Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-19-26 PTRC Chair: SJ Julius (2027) Committee Members: Dan Dietz (2026) Elizabeth Johnson (2026) Derek Hilding (2027) Nikhath Nazir Ahmed (2027) Lacy Loosbrock (2028) Clara Bitzer (2028) Youth Committee Member: Ted Chresand (2026) Council Liaison: Emily Rousseau Staff Liaison: Jess Skalicky Arden Hills Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee May 19, 2026 6:30 pm City Hall 1245 W. Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112 651-792-7800 www.cityofardenhills.org City Vision Arden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well-maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long-standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play. Some Committee Members may be participating in this meeting by interactive technology/remotely. Agenda CALL TO ORDER 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. April 21, 2026 3. REPORTS A. Council Liaison Report B. Parks and Recreation Report C. Trails and Parks Projects Report 4. NEW BUSINESS A. Great River Greening Updates B. 2027 Work Plan C. 2026 – 2031 CIP 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 6. REPORTS FROM SUBCOMMITTEES 7. NEXT MEETING A. Tuesday, June 16, 2026 – Parks Tour 8. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF ARDEN HILLS PARKS, TRAILS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 2026, 6:30 PM ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL MEETING TO ORDER Committee Chair SJ Julius called the April 21, 2026, meeting of the Parks, Trails, and Recreation Committee to order at 6:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: SJ Julius, Liz Johnson, Derek Hilding, Dan Dietz, Ted Chresand, Lacy Loosbrock, Kate Olson and Nikhath Nazir Ahmed OTHERS PRESENT: Parks and Recreation Manager Jess Skalicky and Acting Council Liaison Kurt Weber, Arden Hills Resident Clara Bitzer. ABSENT:. None. 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Julius approved the agenda, as presented. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. March 24, 2026 PTRC Minutes Chair Julius approved the meeting minutes, as written. Chair Julius asked new member Clara Bitzer to introduce herself. Chair Julius noted that Committee Member Bitzer will be sworn in at the next meeting, so she is attending as a resident for this meeting. Resident Clara Bitzer is a sophomore at Mounds View High School. She has been an Arden Hills resident her whole life. She loves to use the trails. 3. REPORT A. Council Liaison Update Council Liaison Weber said the Park Master Plan was approved at the last Council Meeting. It was unanimous, across the bench, how much Council appreciates the PTRC members who participated in putting the plan together. He believes this is an obligation for a city rather than a guiding document. Chair Julius appreciates Parks and Recreation Manager Skalicky for her work on the plan. Parks, Trails & Recreation Committee – April 21, 2026 Page 2 B. Parks and Recreation Report Parks and Recreation Manager Skalicky said the group discussed membership size. The City Council would like to have a work session discussion about it. That will be brought to the Council on May 11 or May 24. She said in January she brought a list of peer cities and their membership. They are about half the size that we are. It is difficult to have good conversations when there are 12-13 people. Not everyone gets a chance to talk. Parks and Recreation Manager Skalicky said the Park System Plan was approved. She noted the work plan outlined that we would discuss the CIP today, however Staff requested that we have that discussion at the May meeting. The information will be more organized and be easier to digest and discuss. Parks and Recreation Manager Skalicky said the Touch A Truck event will be held on May 16. She noted that Shoreview scheduled an event for the same day so we will not have the Ramsey County Sheriff’s boat there this year. Parks and Recreation Manager Skalicky said the 75th Anniversary planning is taking a lot of her time. We have received about $20,000 from sponsorships. We expect to get another $10,000. The events and activities will be fun and there is something for all ages. Planning for the car show, band and children’s activities are coming together. Parks and Recreation Manager Skalicky said the proposals for the park improvements at Ingerson, Sampson and Perry Park will be submitted to her by Monday, May 4. Parks and Recreation Manager Skalicky said the Adopt A Park program will be discussed at a Council Work Session on April 27. She is hoping the discussion later in this meeting will provide some specific language to bring to Council. Committee Member Hilding asked if the park improvements for Ingerson, Sampson and Perry will have an RFP. Parks and Recreation Manager Skalicky confirmed. We will get a consultant on board to do the planning and administrative work for the bituminous/concrete work, the trail repairs and the grading work. They will organize all of those projects and help us find the right contractors for those jobs. They’ll help us create the bidding documents. She has requested they create a process for the RFP for the playgrounds. We will send the RFP to about 12 playground vendors. They’ll know they are in competition. We will give the bidders a dollar amount and they will provide a quote. We will select the contractor who provides the best playground for the best value. Council Liaison Weber said his experience in government work has always been the low bidder gets selected. Does this process conflict with that? Parks and Recreation Manager Skalicky said it is just a different process. Legally it can be done this way and it is the standard in other cities. Committee Member Ahmed asked how that works. Each contractor will include varying equipment. Is there a bare minimum that we request? Parks, Trails & Recreation Committee – April 21, 2026 Page 3 Parks and Recreation Manager Skalicky said the best value process works by providing a very specific list of things we know we want to be a part of the playground. We also say we want a 3- D rendering, a top-down view and a map how it meets all of the standards. Those 3-D renderings can be used in the engagement process with the public, with this group and with Public Works maintenance staff. C. Trails and Parks Projects Update Parks and Recreation Manager Skalicky said Assistant Public Works Director Miller created the update. Any items on the list in bold are new since the last meeting. She said Public Works attended a pre-construction meeting with MnDOT for the MN51 trail improvements. They anticipate the project to start over the next few weeks but the actual trail construction won’t start until summer. That project is mostly in Roseville, however there is a little stretch through Arden Hills. Committee Member Olson asked if there is any information on the construction. The area is in a ditch. Parks and Recreation Manager Skalicky will get more information for the next meeting. She said the next item is the Arden Manor Park hard court construction. The bid was awarded on April 13. There is no preconstruction meeting scheduled yet. It should be this summer and she will let the committee members know when it is scheduled. Parks and Recreation Manager Skalicky said Freeway and Arden Oaks were done last summer. There were a few items remaining to be completed. The Arden Oaks walking path bid was awarded on April 13, as well. Council Liaison Weber noted that Freeway Park was supposed to have a fence installed along the on-ramp. He assumes that will be completed with the MN51 project. Parks and Recreation Manager Skalicky will get confirmation on that. 4. NEW BUSINESS A. Mounds View High School Cross Country & Ski Trails Committee Member Chresand said there is a unique opportunity for a future trail. Students and residents could use the trail. This site was originally farmland. There are a lot more trees around the lake now. There’s also a freeway running next to it. He recently walked the path and there is 10-100 feet of clearance on all sides. He outlined unused open space on a graphic that is owned by Ramsey County. He showed possible connections to other trails. Committee Member Chresand said this project would require grading of some hilly areas and maintenance to include wood chips. Committee Member Ahmed asked if the request if for the City to pay for this. Committee Member Chresand confirmed. It would be relatively low maintenance. It would only require wood chips once the trails are established. Parks, Trails & Recreation Committee – April 21, 2026 Page 4 Resident Bitzer asked if the ski trails would be groomed by the City and Mounds View High School. Committee Member Chresand said it would be mostly Mounds View because they own a groomer. They are asking for the City to approve Mounds View’s use of the area around the lake and use of the trails. He said there is dense buckthorn growth that would need to be removed. He thinks the high school could do that work. He said Irondale has similar trails on county property. Committee Member Loosbrock asked if Irondale grooms those trails. Committee Member Chresand said he knows Irondale has their own grooming equipment. He isn’t sure if there is any county involvement with the grooming. Committee Member Olson asked if the vacant land he is talking about belongs to the City or is it all county land? Committee Member Chresand said he recently found out it’s taxed as Ramsey County property. He is hoping someone can contact the County to see if there are any options. Council Liaison Weber said it’s all owned by Ramsey County Parks and Recreation. That may be a positive. Committee Member Deitz asked who would have access. Committee Member Chresand said the trails for Irondale are open to the community. Their trails are established and the end goal would be to have these trails be public, as well. Committee Member Deitz noted the graphic shows some zig-zagging. He asked if there is a standard radius for turns. Committee Member Chresand said the proposed maps are to show the concept. Discussion ensued that this is County land. Ramsey County has a large Parks and Recreation staff and a Parks Commission. Further discussion ensued that Ramsey County may have proposed projects for that land. Committee Member Ahmed thought a trail this long will require more than just a few high school students to maintain it. She said some engineering firms will consult on design projects like this, on a voluntary basis. They may be able to help with design and help identify what grade changes are required. She will bring a list of firms to the next meeting. Parks and Recreation Manager Skalicky said she can connect with Ramsey County Parks and Recreation, as well. Council Liaison Weber said we could draft a letter of recommendation from the PTRC, from the City, from the schools and the school board. Those