photos 20 and 21. (20fl
buffer dominated by non
irrigation
the bank of the Mississippi. The grassy
es t 10-15 feet wide. (21): A pipe from the pivot
center of the field.
nd with sparse deciduous trees (1.76 ac)
As was mention li , it is likely that historical vegetation at the William H. Houlton
Conservation Area a matrix of oak savanna, prairie and floodplain forest. It is likely
that areas of the pr ie and savanna stretched all the way to the banks of the rivers in
some areas, with grasses and sedges growing up to and along the banks. Currently, a few
pockets of grassland with sparse trees and shrubs exist interspersed with the floodplain
forest areas. The largest of these pockets is located between the FF -2 and FF -3 subunits, in
what is an extension of one of the higher elevation areas of the farm field. This grassland is
dominated by Kentucky bluegrass, smooth brome, and few native grasses, sedges, and
forbs. Monarch butterflies were present on the milkweed plants around the edges.
However, there are also clumps of honeysuckle, buckthorn, red cedar, apple trees, and
other woody species present in the grassland. While it is likely that woody vegetation may
Friends of the Mississippi W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
Om
have been an historical component of these areas, without fire to keep it in check, it has
proliferated and continues to encroach on these areas. Moreover, the current woody
species are mostly non-native and not indicative of historical woody composition in
grassland areas.
While the density of woody species in the main grassland is still within what might have
been present historically, the woody species composition is different from what was likely
present historically. Historically, scattered bur oak in the canopy were likely interspersed
with a mix of sumac, chokecherry and hazelnut in the shrub layer.While ese species are
largely absent (though sumac is present in some areas), this area still is a nice
opportunity to jump-start prairie/savanna restoration on the site ao increase diversity
and functionality of this existing savanna area.
Photo 22. Grassland area
k
Friends of the Mississippi
-native woody species
49
W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
Photo 23. More open grassland area with scattered shrubs
One other area on the property could be considered as a similar habitat type. This area is
located between FF -1 and FF -2 and is accessible from either the farm field or a two -track
that runs through a portion of FF -1. While the MCLLS does not classify the area as
grassland (it is currently classified as floodplain forest), aerial photos show a large open
area stretching from the field to the bank of the Elk River. Ground-truthing showed this to
be an open field that was likely maintained by grazing and mowing. Red cedars and other
woody vegetation exist in the field, but there is evidence of brush cutting along the
riverbank to maintain an open view of the river. Also, on the east side tearing there
is an apiary that currently houses live bees. It is likely that the clear' area -was managed
in part to provide access to the beehives. This open space is dom' y Kentucky
bluegrass, and is dotted with other non-native species such as llei hoary alyssum.
However, native plants remain within the grassland and up o river ncludI
common milkweed, hoary vervain, black eyed Susans, an indigo. A la ak
(108.6 cm dbh) is present on the edge of the clearing, multiple green ash present
along the riverbank (up to 32.5 cm dbh). This area nts er opportu ty to jump-
start prairie/savanna restoration at the site.
Photo
crosses the open grassland area classified as floodplain forest
Mesic oak savanna (2.82 acres)
The mesic oak savanna area is located on the northwestern side of the property. It is a very
disturbed area bordered by the farm field to the southeast, residential development to the
north, and a neighboring property with a storage barn to the south. It also contains the
fencerow along the farm field as well as two trails, one that follows the fenceline and one
that bisects the savanna diagonally. The area has interesting sloping topography, owing in
part to the gravel pit that was once present. The savanna is dominated by smooth brome,
and has other invaders present, including birdsfoot trefoil, dame's rocket and leafy spurge.
Friends of the Mississippi W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
50
However, scattered native species are present, including common milkweed, hoary vervain
yarrow, sumac and prickly ash. Sumac and prickly ash could be thinned in some areas in
order to achieve historical coverage levels. The unit also has scattered canopy trees,
including red/pin oaks (18.3-80.1 cm dbh). Some of the larger oaks are clearly open grown,
evidenced by large horizontal branches. To the northeast, the unit grades into a more
woodland/forest area, which should likely not be part of the same MLCCS classification,
making the boundary between the savanna and degraded woodland unit unclear. Treating
invaders in this area will be a priority, and potential expansion of this unit should be
considered. Ak
-native decius forest (1.48 ac) and grassland with sparse deciduous trees -
L 11 non-native dominated (2.02 ac)
The remaining i re classified as altered non-native deciduous forest and
grassland with spa ciduous trees - non-native dominated. These two narrow, linear
areas abut the prop rty line on the northwest side of the property and run along the
fenceline that separates these units from the farm field. However, the vegetation in these
units is quite similar, as both contain similar species in the fenceline (box elder, buckthorn,
honeysuckle) as well as on the other side of the path. The largest ecological issue in either
unit is the population of black locust trees that occurs on the border of the oak savanna unit
(Photo 26). In all, there are somewhere near 50 individuals ranging from 5-25.3 cm dbh.
This species is an aggressive prairie invader, and removal of this population will be
Friends of the Mississippi
51
W H Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
necessary in order to ensure the success of the prairie restoration. There is also a small
population of cannabis or hemp plants growing within the black locust grove.
In some areas, especially within the "grassland" section, there are wet depression areas
with non-native cattails and reed canary grass. Both units have a low area before the
terrain slopes upward to the neighboring housing development. These units are quite
degraded, with many invaders including honeysuckle, buckthorn, dame's rocket, burdock
and reed canary grass. Native tree species include a few small pin/red oak (-20 cm dbh),
box elder, hackberry, and one clump of trembling aspen (31.3-74.4 cm db ). The
understory vegetation is sparse and dominated by creeping Charlie an r non -natives
mentioned above. Removal of the fenceline could encourage connec ' ty between the units
and the eventual prairie/savanna restoration, though the woodla be too wet and too
far down the successional pathway to convert to prairie or savMha.
Photo 2-6.'M
locust trees.
Friends of the Mississippi
has many non-native species including this stand of black
comes denser as you move north from the oak savanna.
52
W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
RESTORATION
This section describes the restoration process on the William H. Houlton Conservation
Area. This includes information on the target plant communities and community
descriptions, taken from the DNR, for the proposed restoration on site. It also includes a
description of the restoration process and the goals for the restoration, both broad and
specific.
Friends of the Mississippi W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
53
Fable 2. Restoration Target Plant Communities for Existing Landcover
V1 H
V = d
Q
Dominant Soil Types Target Community
Floodplain
Forest Hubbard (D67B), Elkriver (771),
(FF 1) 4.09 1 Elkriver-Mosford i 1257} Southern Mesic Savanna {UPs24]
Floodplain
Forest
_ (FF 2)
Floodplain
Forest
(FF 3)
Floodplain
Forest
i FF 4)
Floodplain
Forest
+;FF 5)
Altered/non-
native
grassland
with sparse
trees
19.26 1 Elkriver (1255), Elkriver (771) 1 Southern
6.73 1 Elkriver (1255) I Southern
19.77 1 Elkriver (771). Elkriver (1
91.09 1 Elkriver (771), Elkriver (AllifiL I Southern
1.76 1 Elkriver
Mesic oak
savanna 2.82
Grassland
with sparse
deciduous
trees 2.02
Altere
native
deciduous
forest 1.
1
(25813), Sandberg
Row crops 1 180 1 Elkriver-Mosford t 125
TOTAL 329*
n
Forest (F
in Forest
'Floodplain Forest (FFs68) /
Mesic Savanna (UPs24)
Southern Mesic Savanna (UP
Southern Mesic Savanna (U
Southern Mesic Savanna (UPs24) /
Mixed Woodland
Southern Mesic Savanna (UPs24) and
Southern Mesic Prairie (UPs23)
*The official property sale encompasses 335 acres. Using the MLCCS data to break the property into
plant communities yields only 329 acres. The lost acreage occurs mostly along the floodplain
boundary with the river, and especially on the floodplain island, where multiple smaller islands are
classified as open water.
Friends of the Mississippi
54
W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
FIGURE 12. TARGET PLANT COMMUNITIES
ILK ItTarget Plant Communitites
1:8,000AMixed Woodand
Southern Floodplain Forest
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
WK., Southern Mesic Savanna
Miles
Southern FI ain
This comMnity type
acres of thell
the first few y
treatment occurr
of the farmfield is
Southern Mesic Savanna / Southern Mesic Prairie
— FFs6
V be lo ed in what are currently the FF units (1-5) on the
rty d on the floodplain island. FFs68 would make up roughly 141
rop , though not all of this restoration would occur at once. Over
is species would be removed on units FF 1-4, with follow-up
e next few years. FF 5 will undergo restoration after restoration
underway.
According to the DNR (2005), Southern floodplain forests are "Deciduous riparian forests
on sandy or silty alluvium on low, level, annually flooded sites along medium and large
rivers in the southern half of Minnesota. Community is characterized by evidence of recent
flooding such as rows and piles of debris, ice scars on trees, high-water channels, and
freshly deposited silt and sand.
Friends of the Mississippi
040
W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
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 species include false
nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), clearweeds (Pilea spp.), Ontario aster (Aster ontarionis),
Virginia wild rye (Elymus virginicus), cut grasses (Leersia virginica and L. oryzoides), hop
umbrella sedge (Carex lupulina), and cattail sedge (C. typhina). Wood nettle (Laportea
canadensis) often forms dense patches. Species typical of wetland communities are also
often present, including mad dog skullcap (Scutellaria lateriflora), southern blue flag (Iris
virginicus), and beggarticks (Bidens spp.). The invasive species kidney -lea ed buttercup
(Ranunculus abortivus), creeping charlie, moneywort (Lysimachia num a),
motherwort (Leonurus cardiaca), yellow wood sorrels (Oxalis strict d 0. dillenii), garlic
mustard (Alliaria petiolata), and reed canary grass (Phalaris aru ) are present in
many stands and sometimes abundant.
Climbing plants and vines are important in this co
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans var. negundo),
(Menispermum canadense).
Shrub layer and subcanopy are mostly sparse (0-25%
50% cover); silver maple, green ash, Amer'can elm, an
Climbing poison ivy is occasionally prese tall-:
are often abundant.
Canopy is interrupted to continuous (50-1
maple with occasional green gMjN&ttonwc
Southern Terrace
This community type may
above the more traditional, )
small numbecA99ftw the
of its
more
species re1q
will undergo
riparia),
and occasionally patchy (25-
W
re most common.
lver maple seedlings
strongly dominated by silver
elm."
w rently the FF 4 and 5, where terraces exist
ng floodplain forests. FFs59a would make up a relatively
re roperty, but would be distinct from FFs68 in terms
FFs5 re will have a greater green ash component and
,le. R storation will commence in the first year with invasive
follow-up treatment occurring for the next few years. FF 5
- restoration of the farmfield is well underway.
As described by th (2005), southern terrace forests are "wet-mesic deciduous forests
on silty or sandy all ium on level, occasionally flooded sites along small streams to large
rivers in the southern half of Minnesota.