would go a long way in influencing Ramsey County to build it on their own. Parks, Trails & Recreation Committee – April 21, 2026 Page 5 Chair Julius said she likes the idea of a letter of recommendation. Parks and Recreation Manager Skalicky said she will touch base after the meeting to create a list of next steps. B. Adopt a Spot / Encroachment Statement Parks and Recreation Manager Skalicky said she took the feedback from January’s meeting into consideration when creating the information she will present to City Council. She said PTRC is being asked to create a statement that makes it clear that the purpose of adopting is to benefit the entire city. She shared an image where a resident adopted a spot between their house and public land. They planted a row of trees which essentially extended their property and created a barrier between the two spaces. People won’t go past those trees to enjoy city spaces. It appears that is someone’s personal property. Parks and Recreation Manager Skalicky provided a draft and asked committee members to revise, as they see fit. It will be included in the adopt-a-park information. Committee Member Hilding said the draft is vague. He understands that allows for some flexibility. His recommendation is city authorization be required before anything is installed or planted. Parks and Recreation Manager Skalicky said this statement won’t be the only thing in the program materials. Council just wanted to make sure that people don’t try to use this for their personal benefit. She said this provides something that Staff can point to, if a proposed adoption application comes in that appears to benefit just one or two residents. Council Liaison Weber said this is city property. The City has ultimate control over it. Our Public Works Maintenance workers need to be able to maintain city property. He thinks the way this is written, it implies that whoever is running the program will be the ultimate decision maker on what is approved. Parks and Recreation Manager Skalicky agreed. She said she knows of one instance where a homeowner has requested permission to do something similar to the example. They wanted to know what the process was. The answer is there isn’t a process and they are not allowed to do that type of project. The response was that their neighbors on both sides have done it. The neighbors claim they received permission from the last Public Works Director, however there is no documentation showing that. Committee Member Hilding said the bigger picture is determining who decides what happens on City property. He said there are kids creating mountain bike trails at Hazelnut Park. He supports the idea, but someone from the City should be formally evaluating that to see if that is what the City wants in that space. Parks and Recreation Manager Skalicky said the enforcement will be the ordinance. If someone applies to adopt a park or spot, the Staff responsible for the Adopt a Park program will make those determinations. Her hope is that if we include this statement, people will see they can’t do things that equate to encroachment. If they were to propose something, we can say no. She thinks mountain biking trails fall under this program. Parks, Trails & Recreation Committee – April 21, 2026 Page 6 Parks and Recreation Manager Skalicky said the Rotary adopted Foral Park. There hasn’t been a systemized program until now. People have done thousands of hours of work. There just hasn’t been a way to formalize it before. She said the Rotary knew ahead of time what they wanted to do. They have done huge incredible work. She doesn’t want other adopters to be held to the high standard that the Rotary has created. Committee Member Deitz said the Rotary did submit a formal plan to the City. Parks and Recreation Manager Skalicky said systemizing this program will help ensure that whatever standards we outline are met. Council Liaison Weber said there could be a veto system. An applicant submits their plan to the City. It makes its rounds to the Park Manager, the Public Works Director and Public Works Superintendent. Those staff members can explain if something doesn’t work and give their reasons. Parks and Recreation Manager Skalicky said 90% of other Adopt a Park programs ask participants to commit to one hour, a few times a year, at a certain park, to pick up trash. She doesn’t think we will see very many groups doing work on the same scale as the Rotary. She assumes it will be more like those other communities. Chair Julius confirmed that PTRC is being asked to support the statement language provided so the item can go to City Council next week. Committee Member Olson said there is a trail with a spot that is just big lilac bushes. They are beautiful and they are great to bike past them. She thinks they were planted to make things look pretty but they also shield their driveway. She would rather have that then letting invasive species grow that gets mowed once a year. As a trail user, she prefers a cozy, manicured look. The homeowners beautified a city space and their space. Maybe that gives them a little bit of a bonus but she’d rather have a beautiful space. Parks and Recreation Manager Skalicky said the instances she is thinking about are more egregious than what is shown. Committee Member Deitz said he can think of several instances along the trails he uses. An improvement on park land, is still an improvement. Committee Member Ahmed asked if we can sit with the adopters to hear their plan and pick a few of their improvements to incorporate. That will keep the process controlled. Council Liaison Weber said there is a two foot clear zone from the trail. The city has the ability to trim lilac bushes. However, if someone were to plant lilacs all the way along the trail, that is a huge ask of the City. He appreciates the beautification of the trails, but we are relying on the homeowners to maintain that. What if they move or decide to quit trimming them? Discussion ensued regarding what is outlined in the materials other than trash pickup. The overview says parks/trails, gardens, landscaping areas and natural areas may be adopted. Plantings will have to be approved. They will be required to bring forward a plan for approval. The materials also outline Premier Partners that are high-touch, long term and intensive service projects, similar Parks, Trails & Recreation Committee – April 21, 2026 Page 7 to what Rotary is doing. Rain gardens, streets, storm drains and fire hydrants will eventually be a part of the program. Chair Julius said beyond this program, any resident could encroach. Council Liaison Weber agreed. He said this was driven by concerns about encroachment, in general, rather than the implications of Adopt a Spot. Committee Member Dietz said he has seen where a resident cut down some very large trees in the park in order to obtain a view. So it goes both ways and it’s very subjective. Discussion ensued regarding what happens if a tree is diseased. In that case, Public Works will prioritize which trees are removed. That would never be the responsibility of a resident or an Adopt a Park participant. Parks and Recreation Manager Skalicky said the language we are discussing will become a part of the “Public Use and Coordination” section. This is a PDF but eventually this information will have its own page on the City website. Chair Julius asked if any committee members had any proposed edits to the language provided. Committee Member Hilding said he proposes keeping the first sentence as is. Then it could say “Volunteers may not install landscaping, planting, structures or other improvements without written approval from the City of Arden Hills.” Then it can say “The City reserves the right to remove any unauthorized improvements.” The committee agreed to that language. MOTION: Committee Member Ahmed moved and Committee Member Deitz seconded a motion to approve the language with the proposed edits. The motion carried unanimously among members present. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 6. REPORTS FROM SUBCOMMITTEES None. 7. NEXT MEETING A. Tuesday, May 19, 2026 ADJOURNMENT Chair Julius adjourned at 7:38 pm. REPORTS – 3C Page 1 of 3 3C - MEMO MEMORANDUM DATE: May 19, 2026 TO: Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee FROM: Lucas J. Miller, Assistant Public Works Director SUBJECT: Trail and Parks Projects Update Previously Discussed Items: • County Rd D Trail connection o The City of Roseville is coordinating with Ramsey County to construct a new trail segment along the south side of County Rd D from Cleveland Ave to Lake Johanna Blvd with anticipated construction in 2027. • County Rd E Trail connection o City staff is coordinating with Ramsey County to construct a new trail segment along the south side of County Rd E from the Elmer Anderson Trail to Lake Johanna. This project is postponed and no longer going to be completed in 2026 per Ramsey County. It is being proposed to be combined with the LJB Trail in 2028. • Proposed Lake Johanna Blvd Trail o Lake Johanna Blvd Trail Preliminary Design Report was completed by Ramsey County in October 2022. o City Council adopted resolution 2023-023 which is the local match commitment of $2 million for the project (Total project cost estimated $9.5 million). o Ramsey County presented in November 2023 about the project corridor with City Council. o Ramsey County applied for the Met Council Regional Solicitation “Multiuse Trails and Bicycle Facilities” grant for $5,500,000 in 2023/2024. The project did not score well in its category but funding is still being pursued. o Within Ramsey County’s Transportation Improvement Plan they have scheduled the following timeline:  Ramsey County presented information to Council in September 2025 which stated they are budgeting for the project to be completed in three different sections of the trail along Lake Johanna Blvd. over three separate years.  RFP for Planning/Design contract: 2026  Planning/Design Phase: staggered 2026, 2027 and 2028  Construction: 2029 for the west segment, 2030 for the east segment and 2031 for the middle segment. Page 2 of 3 • Old Highway 10 Trail, City staff is working with a consultant to pursue grants and state bonding funds. Estimated project cost is now projected to be $4.5 million. o Met Council Regional Solicitation – SRTS: $1,000,000 (City was awarded this grant) o MnDOT – SRTS: $1,000,000 (City was awarded this grant) o State GO Bond funds: $1,650,000 (pursuing but stuck at the state level) o Ramsey County contribution: $1,227,500 o Remainder to be paid through Municipal State Aid and PIR Funds Council has directed Staff to have the Consultant finish the design documents over this summer and then bidding the project next winter for construction in 2027 (pushed back from 2026 to 2027 due to potential cost share policies being updated for trail project that would benefit the City). • MN-51 Trail Improvements o City staff is coordinating with MnDOT to construct a new trail segment along the west side MN-51 (Snelling Ave.) from Lydia Ave in Roseville to connect to the existing trail on Old Snelling Ave with anticipated construction in 2026. o There was an in-person open house that hopefully most of PTRC Members attended: Thu, Oct. 23, 2025 at Centennial United Methodist Church o PW Staff attended a preconstruction meeting in April 2026 with MNDOT. The project on HWY 51 is underway. The Trail construction won’t likely be until later in the summer. • Council has negotiated with a private developer as part of the PUD for the site for a trail to be added along the west side of Snelling Ave from Highway 96 all the way down to Royal Hills Park. This work is likely to take place in 2026 if everything falls into place. This trail will be owned and maintained by the City once completed. Currently, the Developer is going through the Permitting Phase, and after that is completed, the City will start the Design phase for the trail with a consulting firm. • Staff will be working with a consultant to implement Hardcourt Improvements within Hazelnut Park. • Hazelnut Parking Lot Status Update: Cost-share and maintenance responsibility negotiations continue with the Church representatives. The City has the parking lot resurfacing project budgeted for construction in 2026. Actual timing is dependent on Agreement renewal. New/Updated Items: • Hamline Avenue Trail connection with Roseville – Lake Josephine o Arden Hills staff is coordinating trail improvements with the City of Roseville for a trail connection along the west side of Lake Josephine with anticipated construction in 2026.  An open house event took place on May 1, 2025 & February 10, 2026, at Autumn Grove Park hosted by the City of Roseville. It was well attended and provided great feedback from the community.  This project was bid in April 2026. A preconstruction meeting is being held by the City of Roseville that Staff will attend in May 2026 where a schedule will be discussed. However, it is likely that the Arden Hills portion of this project will not take place until 2027. Page 3 of 3 • The 2027 Parks Project (Ingerson, Perry and Sampson): o This may include a potential trail connection at the cul-de-sac of Fernwood Ct to the bottom of hill at Ingerson Park, if budget allows o Preliminary site conditions have been assessed and brought to PTRC at the last monthly meeting in November. o The items were compiled by Staff in preparation for the March Work Session. o These items were presented to Council at the Work Session on 3/9/26. Council agreed with the budgeted scope and Staff is moving forward with selecting a designer and performing an RFP for a playground vendor. Staff will be bringing the Design Consultant’s Proposal to Council for approval soon. • Arden Manor Park Hardcourt Construction – o Council has directed staff to include this work as an Alternate in the bid with the 2026 PMP. This was approved to be constructed with that project. o Bids were awarded to the Contractor on 4/13 by Council for this work in AMP for the Hardcourt. o This work is taking place currently. The old court has been removed, the area is being graded, fence posts placed and concrete mow strip being poured. This work should be done by the end of June, weather permitting. • The 2025 Parks Project (Arden Oaks Park & Freeway Park), are substantially completed except: o Final restoration at both parks in green space will need final approval in the spring 2026 for warranty work and seed establishment. o The City has requested the contractor add some extra draintile to the scope at Freeway Park in some low spots to promote drainage. This work has been completed and will be assessed in the spring of 2026. o Council has directed staff to include the ADA access trail for Arden Oaks Park as an Alternate in the bid with the 2026 PMP. This was approved to be constructed with that project. o Bids were awarded to the Contractor on 4/13 by Council for this work in AOP for the walking path. o This work is taking place currently. The grading for the new path and porta potty is completed and the concrete pads and ped ramps will be installed soon. This work should be done by the end of June, weather permitting. NEW BUSINESS – 4A MEMORANDUM DATE: May 19, 2026 TO: Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee FROM: Jess Skalicky, Parks and Recreation Manager Becca Tucker, Program Manager - Great River Greening SUBJECT: Great River Greening Updates Requested Action Receive presentation and provide feedback on the ongoing Natural Resources work with Great River Greening. Background The City of Arden Hills has partnered with Great River Greening to evaluate and develop restoration and management recommendations for natural areas within Hazelnut Park, Floral Park, and Chatham Trails Park. These park areas contain a mix of woodland, prairie/open savanna, shoreline, and turf areas that provide ecological, recreational, and educational value to the community. Over time, urban development, invasive species pressure, and habitat fragmentation have significantly altered these natural systems and reduced native biodiversity. As part of this effort, Great River Greening conducted vegetation surveys, site assessments, and ecological analysis during 2024 and 2025 to evaluate existing conditions and identify long-term restoration opportunities. The resulting Natural Resources Management Brief outlines existing site conditions, restoration priorities, invasive species management strategies, and recommendations for long-term stewardship and native habitat enhancement. The report includes recommendations related to invasive woody and herbaceous species management, native vegetation establishment, shoreline stabilization, understory enhancement, and targeted turf-to-prairie conversion where appropriate. The recommendations are intended to serve as a framework for phased restoration and ongoing adaptive management rather than full restoration to pre-settlement ecological conditions. Many of the restoration efforts already underway have been supported through partnerships between the City, community volunteers, Arden Hills Greening, the Parks, Trails and Recreation NEW BUSINESS – 4A Committee, and Great River Greening. Portions of the work are currently being funded through the Outdoor Heritage Fund, as appropriated by the Minnesota State Legislature. At the meeting, representatives from Great River Greening will present an overview of the Natural Resources Management Brief, summarize existing site conditions and restoration goals, and discuss proposed management recommendations and implementation considerations for the three parks. Great River Greening will also provide an update on a proposed FY2028 / ML2027 Lessard- Sams Outdoor Heritage Council grant application related to restoration work at Chatham Trails Park. The proposed grant would support additional invasive species removal, native planting, habitat restoration, and long-term stewardship activities. If awarded, funding would be available from July 2027 through June 2032. Under the proposed partnership structure, Great River Greening would continue coordinating grant administration, contractor management, and reporting, with restoration decisions remaining subject to City review and approval. Attachments Attachment A: Great River Greening Natural Resources Projects - Executive Summary Attachment B: Natural Resources Management Brief Draft Great River Greening is a 501(c)(3) non-profit; tax ID 41-1940024. Great River Greening | 251 Starkey Street, Suite 2200 | Saint Paul, MN 55107 | Tel: 651.665.9500 | greatrivergreening.org May 13, 2026 – City of Arden Hills – Parks, Trails & Recreation Committee meeting, May 21st, 2026 RE: Update regarding Great River Greening’s progress on multiple natural resource management activities and plans in Arden Hills. Currently online Outdoor Heritage Fund projects (Metro Big Rivers grants) – • Hazelnut Park (through June 2027) and Floral Parks (through June 2029) - o Complete first full year of active management at both sites  Native Resource Preservation contract - updates and next steps • Winter 2025 - initial buckthorn forestry mowing and hand cutting • Spring – fall 2025 – hazard tree removal, growing season buckthorn mowing and hand mowing, biochar kiln use for woody material disposal (March 20, Floral only) • Spring – fall 2026 – continued buckthorn follow-up control (multiple visits) • Spring 2027 – final buckthorn follow-up control (Hazelnut only) o Volunteer / communications –  Hand seeding of native grasses and wildflower species • February 27th - o Hazelnut Park - 2 volunteers, 2 hrs, 42 lbs pure live seed over 5.5 acres o Floral Park - 4 volunteers, 52.5 lbs PLS spread over 8 acres  Neighbor communications – • Multiple email / in-person meetings with interested neighbors, great response to work, interested in engagement / learning • Requested an update for the city website on progress  Fall volunteer planting events (at least at Hazelnut, more to come) • 3-park Natural Resources Management Plan o Full draft complete (to city for review March 18th) o Spring final edits underway to take early season vegetation into account for recommendations o Previous PTRC comments taken into consideration, specifically the need for “ease of use” in proposed actions, timelines, and potential budgets o Final document will be completed this summer • Proposal for OHF funding - Metro Forests for Minnesota Wildlife and Communities - o Submission deadline May 22nd (goal submission by May 20th) o Review / hearings this summer, allocations this fall  Online June 2027 – July 2032 if awarded o 9 sites, 8 partners, 260 acres of forest restoration, ~$3mill total request  Chatham Trails Park – 20 acres floodplain forest, 3 acres grassland • Total OHF request - $234,700 - Includes contracting, supplies (plants, seeds, fencing etc) and GRG staff time / travel / expenses • Potential ask from Arden Hills - $20K (potentially partial in-kind) over the 5-year grant period 2 1 NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Hazelnut Park, Floral Park, and Chatham Park Great River Greening 2026 2 Natural Resource Management Plan: City of Arden Hills Hazelnut Park, Floral Park, and Chatham Park Prepared for: The City of Arden Hills, Minnesota Prepared by: Great River Greening, February 2026 Contributing Authors: Rebecca Tucker Ale x ander Bahr 3 About the Authors Rebecca Tucker, Twin Cities Metro Program Manager (M.S. Plant Ecology and Population Genetics, Purdue University) Rebecca has been with Great River Greening since fall of 2017, progressing from Ecologist to Program Manager in that time. She currently manages two staff and over 30 restoration projects throughout Minnesota, coordinating habitat enhancement contracts, pollinator monitoring projects, and frequent public engagement opportunities. Rebecca