Ground -layer cover is mostly interrupted to continuous (50-100%); often with abundant
wood nettle (Laportea canadensis). Other typical species include Virginia waterleaf
(Hydrophyllum virginianum), spotted touch me -not (Impatiens capensis), tall coneflower
(Rudbeckia laciniata), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), cleavers (Galium aparine), common
blue violet (Viola sororia), honewort (Cryptotaenia canadensis), aniseroot (Osmorhiza
longistylis), Virginia bluebells (Mertensia virginica), and eastern narrowleaf sedge (Carex
Friends of the Mississippi W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
56
grisea). Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) 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 (Parthenocissus spp.) and wild grape (Vitis riparia) are typical.
Shrub layer and subcanopy are sparse to patchy (5-50% cover); typical species include
American elm, hackberry, box elder, Missouri gooseberry (Ribes missouriensis), prickly ash
(Zanthoxylum americanum), and chokecherry (Prunus virginiana).
Canopy is interrupted to continuous (50-100% cover). Species com ition is variable, but
American elm, green ash, hackberry, basswood, box elder, silver lack ash, and
cottonwood are often common. Swamp white oak is importan som ds in
southeastern Minnesota."
Southern Mesic Savanna - UPs24
This community type will occur in a smaljunits.
ion is tly the FF 1 subunit, as
well as the existing grassland and savannUPs2 make up less than 10 acres
on the restored property, but would provnique exten • of the restored farmfield.
Restoration will commence in the first yewoody inva �gecies removal on FF1
and the grassland units, with follow-up tr urring fo a next few years. Once
invaders are removed, restoration will coe atment of herbaceous
invaders, prescribed burns and interseed
Southern mesic savannas a ly treed munities with tallgrass-dominated
ground layers on somew poorl ained to drained loam soils mainly formed in
unsorted glacial till, s es in s er over till, and locally in lacustrine
sediments and outwash d re arily on level to gently rolling sites. Drought
stress is irregular in occurre d usually not severe.
Graminoiqiwver is in ted to �ftinuous (50-100%). Tall grasses dominate, but
several eight grass re also important. Big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii) and
Indian gra rghastru ,mans) are the dominant tallgrasses, with prairie dropseed
(Sporobolus lepis) e' er a codominant or subdominant component. On the drier end
of the moisture en the bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), porcupine grass (Stipa
spartea), and side-rama (Bouteloua curtipendula) are important.
Forb cover is sparse to patchy (5-50%). The most common species are 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 maximiliam), tall
meadow -rue (Thalictrum dasycarpum), prairie phlox (Phlox pilosa), and gray -headed
coneflower (Ratibida pinnata) are common in moister examples; rough blazing star (Liatris
Friends of the Mississippi W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
57
aspera), Missouri and gray goldenrods (Solidago missouriensis and S. nemoralis), and bird's
foot coreopsis (Coreopsis palmata) are common in drier ones.
Woody vines are a minor component. Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus spp.) is frequently
present, and wild grape (Vitis riparia) is occasionally present.
Shrub layer is patchy to interrupted (50-75% cover) and composed of low (< 20in [50cm])
semi -shrubs, taller (up to 6ft [2m]) shrubs, and oak seedlings and saplings (< 6ft). The low
semi -shrubs leadplant (Amorpha canescens), prairie rose (Rosa arkansan , and poison ivy
(Toxicodendron rydbergir) are generally common. Common taller shrill
chokecherry
(Prunus virginiana), American hazelnut (Corylus americana), smoomac (Rhusglabra),
gray dogwood (Cornus racemosa), wolfberry (Symphoricarpos oc ' is), low juneberry
(Amelanchier humilis), and wild plum (Prunus americana).
Trees are scattered or in scattered clumps, with total cov 96 and
Bur oak is most common, but northern pin oak is also ally present.
The exotic grasses Kentucky bluegrass (Poa prate si
are often problematic in UPs24. Pennsylvania sedge (C
a native graminoid that is naturally a mino component o
with prolonged heavy grazing. With fire L%ion, trees
established, especially green ash, quaking ssv
Southern Mesic Prairie — U
This community type will
into the existing grassy
restored property. Re
seeding of the entire agric
second growing seasons, i
versus splitti
that the nraO
are esra
rotating
"Southen
0%.
(Bromus inermis)
vanica var. pensylvanica),
increases in abundance
Ilan the oaks become
at is cur tly the farmfield unit, and will transition
nd sav a units.3 will occur on 170-180 acres of the
n wil ce the second fall with prep work and
hment mows will occur in the first and
it escribed burn in the third. Restoring the field in one shot
tion ions will save on contractor costs and will ensure
e has es ed bel the current grants run out. Once these prairie areas
d, long ter intenance will include spot treatment of herbaceous invaders,
ibed burns d interseeding.
is les egrass-dominated but forb-rich herbaceous communities on
somewhat poorlyd to well -drained loam soils mainly formed in unsorted glacial till,
sometimes in a thi ess layer over till, and locally in lacustrine sediments and outwash
deposits. Communities in this class occur primarily on level to gently rolling sites. Drought
stress is irregular in occurrence and usually not severe.
Graminoid cover is usually continuous (75-100%). Tallgrasses dominate, but several
midheight grasses are also important. Species composition is fairly uniform, although
relative abundances shift across the moisture gradient within the community. Big bluestem
(Andropogon gerardii) and Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans) are the dominant
tallgrasses, with prairie dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepis) either a codominant or
Friends of the Mississippi W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
W
subdominant component. On the drier end of the gradient, little bluestem (Schizachyrium
scoparium), porcupine grass (Stipa 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 ( 4purpurea and
D. candida), silverleaf scurfpea (Pediomelum argophyllum), stiff su wer Helianthus
pauciflorus), white sage (Artemisia ludoviciana), northern beds tr lium boreale), and
smooth blue aster (Aster laevis). Maximilian's sunflower (Heli us iliani), tall
meadow -rue (Thalictrum dasycarpum), prairie phlox (Phl i ), an -headed
coneflower (Ratibida pinnata) are most common on the t r end of the . Rough
blazing star (Liatris aspera), Missouri and gray goldei s (Solidago missour is and S.
nemoralis), and bird's foot coreopsis (Coreopsis pa 'a) are mmon in the rier end.
Rattlesnake master (Eryngium yuccifolium) and c in 1 t (Silphium laciniatum) are
typical species in southeastern Minnesota but rare to a in the community elsewhere.
Narrow -leaved purple coneflower (Echina ea pallida) is c n in the drier end of the
gradient in the CGP but absent from the BIJIlg6kroadleaf Fo '.-Province.
Shrub layer is sparse (5-25% cover). The 1
and prairie rose (Rosa arkansana) are gener
(Symphoricarpos occidentals ccasiona
hazelnut (Corylus america , a old plum
Trees are absent
Kentucky bluegrass (Poa p
increases in the prolon ed ab
pressure. Snoath hr Brom
species favored by dist ce,
Friends of the Mississippi
nAdplant (Amorpha canescens)
mmo parse patches of wolfberry
ay do ood (Cornus racemosa), American
nes americana) are rare.
Was allowed invasion by woody species.
, anWtud species, is invariably present; it
of fire but becomes dominant only with heavy grazing
rmis), another exotic, is a very troublesome invasive
ding natural disturbance by pocket gophers."
59
W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
RESTORATION PROCESS
Restoration is a process. It takes time to restore ecosystems to their former functionality
and diversity. Sometimes this can only be approximated. It took many decades to degrade
the ecosystem and biological communities on site, so it will not be restored overnight.
Many steps are typically involved in a successful restoration; even deciding when a
restoration is complete/successful can be very difficult. Restoration should be viewed as a
process not a state of being. The ultimate goal is to achieve and maintain a diverse natural
community at the site, though this will not always proceed in a linear fas lion. Using the
concept of adaptive management will be key to continual progress at t Adaptive
management is a strategy commonly used by land managers, and i rates thought and
action into the restoration process. It can be described as a strat uses evaluation,
reflection, communication, and also incorporates learning int nni management.
It is set up like a feedback loop and looks like this: Assess P b -4 D -4
Implement -4 Monitor -4 Evaluate -4 Adjust -4 Asses lem -4 and . Thus,
moving forward with restoration, each round of adap ' man ement refine d hones
the process to better fit the conditions of the site. T trate ould be em asized at
the William H. Houlton Conservation Area. `
Given the size of the property and its pro:
take a large amount of effort to restore of
"edge" (rivers, adjacent lands, etc) allows
native and invasive. While managing pro
engaging neighbors in the importance of i
restoration on the property bagoW succ
of exotic invasive plants - wi inc
protected and manage he area
ity to other prIWIe seed) sources, it will
khKWin this site. a amount and type of
a I supplfof propagules, many non -
les . n the river is impossible,
n on it lands will not only help the
as it wi 1 reduce the potential seed source
s ize of natural communities being
The restoration of the biolommui4M, at the William H. Houlton Conservation Area
will be broken in ses. E ._ase will address the restoration of each given target
plant comm -phas�-r restoration of some of the larger areas. Phases
Restorati ill also b ritize ith the most important resources or vital areas taking
precede... However, re ation will ultimately be conducted based on available funds
and resour d may no ccur sequentially or as prioritized.
On this site, rem f ' . asive plants around the farm field is the highest priority.
Without this crucia �t step, savanna restoration will be plagued by invasion. Prioritizing
invasive removal fi -t will lead to better results in subsequent restoration tasks. The
second priority is restoring savanna/prairie in the currently farmed areas of the property.
Savanna is a rare and vulnerable plant community, and increasing its presence on the
landscape is an important goal. The third priority will be restoring the floodplain forest
island and woodland areas.
Friends of the Mississippi
NU
W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
RESTORATION GOALS
Given that the site was purchased with funds from the LSOHC, the main use of the property
will be for hunting. Thus, the main goal of this restoration will be to create healthy habitats
that support wildlife. Healthy ecosystems will support a variety of wildlife, and not just
those targeted for hunting. Toward achieving this goal, restoration will aim to improve the
diversity, composition and structure of the plant communities throughout the property,
which will also better reflect what would have been present at the time of European
settlement. This includes the addition of habitat (prairie and savanna) th t has been
historically decimated throughout the state, but does not mean that th oration will go
out of its way to convert current natural communities to what maykcit
en present in
the past. However, adding new habitat and restoring degraded aprove the
ecological functions that both historic native plant communiti nhealthy
communities provide, including:
habitat for a diversity of wildlife species,
nutrient and water cycling,
carbon storage,
moderation of water -table levels,
erosion control,
filtration of nutrients, sediments
development and enrichment of
local temperature moderation.
Though degraded by past
species and could be read
much greater wildlife vJ
less susceptible to
cover detains a good variety of native
aHyl diverse plant community can provide
nd tends to be much more stable, and
other disturbances.
're developed for each land cover area, with the overall
)cusfflWrotecting and restoring high quality habitat by
;ies, r,poring savanna/prairie, and providing pollinator and
s include the following, and should be attained by the fifth year
stems over Y2 inch diameter to <10% on site by the end of the
2) The 168 acres of cropland will be converted to native prairie with 90% coverage of
native species by the fifth year.
2a) The prairie restoration will have at least 25 native pollinator plant species, including an
abundance of milkweed species, and these plants will have at least 30% coverage in the
prairie.
Friends of the Mississippi W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
61
2b) Use the prairie restoration as a "laboratory" to experiment with different seeding rates,
mixes, and methods.
3) Reduce cover of native shrubs to 25-50% in savanna units and increase native species
richness and abundance in the herbaceous layer.
4) 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
• restore ground layer and shrub layer diversity inpr
• conduct periodic prescribed burning to maintain
and reduce invasive shrubs and overabundant a se
• monitor annually for potential erosion, as well as for i
herbaceous species;
• institute a monitoring plan to track effectiveness
activities.
• Engage volunteers in restorationand ed
• Explore other opportunities to cre AA
snake hibernaculums, osprey tower urle
Friends of the Mississippi
62
areas;
and woodla,egetation
i ings;
4ative invasite woody and
agement and restoration
Vents
uding but not limited to
at etc.
W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
WORKPLAN
The following tasks and budget are based on known costs and project needs at the time of
the restoration agreement. All parties, prior to implementation, will agree upon additional
future tasks. Work units are shown in Figure 11.
FIGURE 13. RESTORATION WORK UNITS
0 0.125 0.25 0.5 N
1:8,002 Miles
T
70
Friends of the Mississippi W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
63
MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES
PRIORITY 1: Invasive woody removal on all non -cropland units
Woody Plant Removal
Since this is such a large area (roughly 165 acres), clearing non-native, invasive brush may
have to be done in stages. Then the site should be assessed for further woody removal,
including native species. Primary species to remove are common buckth n, Tartarian
honeysuckle, black locust and Siberian elm. Cut stumps should be trea . h a triclopyr-
or glyphosate -based herbicide. Glyphosate can be applied to stump a ca m day during
the growing season when temperatures are above freezing but n 85 degrees.
Triclopyr can be applied even when temperatures are below ing, the best choice
for fall and winter application, though application earlier t fall is commended
due to potential non -target effects on native vegetation. pROW e.ated, stum pr tit
with multiple stems, thus creating a difficult situation contr 1, since even in cutting
and herbicide will be required on the multiple resp . Use emicals should be done
with extreme care on this site given the proximity to v a high potential for
groundwater contamination. Glyphosate binds to soil pa s and is generally not mobile,
so may be a better choice than other herbi 'des that are m obile, especially near the
water. However, triclopry-based herbici rlon 4 are ally more effective at
preventing resprouting.
The locations of large populations of nonna sh arporadic, though both buckthorn
and honeysuckle are ul3iquit g the fiel dge. Brush mowing (using a Fecon mower
with an ASV attachment o ila uipment) a possible in some areas, while hand
cutting will be require thers d to slopes to the distribution of the nonnative
stems within the mat x ve rush mowing is possible, work will be
limited to the winter mont the gr d is frozen. This will limit damage to the
native ground I nt com ,ty and minimize soil disturbance. Hand cutting can be
done at vari a year, th the fall is recommended, as native plants will
nave sen d and buc -n and er invaders who hold their leaves longer will be
easier ify. For han utting, brush pile locations will need to be determined in order
to burn pil ly. Detail 'll have to be worked out in the field at the time of removal.
Brush disposal ieveral different options that will be determined as the project
progresses, and wi pend on the volume as well as site access. Cut brush may be stacked
and burned, chippe and blown back on the site, or even removed for biofuels. The biofuels
option requires a large amount of material (18 semi -trailer loads of chipped brush, for
example), which could be possible given the amount of non-native and native woody brush,
but will need further evaluation. Non-native trees like black locust and Siberian elm, and
less desirable native trees could be removed to increase the amount of material. The access
lane around the field as well as the network of mowed paths throughout the units provides
easy access for large equipment and vehicles. In some areas, chipping the material on site
could provide mulch that would suppress buckthorn regeneration from the seedbank and
Friends of the Mississippi W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
64
protect against erosion. Access along mowed areas and field edges provides many possible
areas to utilize a chipper.
Once the first phase of removal is complete, yearly follow-up treatments will be necessary.
If done correctly, stump -sprouting should only occur in small numbers (if at all), though
these sprouts will need to be treated by mowing, cut and paint herbicide application, or
foliar spray. The seedbank will be more problematic, as buckthorn seeds can remain viable
for at least five years. Treating germinating seedlings will be a difficult and repetitive
process, but can be accomplished through foliar herbicide application. Pr scribed fire is a
seedlings management option in drier areas, but will be difficult in ma he wetter
floodplain areas. Prescribed burns should occur in the spring if pos ' e, w ien buckthorn is
actively growing and its carbohydrate stores are low. In the mor reas of the
property, seeding will be necessary after buckthorn removal. er o e plants will
help to fill unoccupied niches and compete with and suppress inati ckthorn
seedlings.
Native Shrub Control (optional but encouraged -
Aggressive native shrubs such as prickly ash and smootlq
and budget allows. Prickly ash, a native sh ub of open we
controlled in areas that it is overabunda a farm
encroaching into the restored savanna an r s.
recommended to control overabundant no atio
Burning will top -kill prickly ash, but will
Grass Control, Burning
Smooth brome (Brom&9
species are present along
with floodplain fo t sur
will aid in su
still establiArina. A
Sp
the
wer
ac can be controlled if time
sand savannas, can be
s will keep it from
i and treating of stumps is
ication is not recommended.
allows)
and other undesirable herbaceous
edg�eTT fn the savanna pockets that are interspersed
the farm field. Reducing or eliminating these species
-e*n n and prevent early invasion when the savanna is
in o raying and burning will help to control undesirable
for any necessary seeding. First attempts should be late
season bu hich are bVbficial because they more completely deplete plants of energy
reserves by ng thlbiomass of the topgrowth. Early season burns will only destroy
what little topgi h ormed at that early part of the growing season. However, late
season burns are a ore damaging to native forbs, so it is recommended to switch to
early season burns successive years, once smooth brome has been controlled. Once
native cover is established, a regular burning cycle of 3 to 5 years can be implemented. If
late -season burning alone proves to be unsuccessful at controlling exotic grasses, then spot
treatments of herbicide can be performed. Care should be taken to reduce collateral
damage to native plants (Appendix A).
Seeding will be necessary for savanna pockets surrounding the farm field, since there is
relatively low native cover in those areas. Where brome is present, seeding should occur
immediately following prescribed burns. Seed can be collected from local prairie/savanna
Friends of the Mississippi
M�
W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
restorations in and around Elk River and purchased from local ecotype (within 50-100
miles) suppliers. Local ecotype seed should be obtained following the Minnesota Board of
Water and Soil Resources (BOWSR) seed collection criteria, moving from ecological
subsection to ecological section to a maximum distance of 175 miles. Once savanna species
establish in the farm fields, seed can be collected on site and used to buffer these smaller
areas.
PRIORITY 2: Prairie and oak savanna restoration
Prairie and oak savanna will be restored on the 168 acres of agricult ei currently in
production (Unit 2) and on the neighboring field buffers and hom area. Restoration
will likely commence in the fall of 2017. The field should remai p ion until
restoration commences, ensuring that the city continues to e a rent ents that will
go into the restoration fund for the property. j
Rather than break the unit up into separate restorag§ioqLthe entire unfTwill be
restored in one shot. However, restoration will sti ult' endeavor and will
include at least three years of maintenance before it ca �ssfully establish. Conducting
the restoration process all at once will help ensure that co ept to a minimum and that
the prairie is established by the end of th t grant peri backs include the
potential lack of availability of local ecoty the risk eeding in a year when
conditions are poor. However, in this case, ben igh the potential risks.
With such a large restoration, reaks wil ed to be owed into Unit 2 so that the unit
can be burned on a rotatin It will b iportant to rotate burns in order to
provide refugia for inse and oth wildlife. 0 1, restoration can also extend into the
adjacent subunits, de on t oody removal along the field edges.
Site preparation
Because Z68 -acre ltural FCd is currently in production, restoration is simpler
than if Id was left . Agricultural weeds are often well controlled during the
growing s meaning t the seedbank is usually minimal. Once the crop is harvested
in the fall, sit aratio an begin immediately. The first step in site preparation will be
discing/tilling t t rn over any organic material remaining on the surface and to
keep the soil un -co -ted. Following the discing, the soil should be harrowed to provide a
smooth and relativ uniform planting surface. The current farmer should be approached
regarding completion of these steps, as it will save considerable money versus contracting
the work to another company. Once the field is harrowed and left for 1-2 weeks, the field
can be drill seeded with a mixed height mesic species mix; this mix will contain an
abundance of pollinator species, including milkweeds and other nectar plants. Seeding in
this way, often referred to as dormant seeding, benefits forb species, as many require cold
stratification prior to germination. The seed will overwinter under the snowpack and
germinate in the spring. The melting snow will provide the necessary moisture to fuel the
seed's germination. However, because the soils have medium erosion potential, a cover
Friends of the Mississippi W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
.:
crop should be considered for inclusion in the fall seeding to help prevent erosion. Winter
wheat is a common and useful crop for this purpose.
Maintenance: Mowing and burning
In the summer following the seeding, the prairie will need to be mowed roughly three
times. These establishment mows help to stimulate vegetative growth and to keep weed
species from flowering and dispersing seed throughout the site. This also allows light to
reach the prairie seedlings, which are mostly very small the first year. Mowing should
occur when the vegetation reaches roughly 12 in, though it is difficult necessary to
be exact in this measurement. Because mowing is used to prevent a al weeds from
seeding into the restoration, mowing should also be timed to pre eds from setting
seed, with height often being a proxy for these events. Monitor' oft Id will
determine the ultimate timing of the mows. Vegetation sho owe height of 4-6
in, and the process repeated two or more times dependi a rate of gr
throughout the season. During this time, weed species.- the field edges and ounding
units could be treated by spot -spraying or mowing in. aider t vent therm f�'nm
encroaching into the establishing prairie. `
Eventually, the prairie will need to be bur ed. Depending "n the a condition of the prairie,
this will likely occur in the third or fourt season. i3t rning'will help stimulate root
production and aboveground growth, and ontrol t400dy and herbaceous
species establishing in the prairie. Burning be spring or fall, depending on
weather conditions and goals of the burn (c ng no : native grasses, etc.). After the
burn, native seed can be adde a prairie upplement cover and diversity in areas
that have not taken well. I e erm, a bu QLation will need to be established so
that the prairie is burnedt repeatiff intervals. ning every 3-5 years is a common
interval, but can be hard'' tiv s. Ultimately, the interval length will
depend on the desired Bala alive s and herbaceous plants, and can also be
timed to respon tbreak n -native woody or herbaceous species. If burning is not
part of the his um pidly succeed to forest, since there are many
woody se n (both a and -native) encroaching from the surrounding units. The
prairiefsav na unit sholabe burned in sections to ensure the availability of unburned
refugia fores when p icular areas are burned.
Expanding existfilJoWifnd units
Once woody speciefhave been controlled to desired levels in the non-agricultural unit,
non-native grasses will need to be controlled to jump start the restoration in these units.