has a Master of Science in Botany from Purdue University and a Bachelor of Science in Biology from the University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point, during both of which she engaged the public with a variety of educational talks and worked on numerous farm and greenhouse research projects. rtucker@greatrivergreening.org Alexander Bahr, Twin Cities Metro Project Manager (B.S. Ecology, University of Minnesota) Alexander originally joined GRG in 2019 as a seasonal field technician. He worked for 2 seasons in that role as part of a 7-year period of conducting field work in natural land management before being hired as Project Manager in 2024. He now coordinates and implements contract and volunteer work throughout the west and south metro areas. abahr@greatrivergreening.org GREAT RIVER GREENING Great River Greening’s mission is to secure the legacy of Minnesota land and water through community- based restoration, stewardship, and partnership, striving to improve Minnesota’s natural resources, protect clean air and water, and increase community access to sustainable open space. Suggested Citation: Great River Greening, 2026. Natural Resource Management Plan : City of Arden Hills , Hazelnut Park, Floral Park, and Chatham Park. Front Cover Images taken by Becca Tucker: Footpath bridge at Floral Park, red baneberry (Actea rubra) at Hazelnut Park, a walking path trail marker at Floral Park, and labeled native plantings at Hazelnut Park. ©2026 by Great River Greening Great River Greening 251 Starkey St #2200 St Paul, MN 55107 4 Contents 1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 5 2. General Background and Current Site Conditions ................................................................................... 6 2.a. Summary of Park Locations ............................................................................................................. 6 2.b. Hazelnut Park Background .............................................................................................................. 7 2.c. Floral Park Background .................................................................................................................. 10 2.d. Chatham Park Background ............................................................................................................ 13 3. Natural Resources Management Recommendations ............................................................................. 15 3.a. Summary of Park Goals and General Management Recommendations ............................................ 16 3.b. Hazelnut Park Recommendations .................................................................................................. 18 3.c. Floral Park Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 23 3.d. Chatham Park Recommendations .................................................................................................. 30 4. Specifications for Restoration Activities ................................................................................................ 34 4.a. Forestry Mowing (Woody Tree / Shrub Initial Removal) ..................................................................... 34 4.b. Critical Period High Cutting (Woody Tree / Shrub Initial Removal) .................................................... 36 4.c. Woody Tree / Shrub Control and Maintenance ................................................................................ 37 4.d. Woody Herbicide Application ......................................................................................................... 38 4.e. Herbaceous Invasive Control ......................................................................................................... 39 4.f. Native Species Planting .................................................................................................................. 40 4.g. Native Species Seeding .................................................................................................................. 41 4.h. Prescribed Fire .............................................................................................................................. 42 4.i. Woody Debris Disposal Options ...................................................................................................... 44 4.j. Goat Browsing ................................................................................................................................ 45 Appendix A: Seeding Species Lists ............................................................................................................ 47 Appendix B: Tree and Shrub Planting Species List ...................................................................................... 53 Appendix C: Soil Surveys ............................................................................................................................ 54 Appendix D: Invasive Species and Noxious Plant Management Protocols .......................................................... 58 Appendix E: Plant Species Referenced in the Natural Resource Management Text ............................................. 63 Citations and References ......................................................................................................................... 64 .................................................................................................................................................................. 5 1. Executive Summary The City of Arden Hills is working to improve natural areas at Hazelnut Park, Floral Park, and Chatham Park. Native plant communities provide important ecological benefits, including habitat for pollinators and wildlife, carbon storage, water filtration, flood regulation, soil development, and improved water quality. However, urban development and increased land use have significantly reduced and degraded these habitats. Great River Greening conducted site assessments to evaluate existing plant communities and overall conditions. The project areas include about 12.5 acres of woodland, 1.2 acres of prairie or open savanna, 2.7 acres of turf lawn, and 0.36 acres of shoreline. Recommendations are based on existing vegetation, soils, and topography. This management brief outlines actions such as invasive species control, removal of debris and hazard trees, understory enhancement, shoreline stabilization , and turf-to-prairie conversion where appropriate. These actions represent the first phase of a long-term land management strategy. Because these sites exist within a heavily altered urban environment, full restoration to historic plant communities is not realistic. Instead, the goal is to improve ecological function, increase climate resiliency, enhance water quality, reduce erosion and runoff, and create healthy, attractive natural spaces for wildlife and park visitors. 6 2. General Background and Current Site Conditions 2.a. Summary of Park Locations General Location The City of Arden Hills is located in Ramsey County, about 12 miles north of downtown Saint Paul, Minnesota . Pre -settlement vegetation maps from the Minnesota Natural Resources Research Institute (NRRI), published through the Minnesota Natural Resource Atlas , identify the area primarily as Oak Openings and Barrens (Johnson 2022). Farming and urban development have significantly altered these habitats within the focus parks . However, some remnant green spaces and portions of historically undisturbed land remain. Many natural areas in the park system were donated or acquired because of their historic significance . Others remain undeveloped because their topography or geography limited development. As part of the Saint Paul–Minneapolis metropolitan area, Arden Hills is largely residential and commercial in character. The City’s park system includes 102 acres of parks and open space across 16 sites (Arden Hills 2026). These natural areas provide recreation opportunities while also serving as wildlife corridors and helping protect wetlands, woodlands, drainageways, and other natural resources. The three parks identified in this Natural Resources Management Brief reflect common conditions found in urban park systems. They also highlight the restoration and stewardship work needed to support healthy native habitats. 7 2.b. Hazelnut Park Background Overview of Historic and Current Site C onditions The earliest aerial imagery of the property, from 1937 in the Minnesota Historical Aerial Photographs Online (MHAPO) database, shows a mix of open land with scattered trees and cultivated agricultural fields (MHAPO 2015). By 1945, the area south of the park had largely transitioned to residential development, similar to what exists today. Since that time, the park’s overall boundaries have remained consistent. Today, about 7 acres of Hazelnut Park consist of turf lawn and athletic fields with spaced canopy trees. These areas are actively maintained by the City through mowing and are supplemented by hand-weeding from neighborhood volunteers. The remaining 6.9 acres consist of moderately shaded woodland. These areas are used primarily for passive recreation, including informal walking and mountain biking trails created and maintained by the public. The powerline corridor along the park’s western boundary functions as a community trail. If managed to support non-woody native species that are compatible with periodic mowing, this corridor could also help increase plant diversity within the park. Soils The park’s natural areas are primarily underlain by Zimmerman fine sand and loamy fine sand, with some sloped areas. These soils are well drained and highly permeable, which results in very little surface runoff after rainfall (Soil Survey Staff 2005; Anderson 2021; see Appendix C). Soil conditions strongly influence the types of plant communities the site can support. In this case, the sandy soils help explain the relatively low diversity of understory species, which are adapted to dry, low- moisture environments. Because these soils hold limited organic matter and water-soluble nutrients, forest regeneration can be difficult. The presence of non-native earthworms—and the potential for invasive jumping worms—further reduces the leaf litter and organic layers that hardwood forests rely on. Figure 2.b.1 Hazelnut Park Work Areas. Map showing the main woodland areas and the full extent of park using city parcel data. 8 Together, these factors suggest the site may be better suited to a savanna-like habitat rather than a low- diversity woodland. Vegetation Plant surveys were conducted in fall 2024 before restoration work began. Surveys were repeated in 2025 after buckthorn -targeted mowing and follow-up treatments removed much of the invasive shrub layer. By 2025, overall site quality had improved. Invasive shrubs were reduced, though Percent Native Vegetation (%PNV) remains relatively low. The woodland canopy