Smooth brome (Bromus inermis), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), and other
undesirable herbaceous species are present and abundant on the property. Reducing or
eliminating these species will aid in successful savanna restoration and prevent early
invasion when the prairie and savanna areas are still establishing. A combination of
spraying and burning will help to control undesirable species and prepare the areas for any
necessary seeding. First attempts should be late season burns. Late season burns are
beneficial because they more completely deplete plants of energy reserves by destroying
Friends of the Mississippi
67
W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
the biomass of the topgrowth. Early season burns will only destroy what little topgrowth
has formed at that early part of the growing season. Late season burns also are more
damaging to native forbs, so it is recommended to switch to early season burns in
successive years, once smooth brome has been controlled. A late -season burn should be
adequate. Then switch to a regular burning cycle of 3 to 5 years. If late -season burning
alone proves to be unsuccessful, then spot treatments of herbicide can be performed. Care
should be taken to reduce collateral damage to native plants. Burns can also be scheduled
to coincide with establishment burns on the prairie units. However, the entire site should
not be burned at once; refugia for plants and animals need to exist on the site at all times.
The site should be evaluated after each burn to see how well plants (agj&rnals) recover.
Once the areas are burned, native seed should be purchased and OWto these savanna
areas. This seed can be broadcast throughout the unit, and wil p i e cover and
diversity post -burn. Dormant seeding followed by establish a owNandu
rairie
restoration section) will help native species gain a footh hese aririe and
savanna species establish in the farm field, seed can b llected on sitbuffer
these smaller areas. Otherwise, seed should be pur d fro cal eers.
Oak restoration
The first priority for the prairie/savanna
savanna species. Once the prairie has be t
particularly oaks, can be considered. Wood 1
be introduced as part of the seed mix, helpin
these prairie and savanna sys stablishi
will primarily include bur pi11 s. These
is the es
11wiment of prairie and
ish, introcrction of woody species,
Ilikajou tin ant and prairie rose will
blis a 5 `SO% shrub cover typical of
the savanna canopy can come later, and
L!�-, planted in copses at locations
throughout the prairie Figure ), though fyiPhumber and location of copses are
entirely flexible. How ciai a given to locating copses along the cut
bank where erosion has pr d. T e ees will help to slow erosion by stabilizing
soil as the roots ffximu Ultima nsiderations such as oak wilt may push the species
compositio all bur o snore resistant of the two), which is also currently
the more ndant oa a nro tv.
Bareroot sS
ther oody species, including chokecherry, hazelnut and wild plum
can be addedstos° cion to increase structural diversity once the prairie has
established. Fa ,'r areas of the field, dogwoods may be an appropriate addition.
Like the oakscies should be planted in low densities in copse or clump
orientations.
Erosion control
Currently, the farm field is in production almost to the edge of the Mississippi river on the
south side of the property. Along with the natural bend in the river, this has caused serious
erosion along this slope. While this is partly a natural process, establishing native
vegetation along the top and on the slope will help stymie this process. Native prairie
plants have much deeper and more complex root systems than the non-native vegetation
Friends of the Mississippi W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
.:
present currently. During the restoration process, installation of a silt fence along this
stretch of the river would prevent further erosion caused by the removing non -natives and
restoring prairie to the area.
FIGURE 14. POTENTIAL OAK COPSE LOCATIONS
0 0.125 0.25 N
1:5,000 Miles 1'V
PRIORITYIWovide polMator and wildlife habitat
This priority wi plished mainly through establishment of the prairie, though the
restoration activitiall units will help. On the prairie unit, this will be accomplished
through careful spries mix preparation. A goal of the restoration is to have at least 25
pollinator plants (including common and whorled milkweed) in the prairie and savanna
restoration areas. These plants will provide important habitat and resources for pollinator
populations in decline across the state and country. Milkweed plants in particular are
important habitat and food sources for monarch butterflies, as well as a host of other insect
species.
Friends of the Mississippi W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
M.
Once the initial restoration takes hold, it may take a number of years for specific species to
perform up to the standards set in the restoration goals. Either way, it will be necessary to
add additional seed after prescribed burns or spot spraying of invasive herbaceous species.
This is a good opportunity to focus on pollinator plants and add diverse pockets within the
prairie matrix. Supplemental plantings of plugs can also increase the diversity and
coverage of pollinator species, and provide a good opportunity to involve volunteers at the
site. Watering events may be necessary depending on seasonal moisture conditions.
Prescribed Burns More Information
Once prairie and savanna are re-established on the property, it is i°ecouimended to split the
entire site up into burn units, for ease of operation and for ecol,ugical reasons (impacts on
insects and animals, for instance). Areas of the savannas alongthe river, can ,be combined
with sections of the larger prairie/savanna restoration on.the faith field. i" ortant to
leave some areas unburned (refugia) to allow insect and anima1 populations over and
repopulate burned areas. Rotate the burning of units -fro m year to year, and tr.0 not to burn
adjacent units in consecutive years. Prior to a prescribed bu r1l, a burn plan must be
devised. The burn contractor can help with the burn plea, P&mits must be obtained from
the DNR and local fire officials. Initially, burning would be.r..Q.Ured every one or two years,
so that each year a different burn unit w burned. Lori -term." -burns can occur every
3-5 years in prairies and savannas, thoug rvals could allow for the
establishment of more woody shrubs if de d.
Prior to burning, burn breaks be create contaiAhe fire. Burn breaks consist of a
mowed swath in grassland ically at IlWt 8 feet wide. There should be burn breaks
between restoration uni nd wit the large rai ie/savanna restoration (1-2). In
woodland areas, the b e is c cl ing the leaf litter and any other debris
down to mineral soils. Uti sand edges of forests would be useful and
easier than makin them fro tch. The burn contractor can also help with the
placement an n of b ks. Allowing fire to run into adjacent different land
covers is a d strat r exa , breaklines in a prairie unit that is adjacent to
woodlan ould be pla sho distance into the woodland, where feasible. This makes
for a mar ral lookin d functioning landscape and helps to prevent the woodland
from encroa into the airie.
Smoke manageme omewhat of a concern for burning on this property, since there are
nearby residences, ildings, and roads. Care must be taken to select a burn date where
smoke will not reduce visibility on Main Street or become a nuisance for neighbors.
Long -Term Monitoring and Maintenance
Monitoring is very important to restoration success. Monitoring, evaluation and
assessment should be done at least annually by an ecologist or a restoration professional.
More frequent monitoring will be needed in the initial phases of restoration to evaluate the
Friends of the Mississippi W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
70
Long -Term Monitoring and Maintenance
Monitoring is very important to restoration success. Monitoring, evaluation and
assessment should be done at least annually by an ecologist or a restoration professional.
More frequent monitoring will be needed in the initial phases of restoration to evaluate the
Friends of the Mississippi W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
70
success of the methodology and to inform future strategies. Adapting to issues or factors
observed during monitoring and assessment is vital to the restoration process.
Once the primary restoration tasks are completed, the restoration process will convert to a
monitoring and adaptive management phase. Long-term maintenance for the forest areas
will consist managing for invasive species, and monitoring every year for potential issues.
For the prairie and savannas, burning should occur every 3 to 5 years to prevent woody
encroachment and maintain the health of the prairie and savannas.
Restored areas must be regularly monitored to identify ecological i
and sedimentation, invasive species, and disease. Monitoring is als
detecting human -related issues such as illegal activities (ATV use
Early detection of concerns enables quick responses to addres e
significant problems. A
Monitoring animal as well as plant communities is
restoration. A comparison of bird populations befc
would be a valuable tool for quantifying positive it
also provide information on wildlife using the prol
could be involved in the property, and tie -i s with
Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) al n
opportunities.
Friends of the Mississippi
71
as erosion
sting, etc.)
they become
For evaluatingalts of the
Mtoration, fo example,
. Trail cameras can
another area where citizens
We
nitoring Avian
great citizen science
W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
A general time frame is shown in Table 3, but note that the year for any given task may
shift, depending on when the project starts. Note also that that the costs shown are
estimates, based on similar work at other sites, but actual costs may be higher or lower.
Table 3. Restoration Schedule and Cost Estimates
These tables are rough schedules and approximate costs for restoration and management tasks for
the William H. Houlton Conservation Area. Both the project tasks and costs are likely to change as
the project progresses - these tables should be used only as rough guides. Tae ere phased, with
1 being the highest priority. Work units correspond with those shown in F'
Friends of the Mississippi W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
72
Cost)
Year, Season Units Activity
Aa c
Cost Est.
PHASE 1. REMOVE INVASVIVE WOODY AND UNDESIREABLE NATIVE WOODY SPECIES
0/1
June
Units 1-3
Breeding bird survey before restoration occurs.
335
-
$2,000
Cut and treat non-native woody brush and trees
and other undesirable native woody brush in the
FF and grassland units around the farm field.
57.,93
1,000
$57;930
Haul brush to piles and either chip. remove or
1
Fall/winter
Unit 1
bum in winter. Seed open areas after removal.
Cut and treat non-native woody brush and other
undesirable native woody brush on the
floodplain island, Haul brush to piles and either
91
1,000
$91,000
chip, remove or burn in winter. Seed open
1 *
Fall/winter
Unit 3
areas after removal -
2
Fall
Units 1, 3
Treat exotic res routs
149
200
$29,800
Spot/broadcast spray invasive seedlings from
149
300
$44,700
3
Fall
Units 1, 3
seedbank
Spot/broadcast spray invasive seedlings from
149
200
$29,800
4
Fall
Units 1, 3
seedbank
5
Fall
Units 1, 3
Treat exotic res routs 1
149
1 200 1
$29,800
Subtotal
I I I
1 1
$285,030
PHASE 2. RESTORE PRAIRIE AND PROTECT REMAINING PRAIRIE/SAVANNA
Breeding bird survey before restoration occurs.
0/1
June
Units 1-3
Should be the same as Phase 1 survey.
Broadcast and/or spot spray non-native grasses
335
-
-
(smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass) and other
180
200
$10,000
Late
herbaceous invasive species along field edges
1*
spring
Units 1-3
and in existing grassland units.
Purchase mesic prairie/savanna seed mix for
180
700
$126,000
1
Summer
Unit 2
use on theagricultural field.
Prep the agricultural field for seeding: after the
annual crop is harvested, disc in remaining
Farmer
residue and harrow field to provide smooth
180
_
will do this
1
Fall
Unit 2
seedin environment.
Friends of the Mississippi W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
72
73
Drill seed agricultural field with native prairie
60
-
$300
4
Summer
seed mix. Consider adding a cover crop (winter
180
300 , $54,000
1
Fall
Unit 2
wheat) to prevent erosion.
Conduct prescribed bum on second third of
Conduct three prairie establishment mows
$1 Ok
prairie. Let fire run into neighboring units where
60
-
when vegetation reaches 12in in height. Mow to
180 per
$30,000
2
Summer
Unit 2
4-6in.
mow
Drill or broadcast seed native prairie species
Conduct one establishment mow when 180 $10k
$10,000
vegetation reaches 12in in height. Mow to 4-6in.
into grassland areas after burn (could also be
3
Summer
Unit 2
Sot mow orspray as necessary
Spring
Unit 1
dormant seeding if bum is done in fall
Conduct prescribed burn on one third of prairie.
—Spring
60
Let fire run into neighboring units where
60
-
$5,000
4
S ring
Unit 2, 1
possible.
Plant copses with bare -root or potted bur oaks
Drill or broadcast seed native prairie species
throughout the prairie. Plant 5-10 copses of 5-
10 individuals each throughout the restoration. - $5,000
into grassland areas after bum (could also be
-
-
$2,000
4*
Snrina
Unit 1
dnrmant seedin if hum in dnnP in faill
73
60
-
$300
4
Summer
Unit 2
Re-evaluate establishment success after bum.
Conduct prescribed bum on second third of
prairie. Let fire run into neighboring units where
60
-
$5,000
5
Spring
Unit 2
possible.
Drill or broadcast seed native prairie species
into grassland areas after burn (could also be
-
-
$2,000
5*
Spring
Unit 1
dormant seeding if bum is done in fall
73
60
-
$300
5
Summer
Unit 2
Re-evaluate establishment success after bum.
Conduct prescribed bum on final third of prairie.
Let fire run into neighboring units where
60
-
$5,000
6
Spring
Unit 2
possible.
Drill or broadcast seed native prairie species
into grassland areas after bum (could also be
-
-
$2,000
6*
Unit 1
dormant seeding if bum is done in fall
—Spring
60
-
$300
6
Summer
Unit 2
Re-evaluate establishment success after burn.
Plant copses with bare -root or potted bur oaks
throughout the prairie. Plant 5-10 copses of 5-
10 individuals each throughout the restoration. - $5,000
Other shrub species can be added as desired.
6*
Spring
Unit 2
Can plant after a bum to reduce competition.
300
Water planted oaks as needed throughout - per $900
fi*
Summer
Unit 2
summer. event
335
- $2,000
7
June
All Units
Breeding bird survey, after restoration
Subtotal $259,800
PHASE 3. RE-ESTABLISH NATIVE WOODY SPECIES IN FLOODPLAIN UNITS
Broadcast seed native herbaceous species in
57.93
$5,000
1
Fall
Unit 1
open areas of FF 1-4 units after wood removal
Broadcast seed native herbaceous species in
91
$5.000
1'
Fall
Unit 3
open areas of FF -5 after woody removal
Plant bare root or potted shrubs and trees in FF 149 - $5,000
3 Spring/Fall Unit 1 1-4.
Friends of the Mississippi W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
73
3
S rin /Fall
Unit 1
Water newly installed shrubs and trees (if
needed
149
-
$2,000
4'
S rin /Fall
Unit 3
Plant bare root or potted shrubs and trees in FF
1-4.
149
-
$5,000
4`
Spring/Fall
All Units
Water newly installed shrubs and trees (if
needed
149
E
-
$2,000
Subtotal
J
$24,000
Total
$568.830
Items with
and logistics allow.
Friends of the Mississippi W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
74
Once initial restoration tasks are completed, then long-term management ensues. Long-
term management includes tasks that are required to be done periodically to maintain a
healthy native plant community. Table 4 lists these tasks with associated cost estimates.
Table 4. Long -Term Management Schedule and Cost Estimates
* Items with air as}er lsk are lower priority and should be undertaken only if funds and logistics
allow.
Friends of the Mississippi
75
W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
Cost/
Cost
Season
Units
Activity
Acres
Ac
Est.
Burn the prairie units every 3-6 years. Rotate
burn units and pair with surrounding 10 acres of
60
savanna restoration. To provide refugia, do not
(three
$5,000
burn adjacent units in consecutive years. Do not
units
(per unit)
burn more than 113 of the prairie in one year.
total)
Spring or fall
Units 1, 2
Rotate bums from spring to fall.
Monitor and manage for invasive herbaceous
141
300
$42,300
Fall
Unit 1, 3
and woody species.
Monitor ash for EAB, bur oaks for Oak Wilt
disease (July -Aug) and for Bur Oak Blight
All
-
$1,000
July -Aug and
(BOB) (July -Aug for leaf necrosis and winter for
Winter
All
marcescent leaves (those that do not drop).
Fall,
summer,
All
-
$1,200
spring
All
Evaluation and assessment by ecologist
Yearly breeding bird surveys after restoration
tasks are complete. Establish citizen science
All
-
-
June*
All
programs MAPS, eMammal
Yearly community engagement or volunteer
event. Possible events include invasive species All - -
removal, prairie seed collection, supplemental
Fall* All plantings, etc.
$ 59,500 or more (at intervals)
* Items with air as}er lsk are lower priority and should be undertaken only if funds and logistics
allow.
Friends of the Mississippi
75
W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Hunting
Since the property will be open to hunting, there will be several measures that need to be
taken in order to ensure that the property is restored safely and that hunting has no
detrimental effects on the land.
First, much of the restoration will occur after the property has been ope d to hunting.
Restoration crews will need to be alerted to the fact that hunting is pe d on the
property, and should wear brightly colored clothing to denote their esence. While this is
standard for most contractors, care should be taken to remind th is during the RFP
and site visit process. Temporary signage should also be erect t th arking are to alert
visitors that restoration is occurring on the property. Whil esence -ews will
likely be obvious to visitors, signs will serve as a remind crews may
property.
Aside from the restoration process, hunting on the
that it is being done in a safe and ecologically susta
regulations put forth by the MN DNR, inclng dui
enforcement of these regulations should
ecological monitoring should include chec g
on the property. Semi-permanent structure hou
influence the use of the property by wildlife.
city and other necessary
A
Tree Disease (Oak Wilt, B
Dutch Elm yrs, an
There ar any elmlan
forests a Elk and
valuable bu Iso at 1,
to Dutch llm a ani
caused widespre
Minnesota.
isle monitored to ensure
There are obvious rules and
Lens and bag limits. While
IV I the city, routine
d other structures erected
d and removed, as they can
!s should be reported to the
ge grWn and black ash trees growing within the floodplain
sissippi Rivers at the site. These trees are not only ecologically
risk to attack from non-native tree pests. Elms are susceptible
h are susceptible to Emerald Ash Borer. These tree pests have
r of elms and ash throughout the eastern United States and in
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
Friends of the Mississippi
76
W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
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 b etle has now
been confirmed in 15 states, including Minnesota. The beetle works by siting larvae
under the bark of the tree; these larvae then feed on the wood, even Iy isrupting
enough of the phloem to prevent the transport of nutrients throw he tree. While
Minnesota's cold weather can stymie the spread of the beetle, ' and o spread, with
new outbreaks confirmed in and around the metro area. Qu r es a r ady in place
around both Hennepin and Anoka counties, where infest o the borer en
confirmed. Both of these counties share a border with erburne county, mea that ash
trees within the Conservation Area are at risk. Wit s such. human mov ent of
firewood and climate change ever-present, the lik i h l 'might reach the
property is high, though the search for effective biologi itrols and other deterrents is
ongoing.
Unless viable control or treatment option a ed, the qis and ash at the
Conservation Area are at risk of dying in th ear n such large trees die, it will
have a pronounced effect on the vegetation wat the river. These trees act to
shade the water and provide and imp a water quality for fish and other species.
When large trees die, they n e canopy create gaps, which in turn releases the
understory that was for ly supp ssed by th ade from such trees. If desirable species
like native (orbs, gras es, st in the understory, then this can be a
good thing, since the resul 0 net increase in bank stability and diversity. In
the case of this ora2arty. thes nv Lyans will likelv be filled by buckthorn and Tartarian
.tion. In order to avoid this
.ioval of undesirable shrub
rbaceous plant species is a
For green ash in , the situation is particularly important, as this species makes up
over 50% of the ca in many areas of the floodplain forest. The principle of risk is
highly applicable h e; risk is often defined as the probability of a negative event weighted
by its consequences. In the case of EAB, the consequences will be large and quite negative,
as a loss of half the canopy on the property could have cascading consequences for invasive
species, water quality, and wildlife. The probability that EAB arrives is high, though it is
unclear when this will occur. While we plan to remove invasive species prior to this
occurring, which will reduce some of the negative consequences, another potential strategy
is to proactively remove the ash from the property. This would be a large undertaking, as
the ash would have to be removed and replaced by other floodplain species. Removal could
be contracted to logging firms, which could potentially fund the work, though the market
Friends of the Mississippi W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
77
for ash in the county is relatively sparse and this technique unlikely to create any profit for
the city. Ultimately, removal should occur once invasive species are removed, and could
occur in stages (10-20% per year) to minimize disturbance to the community. However,
removal will realistically have a large negative impact on the property, especially in
floodplain areas and to neighboring trees. The removal would also have to be timed to
minimize impacts on the prairie restoration process. Advice from the city or county should
be solicited when making the final decision.
Oak Wilt and Bur Oak Blight
Oak wilt is an increasingly common tree disease caused by the ft
fagacearum. While the disease is present in many eastern US sta
the Midwest US. Within Minnesota, it is an issue of serious con
seven -county metro area, including in Sherburne county. Oak
most common oak species (red oak [Quercus rubra], pin o 6.
macrocarpa], and white oak [Q. alba]), though it does affect t
and pin oak are the most susceptible species, with i ed inc&
or less. Bur and white oaks may take years to wilt Mq
branch at a time. The fungus can be transported from ti
commonly spreads through root grafts. The beetles are
when mature oaks die from oak wilt, andAbbQ wounc
convenient pathway of spread for the funj
individuals, allowing direct transfer of the
While the William H. Houlton
contingent of large bur oak
east sides of the proper
the property is less lik_
will be necessary to idents
found, root barriers may be i
options inclu iz it
also be takv0Toavo7iJMWn
trees ars
covering tfl
for the win
most prevalent in
ILaround the
Iftf Minnesota's
71AWr 2ak [Q.
'cies Iv. Red
riltinAn six weeks
Way only do so one
e by sap beetles, but most
I to the fungal mats created
lotted oaks, providing a
m root grafts between
to healthy individuals.
-ed or pin oaks, there is a sizeable
nt savanna areas on the north and
that an outbreak of oak wilt at
risk n nains. Careful monitoring of individuals
In ed individuals. If infected individuals are
ed around infected trees using a vibratory plow. Other
io inoculation of high value individual trees. Care should
g tre curing the early growing season (April to July), when
the fL1hgal spread. If a tree is injured during this time,
amended. If pruning or other activities must be done, waiting
Bur oak blight (BOBTmay 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 Houlton, monitoring existing oaks for symptoms will be an
Friends of the Mississippi
W
W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
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.
Friends of the Mississippi W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
79
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
Mossler, JH. 1990. "Bedrock Geology" Geological Atlas of
University of Minnesota.
Oak wilt. (http://www.extension.umn.edu/environm71","AAL
-woodl
minnesota/).