is dominated by black walnut, northern red oak, and boxelder. Patches of invasive species including common buckthorn, honeysuckle, and white mulberry remain in the shrub layer. Other native trees and shrubs present include poplar, maple, ash, raspberry, and Missouri gooseberry. See Appendix E for a list of species . Native herbaceous diversity increased in 2025. White snakeroot and spotted touch-me-not are common along trails. The interior woodland is largely dominated by Virginia creeper and Pennsylvania sedge, with a mix of spring wildflowers and other woodland species present. Non -native herbaceous plants—including burdock, smooth brome, Dame’s rocket, motherwort, and garlic mustard —remain at moderate levels. Continued management will be necessary to prevent invasive species from regaining dominance. Resource Threats and Habitat Goals Buckthorn and honeysuckle have dominated the understory and mid-canopy, limiting the diversity of native shrubs and ground-layer plants. In brighter edge areas, opportunistic native species such as spotted touch- me-not and raspberries have expanded. Without continued management, both invasive shrubs and aggressive native species are likely to reclaim space after the initial grant-funded work is complete. Ash (Fraxinus) and oak (Quercus) populations may also decline due to emerald ash borer and oak wilt. As these trees decline, new canopy openings may form. These openings could either allow invasive species to return or provide opportunities for intentional native planting and seeding. Under the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS), Hazelnut Park’s north woodland is classified as upland deciduous forest. The south woodland area was not mapped in 2004. Based on dominant species, the site most closely aligns with Native Plant Community type FDs37: Southern Dry-Mesic Oak (Maple) Woodland. As invasive shrubs are removed, restoration efforts should move toward a more diverse woodland structure similar to MHs 38. This community type typically includes oak and maple in the canopy, native shrubs such as dogwood and Prunus, and a ground layer of sedges and woodland forbs (MNDNR 2003, 2005). Again due to the sandy soils, the plant community may be more open than a true MHs38 woodland. In areas of the park’s borders that are open air, they could either be planted into a similar woodland ecosystem, or maintained as prairie similar to Southern Mesic Prairie habitat (UPs23). 9 Restoration Objectives Overview Future restoration at Hazelnut Park should focus on controlling emerging buckthorn seedlings and invasive herbaceous species. Efforts should also work to increase native woodland diversity, including both woody plants and herbaceous species. In the short term, buckthorn is expected to decline because of the recent intensive removal work and its relatively short -lived seed bank (Schuster et al. 2023). Over the long term, management will likely require periodic shrub thinning. This could include mechanical removal or goat browsing to help support native understory establishment. Prescribed fire is not recommended. The understory may be too sparse to carry fire, and certain native species—particularly white snakeroot —could become overly dominant after burns. Planting clonal shrubs such as dogwoods, along with appropriate native forbs and grasses, will help resist reinvasion and improve wildlife habitat. Native tree regeneration should also be monitored and supplemented as needed. Volunteers can assist with invasive species control and native plantings. Detailed tasks, timelines, and species lists are provided in Section 3 and Appendices A and B. 10 2.c . Floral Park Background Overview of Historic and Current Site conditions By the 1940s, Floral Park was bordered by county roads and used largely for agriculture. Most of the site - except what are now Units 3 and 4 (Figure 2.3) - was cropland with scattered trees. This pattern continued through the 1950s and 1980s, though forest cover gradually reestablished in Units 1 & 2 and increased in density in Units 3 & 4. Today, Floral Park is a 20 -acre mixed -use urban park with turf areas, native trees, repaved trails, sports facilities, a playground, and substantial undeveloped woodlands and wetlands. A powerline corridor runs east– west, dividing the park into north and south woodland areas. Community members have created informal walking trails through the 13 acres of woodland and established a native pollinator planting for habitat and education. The woodlands support diverse native species, including mature oaks that reflect pre -urban conditions. Several large bur oaks in the central turf area and Unit 3 may predate park development. Soils Floral Park reflects the glacial history of the Twin Cities, with kettle depressions visible on historic maps. Its soils align with the St. Paul–Baldwin Plains and Moraines ecological subsection (see Appendix C) (Soil Survey Staff 2005; Anderson 2021).The northeastern lowland contains Seelyville muck with heavy organic layers and poor drainage. Most other natural areas consist of Hayden fine sandy loam (222Md). Water generally moves from sandier upland woodlands toward wetlands in the northeast and west, and to a drainage ditch in the southeast. Shallow slopes promote prolonged soil saturation and nutrient retention, supporting hardwood forest species even without recurring fire. Vegetation Floral Park supports relatively high native diversity, and remnants of historic oak savanna remain visible. The canopy is dominated by white oak, bur oak, northern red oak, boxelder, and cottonwood, with smaller Figure 2 .c.1 Floral Park Work Areas. Map showing the main woodland areas, utility corridor and the full extent of park using city 11 amounts of quaking aspen, green ash, and black locust. Over time, faster-growing native species filled former open areas between oaks, creating a denser, shadier understory. Common buckthorn dominates much of the shrub layer. Other woody species include gray dogwood, red- osier dogwood, black walnut, and black cherry, along with smaller patches of glossy buckthorn, honeysuckle, and Amur maple. Invasive herbaceous species include reed canary grass, garlic mustard, burdock, Canada thistle, and bittersweet nightshade. Following buckthorn-targeted forestry mowing in winter 2024–25 and earlier community removal efforts, invasive shrub cover declined, though some native understory was also reduced. By spring 2025, early native regeneration included Virginia creeper, enchanter’s nightshade, lamb’s quarters, and common elder. Without active management, these species could become dominant and limit overall understory diversity. Vegetation management in the powerline corridor (2023–24) favored grasses and herbaceous species, especially reed canary grass, which now dominates. In 2025, some native species—including hoary vervain, wild geranium, common milkweed, and native ferns —bega n establishing. Resource Threats and Habitat Goals The primary threats to Floral Park’s ecosystems are invasive species and soil erosion. Although buckthorn and honeysuckle were reduced during contracted work, they are likely to rebound without continued management. Other invasive species—particularly blac k locust, Amur maple, and reed canary grass—were largely unaffected and may expand into cleared areas or continue dominating the utility corridor. Recently cleared areas also face erosion risks. Exposed soils can wash into adjacent wetlands, increasing sediment and nutrient loading. Oak wilt appears present in mature bur oak stands, and active oak regeneration will be necessary to sustain this canopy component (Sagor 2024). Vegetation surveys were conducted by management unit to reflect differences across the site. Collectively, Floral Park aligns with several Minnesota DNR Native Plant Community types, including Southern Mesic Oak–Basswood or Maple –Basswood Forest (MHs38, MHs39), Central Mesic or Wet-Mesic Hardwood Forest (MHc36, MHc47), and Southern Dry-Mesic Oak–Maple Woodland (FDs37) (MNDNR 2003, 2005). At present, the park functions primarily as a wet to mesic hardwood forest, excluding wetlands and the powerline corridor. Future management should guide restoration toward mesic hardwood community types (MH series), though the powerline corridor should more so resemble (UPs23 ) Southern Mesic Prairie . Restoration Objectives Overview Woody invasive removal from 2023–2025 improved access to Floral Park’s understory and increased light to the forest floor, creating favorable conditions for native regeneration from the existing seedbank. In the near term, continued management will be necessary, particularly targeting the large Amur maple stand in the southeastern woodland, along with ongoing buckthorn and honeysuckle control (Schuster et al. 2023). Long -term maintenance will likely include periodic shrub thinning through mechanical removal or goat browsing. 12 Prescribed fire may be used to stimulate native species where appropriate. In the eastern woodland, where buckthorn removal created ground-layer openings, targeted seeding will help establish a dense native understory capable of resisting reinvasion. Volunteers may assist with invasive control and planting efforts. Detailed tasks, timelines, and species lists are provided in Section 3 and Appendices A and B. 13 2.d. Chatham Park Background Overview of Historic and Current Site conditions Discussion of this park will focus primarily on the woodland that is actively stewarded by the City, community members, and nearby residents, and the prairie space in the southeast corner of the property. The open, prairie -like space in the southeast of the property has been so at least since 1957, when the broader area was mostly open rangeland rather than forest. By 1997, when historical imagery is available again, much of the surrounding landscape has u rbanized , with trees filling in most undeveloped spaces including the extent of the woodland space within the park. Toda y w oodland restoration efforts are already visible, including buckthorn removal and native plant establishment. The following recommendations build on this work and align with planned, ongoing stewardship efforts. Soils Chatham Park is primarily underlain by Hayden fine sandy loam with 6–25% slopes (132C/D) and Urban land –Hayden-Kingsley complex soils with 3 –5% slopes (860C) in upland areas. Central and northern wetlands consist of ponded aquolls and histosols (1055) (see Appendix C) (Soil Survey Staff 2005; Anderson 2021). Upland soils are moderately permeable, well-drained sandy glacial till. While likely remnants of pre -urban conditions, they have been significantly altered by human activity. In contrast, lowland areas have near- surface water tables and organic soils that retain moisture for extended periods, indicating they function as landscape water collection points. These conditions support wet to mesic hardwood forest