Rothaus, R, McFarlane J, Haug J. 2005. Prehistoric and,1111 Archaeology of Elk
River Township, Minnesota: Probability Modeling and R aissance Survey
Friends of the Mississippi
W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. Plant Species Recorded at the W. H. Houlton Conservation Area
The following plant species were identified at the site by Friends of the Mississippi River.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Date: 6/4/15 Site: WHHCA
Map Unit name: FF1 Farmhouse
Scientific Name f Common Name f Abund'
Groundcover to 4 ft
Eu atorium ru osum
White Snakeroot
C
Galium a erine
Cleavers
P
Urtica dioica
Stinging nettle
P
Leonurus cardiaca
Motherwort
P
Glechoma hederocea
Creeping Charlie
Hackelia virginiana
Stickseed
Ribes c nosbati
Gooseberry
Rhamnus cathartica
Buckthom
C
Rubus ideaus
Raspberry
R
Carex
Sedges
R
Arcfium minus
Burdock
Celfis occidentalis
Hackberry
s Parthenocissus vitacea
Vi inia creepier
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
P
Vifis riparia
Wild Grape
P
Solida o spp
Goldenrod
P JW
Achillea millefolium
Oxalis shicta
Yarrow
Wood sorrel
Asc/e ias s riaca
mon Milkwe
R
Phalads arundinacea
Bromus intermis
Hes eris matronalis
Ganary GralL
5 brume
Da Rocket
D
D
R
Berteroa incena
Ranunculus abortivus
H oJLdAAw&c1jlg
P
C
R
Understoryishrub la er
Rhamnus cath
hom
C
cera s
ho amenca
entalis
JC�
beano
Cethsalis
suckle
Pri sh
Ha er
Hackberry
C
P
C
C
Fraxinus vantca
Green Ash
C
Acernegunnaulk Ar
Box elder
A
Ulmus amedca
American Elm
P
Vitis riparia W7Wild
Grape
P
Acer saccharinum F
Silver Maple
C
Prunus vir iniana
Chokecherry
R
Rhamnus cathartica
Buckthorn
P
Salix spp.
Willow
C
Quercus eli soidalis
Pin Oak
R
Quercus macrocar
pa
Bur Oak
P
Juniperus virginiana
Red Cedar
C
D= Dominant, C= Common, P= Present, R= Rare
Friends of the Mississippi
.51
W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
Date: 6/9/15
Site: WHHCA
onservation Area NRMP
Understory/shrub layer (Total cover = ) R2
Map Unit name: FF1
Meadow/Cleared Area
Scientific Name
Common Name
Abund'
Understo /shrub layer
1
Con za canadensis
Horseweed
C
2
Cirsium spp
Thistle
C
3
Berteroa incana
Hoary Alyssum
P
4
G/echoma hederacea
Creeping Charlie
A
5
Asclepias s riaca
Common Milkweed
P
6
Circaea lutetiana
Enchanter's nightshade
P
7
Vitis riparia
Wild Grape
P
8
Ribes spp
Gooseberry
C
9
Zanthox lum americanum
Prickly Ash
C Ao
10
Rhamnus cathartica
Buckthom
P
11
Hackelia virginiana
Stickseed
12
Lonicera spp
Honeysuckle
13
Taraxicum officinale
Dandelion
AV C
14
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green ash
P
15
Prunus vir iniana
Chokecher
R
16
Eu atorium ru osum
White Snakeroot
17
Ulmus americana
American elm
18
Achillea millefolium
Yarrow
19
20
21
22
Rubus s
Quercus macroca a
Ce/tis occidentalis
Acerne undo
BlackberryP
Bur oak
Hackbe
Box elder
P
C
23
Ranunculus abortivus
CU
C
24
Trifolium pratense
C
25
Carex rosea Ar
Ro d e
P
26
27
Carex am hibola
Osmorhiza claytonfi
Cr
P
P
�28
29
G/aium a erine
Frangula aln
dstraw
buckthom
C
R
30
31
Stn: to nce
ViolajF
1310019ted stalk
vio
R
P
32
Phoofttostachya
Lo seed
P
33
Fra an iana
Wild strawberry
P
34
35
Pilea umr
L simachia nria
Clearweed
Mone ort
C
P
36
Carex brevoir
Shortbeak sedge
P
37
Sambucus spp
Elderberry
C
38
Carex scopafia
Pointed broom sedge
P
39
Leonurus cardiaca
Motherwort
C
40
Arctium minus
Burdock
C
41
Oxalis stricta
Woodsorrell
C
42
Verbascum tha sis
Mullein
P
43
E uisetum a►vense
Horsetail
C
44
Plantago major
Plantain
P
45
1 Scronhularia lanceolata
Fiowort
P
onservation Area NRMP
Understory/shrub layer (Total cover = ) R2
1
1 Am ha fruticosa
False indigo
P
2
Lonicera spp
Bush honeysuckle
P
3
Rhamnus cathartica
Buckthom
C
4
Lonicera spp
Bush honeysuckle
C
Canoov.subcanoay.
1
Rhamnus cathartica
Buckthom
C
2
Juni ecus vi iniana
Red cedar
C
3
Quercus macroca a
Bur Oak
C
4
Lonicera spp
Bush honeysuckle
C
5
Majus
Apple
C
6
Fraxinus enns lvan
I Green Ash
C
D= Domi
Friends of the Mississippi W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
APPENDIX B. Plant Species for Restoration at the W.H. Houlton Conservation Area
Prairie/Savanna:
Forbs, Ferns & Fern Allies
Yarrow Achillea millefolium
Prairie wild onion Allium stellatum
Canada anemone
Anemone canadensis
Long-headed
EchinaqW
thimbleweed
Anemone cylindfica
_Clasping dogbane
Apocynum sibincum
_White sage
Artemisia ludoviciana
Common milkweed
Asclepias syriaca
Heath aster
Aster ericoides
Smooth blue aster
Asterlaevis
blue aster
Aster oolentangiensis
Silky aster
Astersericeus
Ground plum
Astragalus crassicarpus
T
Toothed evening
prim rose
Calylophus semrlatus
Flodman's thistle
Cirsium Bodmanh
Bastard toadflax
Comandra umbellata _
Bird's foot coreopsis
White prairie clover
Purple prairie clover
Canada tick trefoil
Coreopsis p Imata
Dalea candida
Dalea pyTurea
Desmodium canadense
Narrow -leaved purple
Lobelia spicata
coneflower
EchinaqW
Daisy fleabane
E_ri st
Rattlesnake master
E um y
Common strawberry
Pediomelum esculentum
Northern bedstraw
Galiu
Maximilian's sunflower
Stiff sunflower
Ox -eye
Alumroot
Rou hh ar
Northern plai ng
cfar
Great blazing star 111hqrspycnostachya
Wood lily "um philadelphicum
Hoary uccoon FEJihospermum canescens
Pale -spiked lobelia
Lobelia spicata
Wild bergamot
Monarda fistulosa
Wood betony
Pedicularis canadensis
Silverleaf scurlpea
Pediomelum argoph llr um
Prairie turnip
Pediomelum esculentum
Prairie phlox
Phlox pilosa
Virginia ground cherry Physalis virginiana
Tall cin u Potentilla arguta
Smooth rattlesnakeroot Pnenanthes racemosa
Pycnanthemum
Virginia mountain mint vi4gianum
Gray -headed coneflowe_r
_pinata
Canada goldenrod
Solidago canadensis
Missouri goldenrod
id o missomiensis
Gray goldenrod
o nemoralls
Stiff goldenrod
_ rigida
Tall meado
ThaNINKdasmamum
AWTiiIn
Grasses &
Vicia a a _
Viola p to
Zizia
Andropogoneras rdii
Sorghastrum nutans
seed
S orobolus heterol _ ie s
WPrainedro
ine grass
S " a artea
ats grams
Bouteloua curtipendula
grass
Panicum atom
Junegrass
Koelena pyramidata
Pennsylvania Se a
Carex pensylvanica
Leiberg's panic grass
Panicum leibergii
Prairie cordgrass
Spartina pectinata
Semi -Shrubs
Leadplant Amorpha canescens
Prairie rose Rosa aricansana
Shrubs
Friends of the Mississippi W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
Symphoricarpos
Wolfbt�
occidentalis
Dogwood (wet areas}
Comus spp.
Chokecherry {edaesi
Prunus_' biana
Trees
_
Bur oak
Quercus macrocarpa
Pin oak
Quercus ellipsoidalis
Friends of the Mississippi W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
Floodplain forest:
Forbs, Ferns & Fern Allies
Three -seeded mercury
Green dragon
Eastern panicled aster
Side -flowering aster
Ontario aster
Bur marigold and Beggarticks
False nettle
Tall bellflower
Honewort
Dodder
Wild cucumber
White snakeroot
Nodding or Virginia stickseed
Touch-me-not
Southern blue flag
Wood nettle
Cut -leaved bugleweed
Northern bugleweed
Common mint
Clearweed
Virginia knotweed
Kidney -leaved buttercup
Tall coneflower
Mad dog skullcap
Bur cucumber
Carrion flower
Woundwort
Narrow -leaved hedge nettle
Germander
Stinging nettle A
Stemless blue violets
Friends of the Mississippi
Acalypha rhomboidea
Arisaema dracontium
Aster lanceolatus
Aster latenflorus
Aster ontarionis
Bidens spp.
Boehmeria cylindrica
Campanula americana
Cryptotaenia canadensis
Cuscuta spp.
Echinocystis lobata
Eupatorium rugosum
Hackelia deflexa or H. virginiana
impatiens spp.
Iris virginica
Laportee canadensis
Lycopus americanus
Lycopus uniflorus
Mentha arvensis
Pilea spp.
Polygonum virgin crm
Ranunculus abo
Rudbeckia lacini
Scutellaria lateriflo
Sicyos angulatus
Smilax spp.
Grasses & Sedges
Ambiguous sedge
Gray's sedge
Bladder sedge
Hop umbrella sedge
Cattail sedge
Stout woodreed
Virginia wild rye
Rice cut grass. "
White arass : '
Carex amphibola
Carex grayi
Carex intumescens
Carex lupulina
Carex typhina
Cinna arundinacea
Elymus virginicus
Leersia oryzoides
Leersia virginica
Menispermum canadense
Parthenocissus spp.
Smilax tamnoides
Taxicodendron rydbergii
Vitis riparia
Salix nigra
Amalanchier spp
Comus spp
Celtis occidentalis
Acer saccharinum
Populus deltoides
W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
APPENDIX C. Methods for Controlling Exotic, Invasive Plant Species
Trees and Shrubs
Common Buckthorn, Tartarian Honeysuckle, Siberian Elm, and Black Locust are some of the
most common exotic woody species likely to invade native woodlands or prairies in
Minnesota. Buckthorn and honeysuckle are European species that escaped and invaded
woodlands in many parts of the country. They are exceedingly aggressive_ and, lacking
natural diseases and predators, can out -compete native species. They • n
photosynthetically active longer than most other native shrubs and s, ich gives them
a competitive advantage. The seeds are disseminated by birds, w ake them especially
problematic in open woodlands, savannas, and overgrown pra' _s. Iso benefit from
the net actions of invasive earthworms, fire suppression, an deer ations,
forming a synergy that helps set the stage for their establ' n and dom
Invasions eventually result in dense, impenetrable br hickets that greatl . ce
ground -level light availability and can cause declin natioecies abund ce and
diversity.