species adapted to high humidity and regular water exchange between wetlands and the atmosphere. The organic soils likely retain substantial nutrients, contributing to strong vegetative growth. Soil data were obtained from the NRCS Web Soil Survey (2005). Vegetation Figure 2.d.1 Chatham Park Work Areas. Map showing the priority woodland area and the full extent of park using city parcel data. 14 In 2024, Chatham Park’s canopy was dominated largely by invasive buckthorn species, though quaking aspen and boxelder were also present. With scattered hydrophytic plant species, the site functioned overall as a mesic hardwood forest with pockets of depres sional wetlands. By 2025, some areas remained unchanged while others shifted following management efforts. Survey results rated the vegetation community as low quality, with high invasive presence and low n ative vegetation abundance. However, these metrics do not fully reflect recent progress. Significant portions of the upland woodland have been cleared of invasive woody species and are now regenerating with a limited but increasing mix of native plants. As a result, the woodland currently reflects a clear contrast between treated and untreated areas. Resource Threats and Habitat Goals The primary threat to this park is continued invasive species pressure. Volunteer-led buckthorn removal has been effective where completed, but untreated areas remain a concern. Dense stands outside cleared zones will continue producing seed, which can spread by birds and wildlife and reinvade restored areas unless mature female plants are controlled. As restoration progresses, plant communities should be monitored and guided toward greater native diversity, similar to the MHs38 Southern Mesic Oak–Basswood Forest or, more likely, FFs59 Southern Terrace Forest type . Th e latter community includes a canopy of American elms and Maple species, a shrub and subcanopy layer of chokecherries, nannyberries, prickly ash, and hawthorns , and a ground layer of wood nettle, waterleaf, and other wet woodland forbs (MNDNR 2003, 2005). Because prescribed fire is not appropriate for the woodlands in this site, restoration should focus on establishing dense mid-canopy and understory layers using clonal shrubs such as dogwoods, along with native sedges and forbs. This approach will help resist reinvasion and improve habitat for migrating birds. Though not within the scope of the existing grant and project work, the prairie set in the southeast corner of the property could be enhanced in the future. No vegetation surveys were conducted on it, and no dense populations of invasives were identified , but passing observations indicate the area could benefit from management focused on attempting to guide the prairie towards a composition similar to UPs23 Southern Mesic Prairie. Unlike in the woodland, prescribed fire can be used effectively here to promote native species composition and control invasive species proliferation. Restoration Objectives Overview Chatham Park will require continued expansion of buckthorn removal using mechanical methods, followed by active native planting and seeding to limit reinvasion. Restoration should prioritize native species that establish quickly, compete well, and provide food for birds. In the near term, c ontracted services may be needed for large-scale buckthorn removal and follow-up treatment across the site (Schuster et al. 2023). Long -term maintenance will likely include periodic shrub thinning through mechanical removal or goat browsing to maintain invasive shrub populations at reduced levels in areas already cleared. 15 Prescribed fire is not recommended in the woodland because the park’s low landscape position and near- surface water table create poor burning conditions. Prescribed fire can be used in the southeastern prairie. Volunteers and community members can assist with invasive woody removal, seeding, and planting. Section 3 outlines recommended tasks and timelines, with species lists provided in Appendices A and B. 3. Natural Resources Management Recommendations The following priorities were used to propose the restoration actions described in Section 3 : 1. Reduce and manage invasive species. Because these parks are small and located in urban settings, invasive species will likely persist. Management units therefore include initial removal of dominant invasives, followed by revegetation strategies designed to compete with reinvasion. 2. Base restoration on existing vegetation structure. Enhancement efforts are more likely to succeed and remain cost-effective when they work with current site conditions. Areas with mature tree canopy should generally remain forested, even if species composition differs from pre-settlement conditions. Managed turf or grass areas offer the best opportunities for prairie, savanna, wet meadow, or other grassland conversions. 3. Minimize impacts to park users. Restoration activities can temporarily disrupt access and user experience. High-disturbance work—such as tree removal, forestry mowing, herbicide application, and turf removal—should be completed within condensed timeframes where possible. Final outcomes s hould balance habitat improvement with visual appeal through strategic plantings, seasonal bloom diversity, and thoughtful tree and shrub placement. 4. Promote native vegetation establishment. Existing non-native specimen trees may remain if functional; however, future plantings should prioritize native species of local origin to maximize habitat value. Underutilized turf areas are strong candidates for conversion to diverse grassland plantings that support pollinators and enhance seasonal interest. 5. Use adaptive management. Long -term success depends on monitoring and responsive management. Ongoing evaluation and consultation with ecological professionals will ensure progress toward natural resource goals and guide future stewardship actions. 16 3.a. Summary of Park Goals and General Management Recommendations Natural resource management has been underway for the past 5–10 years through City staff and community volunteers. Efforts have included buckthorn hand-cutting and follow-up control, goat browsing, garlic mustard management, and native grass and forb plantings. These plantings have been installed along trails for education, in prairie areas for pollinator habitat, and within woodland understories to support native regeneration. Through collaboration among the City, the Arden Hills Parks Trails and Recreation Committee, and groups such as Arden Hills Greening, Great River Greening secured Outdoor Heritage Fund support from the Minnesota State Legislature to design and implement the proposed goals and tasks. Great River Greening conducted plant surveys in September 2024 and July 2025 to assess current conditions and identify next steps for management and long-term stewardship. This section includes maps and tables outlining recommended habitat targets, initial work items with cost estimates, and a five-year maintenance framework. Seed lists are provided in Appendix A, planting lists in Appendix B, and invasive species management guidance in Appendix D. The following sections present site -specific management recommendations. Because these areas exist within altered urban ecosystems, full restoration to historic native conditions is not feasible. Instead, the goal is to guide and maintain these parks as functional, resilient natural spaces that support wildlife and provide meaningful experiences for park visitors. General Management Goal Native Plant Communities and Habitat Types The Native Plant Communities (NPCs) that most closely reflect current site conditions are (MNDNR 2003 , 2005): • MHs37 – Southern Dry-Mesic Oak Forest • FFs59 – Southern Terrace Forest • UPs23 – Southern Mesic Prairie These classifications provide the most appropriate ecological reference points for existing vegetation across the site. Table 3.a.1. General Native Plant Community Goals. Vegetation observed in the parks (2024–26) also corresponds with additional Minnesota NPC types listed in Table 3.a.1. These classifications help guide habitat recommendations, especially in areas that differ from the primary target communities of Southern Dry-Mesic Oak Forest and Southern Terrace Forest. Target Native Plant Communities Parks and Specific Areas Hazelnut Park Floral Park Chatham Park Mesic Woodland - (MHs37 , 38, 39, and MHc36 and 47) North and s outh woodlands (7 acres) Main southeast, west, and south woodlands (7 acres) Southern Mesic Prairie/ Savanna - (UPs23 and 24) Open path edge of powerline corridor (~0.1 acres) Powerline corridor through park (0.6 acres) Upland prairie in SE corner (1 acre) Floodplain Forest - (FFs59 ) North woodland and lowland areas throughout (6.1acres) Forested areas of site (20 acres) 17 The identified target communities serve as management guides based on dominant species suited to long- term native stewardship. Exact replication of NPC species composition is not expected. Given the parks’ urban land-use history and site alterations, these communities provide direction for restoration rather than a strict measure of completion. Generally Recommended Management Tasks for Hazelnut Park, Floral Park, and Chatham Park Table 3.a.2 Main Management Recommendations Each site has primary concerns or issues, and thus long-term management goals are given to focus future restoration and management efforts. Generally recommended actions are listed alongside helpful notes to give an overview of what to look for in subsequent subsections of Section 3 in this document. Site Name Long-term Management Goal Recommended Actions Notes Hazelnut Park Woodland and Powerline Area Buckthorn control, native understory establishment Periodic shrub layer thinning/ targeted cutting; native species seeding / planting Seeding native forbs and grasses should be prioritized, promoting the expansion of extant populations and inhibiting buckthorn population rebound. Floral Park Woodland Buckthorn control, native understory establishment Periodic shrub layer thinning/ targeted cutting of invasive trees; native species seeding/ planting Seeding / planting natives should begin shortly after contract work is completed to inhibit other invasive species proliferation such as burdock and thistle. Floral Park Powerline Area Herbaceous invasive control, native prairie establishment Initial reed canary grass removal and dense, native species planting in limited areas where those native species can be maintained Continued maintenance mowing and woody foliar herbicide application should be used to control black locust expansion (black locust should not be controlled by mowing as this encourages expansion). Chatham Park Buckthorn control, native understory and native prairie establishment Periodic shrub layer thinning for maintenance; continued targeted cutting of remaining buckthorn stand; native species seeding / planting in woodland and prairie areas Buckthorn removal, or at minimum control of actively berry producing “mother” plants should be prioritized. Native shrub establishment should focus on offering alternative food sources for wildlife. Woody invasive removal is the primary initial goal. Removing woody invasives will improve light conditions and create space for graminoid seeding and native understory recovery. Efforts should focus on common buckthorn, glossy buckthorn, white mulberry, and invasive honeysuckle. Winter forestry mowing, chain sawing, or brush cutting can reduce remaining woody invasives. Late-summer fine mowing or goat browsing may help maintain light penetration. Because of variable topography, forestry mowing may only be feasible in select areas and should be evaluated by an experienced operator. Hand cutting, stump herbicide treatment, and resprout removal can supplement mechanical methods. After woody removal, herbaceous invasives such as burdock, garlic mustard, and motherwort may expand if areas are not seeded quickly. If needed, foliar herbicide and targeted mowing should be used to limit spread. Erosion control may also be required where former shrub monocultures left exposed soils, helping reduce sediment and nutrient runoff into wetlands. Establishing native grasses, sedges, and wildflowers will be critical to suppress reinvasion. In some areas, planting native plugs, shrubs, and trees will be needed to restore structural diversity. 