Siberian elm, native to eastern Asia, grows vigorously, esp
nutrient soils with low moisture. Seed ge4ib6iLo n is high
in sparse vegetation. It can invade and Ilk
locust is native to the southeastern United
Minnesota. It has been planted outside its n
control species and a soil stab' ' artly bei
fixer, and since it quickly c9OWIRWre slop
reproduces vigorously LAfoot suc -ing and
in disturbed and low-
d1ings establish quickly
in just a few years. Black
southeastern corner of
promoted as an erosion
it wa.- falsely assumed to be a nitrogen
readily invades disturbed areas. It
rm monotypic stands.
diologica' Control
Currently the
1 agents for non-native woody plants in Minnesota.
ologic*ebiological
Recently, a -year
condy the DNR and University of MN resulted in the
conclus' at there we
o vicontrol agents for common or glossy
buckth r d in part
he lack of damage to the host plants and a lack of host
specificity
(http://www. te.
.us/invasives/terrestrialplants/woody/buckthorn/biocontrol.ht
MI).
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.
Friends of the Mississippi
W. H. Houlton Conservation Area 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 10% glyphosate concentration. Adding a marker dye helps to make
treated stumps more visible, improving accuracy and overall efficiency. In winter months,
an herbicide with the active ingredient triclopyr must be used. Garlon 4 is a common brand
name and it must be mixed with a penetrating oil, such as diluent blue. 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 spr' flow, but late
fall is often ideal because buckthorn retains its leaves longer than o species and is more
readily identified. Moreover, once native plants have senesced, h will have fewer
non -target effects on native vegetation. Cutting can be accomp " ed ppers or
handsaws in many cases. Larger shrubs may require brush r and c aws, used
only by properly trained professionals.
For plants in the pea family, such as black locust, a bicide h the active �igredier
clopyralid can be more effective than glyphosate.❑ ames for clopyralid
herbicides are Transline, Stinger, and Reclaim.
In the year following initial cutting and atment, the
a flush of new
seedlings as well as possible resprouting the cut nts. Herbicide can be
applied to the foliage of these plants. Fall is a be this, when desirable native
plants are dormant and when the plant is pu sour from the leaves down into the
roots. Glyphosate, triclopyr a ite (acti ngredient - fosamine ammonium) are the
most commonly used her es oliar app ti n. Krenite prevents bud formation so
the plants do not grow i e sprin This herby can be effective, but results are highly
variable. Glyphosate triclop as Garlon can also be used. Glyphosate is
non-specific and will kill an, ' green, a triclopyr targets broadleaf plants and does
not harm gramin - All her should be applied by licensed applicators and should
not be appli ays. C ld be taken to avoid application to other plants.
"Weed W s" or othe ces th llow dabbing of the product can be used rather than
spravi ecially for s p treatment.
Basal bark M ' e trea ent is another effective control method. A triclopyr herbicide
such as( r nit penetrating oil, is applied all around the lower 6-12 inches
of the tree or shru , ing care so that it does not run off. If the herbicide runs off it can kill
other plants nearb . 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 done in late spring to mid -summer when sap is flowing and the bark
easily peels away from the sapwood. Herbicide can also be used in combination with
Friends of the Mississippi W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
girdling for a more effective treatment. Girdling has the added benefit of creating snags for
wildlife habitat. While girdling a large number of 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 in number), weed wrenching (using a weed wrench tool to pull
stems of one to two inches diameter), and repeated or "critical' cutting ing and weed
wrenching can be done any time when the soil is moist and not froze a isadvantage to
both methods is that they are somewhat time-consuming, as the s m each stem should
be shaken off. Weed wrenching also creates a great deal of soil u and should not
be used on steep slopes or anywhere that desirable native for re grog The soil
disturbance also creates opportunities for colonization by -0 r on -native its This
method is the least preferable and is probably best used in areas that have iia any
desirable native plant cover. IL
Repeated cutting consists of cutting the plants (by hansh a brush cutter) at critical
stages in its growth cycle, typically twice per growing ea utting in mid spring (late
May) intercepts the flow of nutrients fro oots to the le atid cutting in fall (about
mid-October) intercepts the flow of nutri a leaves t the roots. Depending on
the size of the stem, the plants typically die ithin s, with two cuttings per year.
Prescribed Fire
Prescribed burning is th ost of nt, cost
very small stems, see ' and re is of
natural process to fire -de
can only be accomplished if ate fuel (le.
or early springig on s tions.
Native
Owe, and least harmful way to control
oody plants. It also restores an important
nunities (oak forests, for example). Burning
litter) is present and can be done in late fall
Prickly Ash
A common nydisd
ckly ash can become excessively abundant, especially in areas
that have beegrazed. Complete eradication may not be necessary, but
managementucing 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
Friends of the Mississippi
W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
smooth sumac does not require herbicide applications, since that would require a
tremendous 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 s ason, the clone
will persist, since this will not be enough to drain the root system of st energy. Cutting
APW-twice a year without burning will be effective, but burning is doubly , since fire tends to
benefit herbaceous plants and suppress woody ones.
Disposal
The easiest and most cost-effective method to handle 1
usually to stack it and burn it. This is most typically
impacts to soil (compaction, erosion, rutting, etc.),
after the removal and burned during the winter. In ar(
be cut up into smaller pieces, scattered, and left on the
one to three years (this method is especiful on
Small brush piles can also be left in the lii
abundance of larger trees, cut trees maybe ule
biofuel. Alternatively, the wood can be cut a u for
found, or perhaps saved to be���later as bars f
FORBS
amounts of woodlWsli is
durilLwinter to less9n the
oft sh will be piled soon
re brush is not dense, it can
here it will decompose in
pe ce erosion potential).
rover ere there is an
Wd and used for mulch or as a
od, if a recipient can be
slope stabilization.
Spotted knopwe
Knapweed i ere ec7 s become a troublesome prairie invader. Of all the
typical p e weeds, s d kna eed is probably the most difficult to manage. It cannot
be con with burnin like sweet clover it actually increases with fire. Hand -pulling
individuals small group f individuals can be effective for small infestations, and is
often a good voWnteer gr6Up task. However, knapweed has a fairly large tap root and can
be difficult to pull. Polling is typically more difficult when soil is hard (dry), clayey, or
compacted, but easier when soil is wet (following a rain), sandy, and friable. If knapweed
populations are large, a bio -control (knapweed beetles --weevils) is recommended.
Knapweed beetles (weevils) are released during the summer. Weevils can be purchased
online and they are sent via the mail. Knapweed populations should be monitored each
year to keep a record of the effectiveness of the bio -control.
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
Friends of the Mississippi
W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
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,
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, exotics such as C a iistle are
clone -forming perennials that can greatly reduce species diversi fields and
restoration areas (Hoffman and Kearns 1997). A combination a and mechanical
control methods may be needed. Chemical control is most eff a wh plants are in
the rosette stage and least effective when the plants are .n . Where asses
and sedges are present, use of a broadleaf herbicide su as 2,4-D is recomm , since
2,4-D only affects dicots. 2,4-D is most effective wh pplied -14 days bef e the
flowering stems bolt. It is applied at a rate of 2-41 si ckpack or tractor -
mounted sprayer or in granular form. Dicamba could used, with the advantages
that it can be applied earlier in the spring at a rate of 11b Another chemical that has
been used for thistles is aminopyralid(" a"), which plied at bud stage.
Aminopyralid will affect other species an r residu ctivity than some other
chemicals, so use with caution—typically u it on es/clones of thistles and
avoid areas of higher diversity. Plants that esp ❑ treatment or that are more
widely dispersed could be contri&d mecha ly.
Mechanical control, invo g sevely cuttings pWe ar for three or four years, can reduce
an infestation if timed tly. T cut is when the plants are just beginning
to bud because their food ar lowest. If plants are cut after flowers have
opened, the cut plants shoul moved because the seed may be viable. Plants should be
cut at lZth .rough eason. Late spring burns can also discourage this
speciespri ns can courage it. Burning may be more effective in an
establi, whe mpetr 'on from other species is strong, rather than in an old
field, wetition i ely to be weaker.
Sweet clover
White and yellow set 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. Often times, 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
Friends of the Mississippi W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
.O
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 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 exotic, biennial forbs that are typically found ig disturbed areas
or restoration projects.
rnri;- mustard
Garlic mustard is an exotic biennial forb of woodlands and
invasive and aggressive. Following the introduction of ju
rapidly increase and a dramatic "explosion" of garlic
areas it can form monotypic stands that crowd out r sl
shown that in other locations it may simply occup
garlic mustard can be very invasive in woodlands, and
remove it as soon as it is detected (early detection and ra
also produces a flavonoid (root exudate) pressesr]
species that are myccorhizae dependent, '11 be(
competed by garlic mustard. The flavinoid rsis
plants are removed, which is a good reason wo
Probably the best way to
mustard is found, hand
(seed pods) form. On
from the site, since the pl
seeds, even thou h it is n
option, maki
the future ach pile.
are ve ific. When
since they e- sprout
roots are "S- d" and
is very
ions can
doyl=
&L while recent undies have
OW niches. Nevertheless,
ommended to monitor and
ponse). Garlic mustard
40 -al inoculation. Thus
e 'funted and easily out -
years after garlic mustard
s garlic mustard -free.
Mis musta 's to closely monitor your site, and if garlic
Ifo t spreads. 1d -pulling should occur before siliques
fo ve ants should be bagged and transported
av energy in the stem and root to make viable
in the ground. If bagging and transporting are not an
but prepare to deal with garlic mustard plants in
as plants produce hundreds of seeds per plant—they
;ar is mustard plants, take care to remove the entire root,
of the root is left in the ground. This can be difficult, since
to break off at ground level.
Chemical control i7w recommended except in cases where garlic mustard is growing in
large monoculturalfatches. 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.
Friends of the Mississippi W.H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
91
There are studies underway by the Minnesota DNR and University of Minnesota that show
good potential for bio -control of garlic mustard via an exotic 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 grov
Minnesota (April -May -June) and then going semi -dormant in J
reproduces by means of underground stems (stolons and rhiz4
most effective treatment is timed to occur at the same tim
to late May in southern Minnesota. Burning two years i o
followed by seeding has been shown to be effective i ntrollj'
that this timing may be a week or two earlier on s uth-f
or sand -gravel soils. Following this method will usual]
brome. Seeding following burns, preferably with native s
from a seller that provides local ecotypes portant for r
Evaluation can occur each year, and espe
perhaps try a cool -season overspray of a
(April) or in the fall (October). Using glyl
application is a last resort, since
Kentucky bluegrass and
smooth brome, they a�j
the most effective tool
Reed canary,
on in southern
ber. It
s) ca ' 'llers". The
.'brome i ering"—mid
ite-season n June)
smooth in
. Consider
i g slopes or in very sandy
ent to control smooth
acted on-site, or purchased
ecover at the site.
sisnot working,
either in the spring
overspray herbicide
d similarly to smooth brome, since like
cool -season grasses. Spring burns are
This spe ' is extreme cult to eradicate and requires repeated treatment over a
period o three yea A combination of burning, chemical treatment and mowing
can be use-cessible as, or chemical treatment alone in inaccessible areas. The
combination d star by burning in late spring to remove dead vegetation and to
stimulate new gr hen new sprouts have reached a height of 4 to 6 inches, the site
can be sprayed with '%solution of a glyphosate herbicide appropriate for wetland
habitat (e.g. Rodeo)The site is then mowed in late summer, followed by chemical
application after re -growth. This treatment will stimulate new growth and germination to
deplete the seed bank. The sequence of chemical treatment and mowing are repeated for at
least a second season, and possibly a third until the grass is completely eradicated. Then
native grass and forb seed can be broadcast or drilled.
If reed canary grass is eradicated from an area, future management of the grassland,
namely burning, will likely keep the reed canary in check. Monitoring and mapping new
Friends of the Mississippi
92
W H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
individuals or clumps should continue, however, 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.
Friends of the Mississippi W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
93
APPENDIX D. Ecological Contractors
Following is a list of contractors to consider for implementing the management plans.
While this is not an exhaustive list, it does include firms with ecologists who are very
knowledgeable with natural resource management. Unless otherwise noted, all firms do
prescribed burning. Many other brush removal companies are listed in the yellow pages
(under tree care), but most do not have knowledge or understanding of native plant
communities. We recommend hiring firms that can provide ecological expertise. Additional
firm listings can be found on the DNR website:
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/gardens/nativeplants/index.html
Friends of the Mississippi River (FMR) has extensive experience with landowners
to implement natural resource management plans. FMR can a t lan ers with
obtaining funding for restoration and management projec n ovidi ect
management, including contractor negotiations, coordin storation a gement
work, and site monitoring and evaluation.
Applied Ecological Services, Inc.
21938 Mushtown Rd
Prior Lake, MN 55372
952-447-1919
www.appliedeco.com
Conservation Corps Minnesota
2715 Upper Afton Road, Suit
Maplewood, MN 55119
(651) 209-9900
Great River Greening
35 West Water St."
St. Paul, MN
651-665-9W
Minnesota Na —vo
Foley, MN 56327
(320) 968-4222
www.mnnativelan6capes.com
Prairie Restorations, Inc.
PO Box 305
Cannon Falls, MN 55009
507-663-1091
www.prairieresto.com
Friends of the Mississippi
14088 Highway 95 N.E.
W. H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
Stantec
2335 West Highway 36
St. Paul, MN 55113
651-604-4812
www.stantec.com
Wetland Habitats Restoration, LLC.
1397 Chelmsford St.
St. Pal
Cell: f
Fax: 6
www..
wetlar
Friends of the Mississippi W H. Houlton Conservation Area NRMP
95
ad°ls ja
uaf�.�aa1Q
0 35 Feet
1
tv
River
awing is neither a legally recorded map nor a
,,/and is not intended to be used as one. This
drawing is a compilation of records, information, and data
located in various city, county, and state offices, and other
sources affecting the area shown, and is to be used for
reference purposes only. The City of Elk River is not
sp
reonsible for any inaccuracies herein contained.
® BoRon & Menk, Inc - Web GIS 1/26/201610:55 AM
r
1AArv.;
)Mll�jljt !"I'M
rot
Moof
, . •mm
Riililtl
pow"
, . •mm
e-,\ William H. Houlton Conservation Area Regulations, including Hunting
This conservation area was acquired with furWing provided by the Minnesota Outdoor Heritage
Legacy Fund and is open to the public for hunting and fishing during the regular open seasons,
as designated by the State of Minnesota and in accordance with the current state Hunting and
Trapping Regulations and Elk River City Ordinances.
Principle hunting regulations for use of this area are listed below. Furtherjnformation is
--
available by calling the Elk River Park and Recreation Departm nt at (763) 635-1150.\
• Archery hunting only, except for legal shotgun for hunting waterfowl in season, in
"Firearms Waterfowl Hunting Area". See map for location.
• This conservation area is surrounded by private residential property and public
_waterw_ays there rer-i�'Caution when discharging all firearms -an -d bows.
r ---Under no circumstance shalhprojectiles fall outside of the designated conservation area,
boundary. F& bw�
__ • When the designate parkin lot is full (approximately 12 vehicles), the huntingcapacity
of the Conservation Area is full and no further access is allowed. The parking lot
capacity determines the number of hunters that are allowed to hunt.
• No dogs allowed, except for retrievers used by waterfowl hunters in season for the express
purpose of retrieving downed game. All retrievers must be on a leash when traveling to and
from the "Firearms Waterfowl Hunting Area".
• No horses, ATVs, snowmobiles and other unauthorized motorized vehicles are allowed.
• No camping or unpermitted fires.
• No target or indiscriminant shooting.
• No pistols, rifles or muzzle loaders allowed.
• Tre� 'St nd, boats, decoys, and other equipment must be removed daily.
juro
r\ Nq
r'rt i !4 r9 ' f3c rwrrtt4piie W"Ite 'urvo `r �nr 1T1T1ueri'M V--
r�tl`�rzr
. ViolaTirin ofmost srtowrnObIIt ,wue -� orad rules are misdemeanor.$ and a carry a fine of up to $1,OW and
irtlfrrlr rtn°ient fair up to,90 days.
• Ahoka County ottiiilat'OP" 601 enforrM,
*I.
rill iN 'Y
Pot rrinro iri(Ofmatlon.
Anoka County Nok% And Rvcic�4tlon Department (76:3) 757.3920
Visit u. onlin at www.anok icouniyptirksxor
CEDAR CREEK tONSEI
HUNTING REGULATIO
This cot)aervatlon Area was acquired with funding provided by the Minnesota Outdoor Heritage Legacy
Fund and is open to the public for hunting and fishing during the regular ripen seasons, as designated by
the state of Minnesota and in accordance with current state Hunting and Trapping Regulations and Anoka
tnty ordinances,
Principle regulations for your use of this area are listed below Further information is available by calling the
AnokaCountymarks and Recreation Department at (763) 757-3920.
This rConservation Area is surrounded by private residential property, therefore, exerclse.extreme
caution when discharging all firearms and bows. Under no circumstances shall projectiles fall outside
of the designated conservation area boundary.
• Discharging of all firearms and bows is prohibited within 500 feet of a building.
• Conservation Area is open. from G;Og am until 30 minutes after sunset.
• When designated parking lot is full (approximately 15 vehicles), the hunting capacity of the
Conservation Area is full and no further access is allowed. The parking lot capacity determines the
number of hunters that are allowed to hunt.
• Camping is not permitted.
• Horses, ATVs, and other motorized vehicles are not allowed, except snowmobiles during designated
times.
•
Target or promiscuous shooting is not permitted.
-Trot-, stands, boats, decoys, and other equipment, except traps, must be removed daily.
AN WA
COUNTY
Orr+ tP5l�rrrru�tlitti�
Ar«k t rsitltty Wrk�, unci i1�+r+�rttirrrF K'rrl;+rttzncnt iu,il /7nG
Vitt rr� r,nii �,i u,r<Not.�rl�iti�.rurrt�+�►�►r��a,L{�rs1
William H. Houlton Conservation Area
Volunteering information
For information on Volunteering, contact (763) 635-1150
Or go to http://www.elkrivermn.gov1
and type volunteering into the search feature
William H. Houlton Conservation Area Hours
5am to one hour after Sunset
Open to the public year round
William H. Houlton Conservation Area Rules
1. No dogs allowed, except for retrievers used by waterfowl hunters in season for the express
purpose of retrieving downed game. All retrievers must be on a leash when traveling to and
from the "Firearms Waterfowl Hunting Area".
2. No horses, ATVs, snowmobiles and other unauthorized motorized vehicles are allowed.
3. No camping or unpermitted fires.
4. No target or indiscriminant shooting.
5. No pistols, rifles or muzzle loaders allowed.
6. Archery hunting only except for legal shotgun for hunting waterfowl in season, in "Firearms
Waterfowl Hunting Area".
William H. Houlton Conservation Area
Ordinances Enforced
Funding provided by
Lessard Sams Outdoor Heritage Council
ANOKA;-��UNTY
CONSERVATIO
I
AREA
ORDINANCES
ENFORCED
FUNDING PROVIDED BY
r•-.
D SAMS OUTDOOR HERITAGE COUNCIL
' iPJ •f
' i C
'r
OKA- ,: 4
.� UNTO
t
r
.. - - - '
LA L16:1
F _ ..tilt.. • t:�' .�- c r , �,.-. t
Summary of the William H. Houlton Conservation Area sign subcommittee discussion from 1/28/16
Entrance sign —William H. Houlton Conservation Area
Informational signage or, kiosk
1. Map
2. TPL sign
3. Legacy sign
4. FMR sign/
5. Hunting regulations (see attached)?
6. Special MNDNR Fishing regulations (smallmouth bass) .� s
7. Volunteer contact info (see attached) b&yn
8. Hours of operation (see attached)
9. Conservation area rules (see attached)
Firearms Waterfowl Hunting Area boundary signs—every 150' along hunting boundary
Two sided signs
Side 1 - No firearm discharge beyond this point
Side 2 —Waterfowl firearms hunting boundary
Need two additional signs, one at each end of the waterfowl hunting area at the river's edge
Side 1— Entering Firearms Waterfowl Hunting Area
Side 2 - No firearm discharge beyond this point
Conservation Area boundary signs — 250 feet along Elk Rivers (not needed along the Mississippi River),
150 along waterway around the island, along private property, and at each lot corner along private
property
Two sided sign for private property boundary and along waterway around the island
Side 1— William H Houlton Conservation Area (attached)
Side 2—Private Property Beyond This Point
Two sided sign along the Elk River
Side 1—William H Houlton Conservation Area (attached)
Side 2B — Conservation Area Boundary at Waters Edge
? Canoe/kayak launch area? YTBD
Sensitive shoreline area —vTBD
e
Future signage
1. Environmental information
2. Historical
3. Farming
Attendance
A member shall be expected to maintain a suitable attendance record. Attendance is vital to board
service and City Council expectations. Because attendance is important, the City Council has
adopted the following attendance policy:
Members shall be automatically removed for lack of attendance. Lack of attendance is defined as a
failure to attend three (3) meetings or at least two-thirds of the meetings (including regular and
special meetings) scheduled during a rolling 12 -month period. Participation for less than three-
fourths of a meeting shall be the same as a failure to attend a meeting. Members removed pursuant
to this paragraph shall not continue to serve on the board and such removal shall create a vacancy. A
member may appeal the termination by requesting a hearing before the City Council within 10 days
of notice of termination.
A standard commission attendance form shall be used by all commissions for the staff liaison to
record attendance. The Office of the City Clerk shall forward the attendance record to the City
Council at the end of each June and December for the Council review. Commission members shall
notify the staff liaison of planned absences 72 hours prior to the meeting missed.
THE
TRU
FOR You're
PUBLIC
LAND
Celebrate Minnesota's Leaders
The Trust for Public Land invites you to celebrate
exceptional Minnesota conservation and park leaders
at our annual Conservation Leadership Breakfast.
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
7:30 — 9:00 a.m.
Science Museum of Minnesota, Argon Room
120 W Kellogg Blvd.
St Paul, MN 55102
Awards will be followed by brief remarks on how to
make our green spaces more "water smart."
Reservations required. A complimentary breakfast will be provided.
Please RSVP by Friday, February 5 to Liane Olson
at 651.999.5313 or liane.olson@tpl.org