18 3.b. Hazelnut Park Recommendations Initial Invasive Species Management and Contracted Restoration Hazelnut Park is currently undergoing contracted restoration work funded through the Great River Greening– facilitated Outdoor Heritage Fund. Work began in winter 2024–25 and will continue through spring 2027. Efforts focus on reducing mature buckthorn in the northern woodland and adjacent powerline corridor, as outlined in Table 3.b.1. Management methods include forestry mowing, critical period cutting during the growing season, and fall foliar herbicide applications to control resprouts and seedlings. It is important to preface here that critical period cutting is a new technique, developed by Friends of the Mississippi River (Domyancich-Lee August 18). Greening’s interpretation of the technique is detailed as Figure 3.b.1 Hazelnut Park Plant Communities. Map shows the full extent of park, highlighting native plant community goals. 19 specifications in section 4.b. the purpose of the technique is to further stress the rebounding buckthorn population after initial cutting, reducing the need for herbicide, inhibiting buckthorn during the season when it is actively outcompeting natives , and ideally reducing the duration of initial control efforts needed. Herbaceous invasive and noxious weed species will be monitored throughout the project period. Mechanical or chemical control will be implemented as needed, depending on vegetation response. Native Vegetation Establishment After initial buckthorn removal progresses, Great River Greening will coordinate woodland seeding beginning in winter 2026. Multiple seeding and planting events will continue through 2026 and into spring 2027 to guide succession toward mesic woodland systems identified in Table 3.a.1. This work remains within the Outdoor Heritage Fund project and is intended to establish habitat that can be sustainably stewarded long term. Once contracted work in the northern woodland concludes, maintenance should shift to planting native trees and shrubs and seeding native graminoids and wildflowers selected from appropriate plant community types in Table 3.a.1. These plantings will compete directly with buckthorn and other woody invasives and indirectly reduce reinvasion by limiting bird-dispersed seed establishment. Plug and shrub plantings should occur in spring or fall for optimal survival. Understory seeding is recommended from fall through spring to improve germination and establishment. Beginning in year three, management should include targeted foliar herbicide applications to control invasive herbaceous species as needed. Buckthorn control should also continue every two to three years using critical period cutting, foliar herbicide, or other approved methods. Continued Maintenance Dense patches of weedy native species, such as jewelweed, may need to be cut back while seeded and planted natives establish. Buckthorn regrowth will also require ongoing control. In addition to herbicide application and critical period cutting, alternative management tools include prescribed fire and goat browsing. Where sufficient native understory has developed, fall burns may help suppress invasive woody and herbaceous species. Burns should occur when leaf litter and herbaceous cover are adequate to carry fire. Goat browsing can serve as a non-chemical alternative to reduce woody growth and may be used year- round, particularly where shrubs and trees have regained dominance. Each management method creates different ecological responses, and plant and wildlife outcomes will vary accordingly. In the southern woodland, volunteer and City-led efforts have substantially reduced invasive shrubs, and native plantings have been installed along the paved path. Continued follow-up will be needed to control remaining buckthorn and guide the area toward a mesic hardwood forest community. Although this area did not receive state-funded contract work, volunteer removal has eliminated most mature stems. For at least three years following full removal of large stems, management should include growing-season cutting and fall foliar herbicide treatment. 20 After this period, the southern woodland can follow a similar approach to the northern woodland, including seeding, planting, targeted herbaceous invasive control, and continued buckthorn suppression. 21 Ta ble 3.b.1 : Currently planned and funded management tasks for Hazelnut Park are listed below. Dollar values are rounded to the approximate cost of contracted work. Estimated costs for future tasks are based on typical market rates in 2025. Invasive control tasks are highlighted in dull green. Native species establishment tasks are shown in light blue and include estimated budgets for seed, plants, and support supplies. Labor will come from a mix of volunteers, city staff, and Great River Greening staff.) Existing and Goal Landcover Contracted and Planned Actions 2024 / 2025 2025 2026 2027 Notes Un i t 1 - No r t h W o o d l a n d ( 5 . 5 a c r e s ) Altered/non- native hardwood forest to Mesic Hardwood Forest , MHs38 Buckthorn initial removal (winter) $27,225 Forestry mowing with hand cutting in less accessible areas or trail edges as needed. Growing season and fall continued buckthorn control $3,500 Mechanical mowing (equipment as well as brush cutters) regrowth and resprouts with fall foliar herbicide application for continued control. Initial grass and sedge seeding $2,500 Winter seeding of native monocot understory species to establish competition for invasives. Growing season and fall continued buckthorn control $4,675 Mechanical mowing (equipment as well as brush cutters) regrowth and resprouts with fall foliar herbicide application for continued control. Continued native understory seeding $3,500 Winter seeding of perennial wildflowers and other blooming native species to add understory diversity. Spring buckthorn follow-up treatment $4,125 Spring / early summer buckthorn follow up treatment, mechanical or chemical depending on the density of buckthorn seedlings seen. Plug and shrub planting $4,000 Native planting of plugs (grasses and perennial wildflowers) as well as native shrubs with potential fencing installation to prevent deer browsing and facilitate establishment. 22 Ta ble 3.b.2: Recommended maintenance tasks for Hazelnut Park after completion of the currently funded restoration project. Dollar values a re estimates of labor costs based on 2025 market rates. Year 1 is assumed to begin in 2027, though the schedule can extend beyond the first five years. Goal Native Plant Community Recommended Maintenance Actions Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Notes Un i t s 1 a n d 2 - No r t h a n d S o u t h Wo o d l a n d s (7 ac r e s ) Continued Maintenance on Mesic Hardwood Forest, MHs38 Woody invasive shrub resprout or reinvasion control, mechanical or chemical treatments $3,500 /ac $3,500 /ac $3,500 /ac Regular sweeps of the park space should be conducted to control remaining patches of buckthorn and honeysuckle and keep them to small spatial extents. Herbaceous invasive plant control, mechanical or chemical treatments $2,300 /ac $2,000 /ac $1,700 /ac $1,500 /ac Repeated spot spraying and spot mowing will be needed, long term, to maintain a reduced population of invasive forbs and grasses, especially in the initial 5 years as native grasses and forbs establish. Goat browsing (alternative to herbicide) $500 /ac $450 /ac $450 /ac Goat browsing can be a lower cost option to control invasive woody species long term. Sheep grazing may also assist in suppressing invasive herbaceous populations. Supplemental planting (price varies by plant selection and quantity) $3,000 for labor $3,000 for labor As needed in areas that underperform. Good option for stewards or volunteers. Planted trees and shrubs may need herbivory protection for 2 – 5yrs. Supplemental seeding $1,700 /ac for labor $1,700 /ac for labor Hazard tree removal approximately $370 / tree depending on felling complexity May be required for continued native tree canopy and understory diversity maintenance as the existing ash and non-native populations diminish. Native Establishment in Powerline Prairie , UP s23 Supplemental seeding (price varies by species selection and quantity) $1,700 /ac for labor $1,700 /ac for labor The path underneath the powerlines may be periodically mowed by the utility company, but the initial forestry mowing targeting buckthorn created openings to establish native species that will survive this mowing like native grasses and forbs. 23 3.c. Floral Park Recommendations Initial Invasive Species Management and Contracted Restoration Floral Park is undergoing contracted restoration work to reduce mature buckthorn across the site, as outlined in Table 3.c.1. This work will continue through fall 2026 and includes critical period cutting during the growing season and fall foliar herbicide applications to control resprouts and seedlings. See section 4.b for specifications guiding these activities. Note also that critical period cutting is a new technique, developed by Friends of the Mississippi River (Domyancich -Lee August 18). The purpose of the technique is to further stress the rebounding buckthorn population after initial cutting, reducing the need for herbicide, inhibiting buckthorn during the season when it is actively outcompeting natives, and ideally reducing the duration of initial control efforts needed. Figure 3.c.1 Floral Park Plant Communities. Map shows the full extent of park, highlighting native plant community goals. 24 As removal progresses, Great River Greening will coordinate woodland seeding to guide succession toward mesic woodland systems identified in Table 3.a.1. This effort remains part of the Outdoor Heritage Fund project and is intended to establish habitat tha t can be sustainably stewarded long term. Additional invasive species management will require both expanded control efforts and revegetation. Although buckthorn has been significantly reduced, Amur maple remains abundant in the eastern and southeastern portions of the park and presents the greatest risk of woody reinvasion. Black locust is also present along the powerline prairie edges and may expand into woodland areas if not addressed. Invasive herbaceous species, including reed canary grass, motherwort, and burdock, are beginning to colonize cleared areas throughout the park. Ongoing maintenance should address these species alongside continued revegetation efforts. Native Vegetation Establishment The goal of native plant establishment is to compete directly with buckthorn and other invasive species for light and space. It also provides indirect competition by offering alternative food sources for birds, which are the primary dispersal agents for buckthorn. After contract work concludes in 2027, an additional round of mechanical tree removal is recommended during winter 2027–2028, targeting Amur maple and black locust (Year 1, Table 3.c.2). Because contracted work included only two years of foliar treatment for buckthorn, a third round of foliar application should occur in late 2027, as reflected in Year 1 of Table 3.c.2. Once woody invasive populations are controlled, Year 2 maintenance should focus on planting native trees and shrubs and seeding native graminoids selected from appropriate plant community types in Table 3.a.1. Planting should occur in spring or fall to maximize survival. Understory seeding is recommended from fall through spring to improve establishment. Wildflower seeding should be delayed in areas where invasive herbaceous species are actively establishing. Planned foliar herbicide treatments for motherwort and burdock could reduce native seed germination and survival. Continued Maintenance Beginning in year three, targeted foliar herbicide applications should address invasive herbaceous species as they emerge in areas cleared of buckthorn. The woodland should also receive renewed buckthorn control every two to three years using critical period cutting, foliar herbicide, or approved alternatives, as outlined in Table 3.c.2. Herbicide use should be carefully targeted to avoid damaging establishing native plants. Alternative control methods include prescribed fire and goat browsing. Where sufficient native understory has developed, fall burns may help suppress woody and herbaceous invasives. Burns should occur when leaf litter and herbaceous cover can carry fire. Goat browsing can serve as a non-chemical option to reduce woody growth and may be used year-round in areas where shrubs and trees regain dominance. Volunteer efforts can also supplement contracted work during off-years. Each management approach creates different ecological responses and should be applied with consideration of desired outcomes. 25 The powerline prairie did not receive contract restoration work and presents distinct management challenges. Enhancement opportunities include targeted herbicide application and periodic overseeding, as shown in Table 3.c.2. Herbicide treatments should focus on reducing dominant reed canary grass and other invasive herbaceous species. Overseeding can increase biodiversity and improve long-term resistance to reinvasion. Because reed canary grass is persistent, restoration may be most effective in smaller, targeted areas—particularly near paved paths or existing native plantings. Black locust is present along the prairie’s edges. Stems within the prairie are likely suppressed by routine right -of-way mowing, but adjacent woodland areas remain vulnerable as the species responds to mowing with aggressive sprouting. Although prescribed fire is typically used in prairie systems, it is generally not feasible within utility corridors. Prairie maintenance may instead rely on sheep grazing, targeted herbicide application, and periodic shrub mowing coordinated with utility line maintenance. 26 Ta ble 3.c.1 : Currently funded and planned management tasks for Floral Park. Dollar values are rounded estimates of contracted work. Estimated costs for future tasks are based on typical market rates in 2025. Invasive control tasks are highlighted in dull green. Native species establishment tasks are highlighted in light blue and include budgets for seed, plants, and support supplies (labor will be provided by volunteers, city staff, and Great River Greening staff). Existing and Goal Landcover Contracted and Planned Actions 2024 / 2025 2025 2026 2027 Notes Un i t s 1 , 2 , 3 , a n d 4 - Wo o d l a n d s ( 1 3 a c r e s ) Altered/non-native hardwood forest to Mesic and Wet Hardwood Forests Buckthorn initial removal (winter) $80,850 Forestry mowing with hand cutting in less accessible areas or trail edges as needed. Hazard Tree Removal $4,450 14 trees were cut down and removed adjacent to paths. Growing season and fall continued buckthorn control $5,400 Mechanical mowing (equipment as well as brush cutters) regrowth and resprouts with fall foliar herbicide application for continued control. Woody material disposal (biochar) $15,325 Biochar production was conducted as primary woody material disposal method with the biochar dispersed on site . Initial grass and sedge seeding $4,000 Winter seeding of native monocot understory species to establish competition for invasives . Growing season and fall continued buckthorn control $13,775 Mechanical mowing (equipment as well as brush cutters) regrowth and resprouts with fall foliar herbicide application for continued control. Continued forb seeding $7,000 Fall or winter seeding of perennial wildflowers and other blooming native species to add understory diversity. Plug and shrub planting $11,000 Native planting of plugs (grasses and perennial wildflowers) as well as native shrubs with potential fencing installation to prevent deer browsing and facilitate establishment. 27 Ta ble 3.c.2: Recommended maintenance tasks for Floral Park after completion of the current project. Dollar values are estimated labor costs based on 2025 market rates. Year 1 is assumed to begin in 2027, though the schedule can extend beyond the first five years. Goal Native Plant Community Recommended Maintenance Actions Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Notes Un i t s 1 , 3 , a n d 4 - Wo o d l a n d s ( 6 . 9 a c r e s ) Continued Maintenance on Mesic Hardwood Forest , MHs38 Woody invasive control $3,500 /ac + $10,000 /ac $3,500 /ac $3,500 /ac Regular sweeps of the park space should be conducted to control remaining patches and keep them to small spatial extents. Added cost reflects expected price for initial Amur maple removal. Herbaceous invasive control $2,300 /ac $2,000 /ac $1,700 /ac $1,500 /ac Repeated spot spraying and spot mowing will be needed, long term, to maintain a reduced population of invasive forbs and grasses, especially in the initial 5 years as native grasses and forbs establish. Goat browsing (alternative to herbicide) $500 /ac $450 /ac Goat browsing can be a lower cost option to control invasive woody species long term. Sheep grazing may also assist in suppressing invasive herbaceous populations. Supplemental planting (price varies by plant selection and quantity) $3,000 for labor $3,000 for labor As needed in areas that underperform. Good option for stewards or volunteers. Planted trees and shrubs may need herbivory protection for 2 – 5yrs. Supplemental seeding $1,700 /ac for labor $1,700 /ac for labor Hazard tree removal approximately $370 / tree depending on felling complexity May be required for continued native tree canopy and understory diversity maintenance as the existing ash and non-native populations diminish. 28 Goal Native Plant Community Recommended Maintenance Actions Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Notes Un i t 2 - Wo o d l a n d ( 6 . 1 a c r e s ) Continued Maintenance on Floodplain Forest, FFs59 Woody invasive control $3,500 /ac $3,500 /ac $3,500 /ac Regular sweeps of the park space should be conducted to control remaining patches and keep them to small spatial extents. Herbaceous invasive control $2,300 /ac $2,000 /ac $1,700 /ac $1,500 /ac Repeated spot spraying and spot mowing will be needed, long term, to maintain a reduced population of invasive forbs and grasses, especially in the initial 5 years as native grasses and forbs establish. Goat browsing (alternative to hand work/ herbicide) $500 /ac $450 /ac Goat browsing can be a lower cost option to control invasive woody species long term. Sheep grazing may also assist in suppressing invasive herbaceous populations. Supplemental planting (price varies by plant selection and quantity) $3,000 for labor $3,000 for labor As needed in areas that underperform. Good option for stewards or volunteers. Planted trees and shrubs may need herbivory protection for 2 – 5yrs. Supplemental seeding $1,700 /ac for labor $1,700 /ac for labor Hazard tree removal approximately $370 / tree depending on felling complexity May be required for continued native tree canopy and understory diversity maintenance as the existing ash and non-native populations diminish. 29 Goal Native Plant Community Recommended Maintenance Actions Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Notes Un i t 5 - Po w e r l i n e P r a i r i e ( 0 . 6 a c r e s ) Establishment and continued maintenance on Southern Mesic Prairie , UPs23 Herbaceous invasive control $2,5 00 /ac $2,000 /ac $1,700 /ac $1,500 /ac Initial and repeated spot spraying and spot mowing will be needed, long term, to maintain a reduced population of invasive forbs and grasses, especially in the initial 5 years as native grasses and forbs establish. Mowing $2,000 /ac $2,000 /ac If not done by powerline company, this should be done once every 2 to 3 years to inhibit woody species establishment and reduce thatch density/ thickness. Sheep grazing (alternative to herbicide) $500 /ac Sheep grazing can be a lower cost option to control invasive herbaceous species long term and should be done every other year after establishment. Supplemental planting (price varies by plant selection and quantity) $3,000 for labor As needed in areas that underperform. Good option for stewards or volunteers. Planted trees and shrubs may need herbivory protection for 2 – 5yrs. Supplemental seeding $1,700 /ac for labor 30 3.d. Chatham Park Recommendations Initial Invasive Species Management and Contracted Restoration Chatham Park has benefited from ongoing volunteer work that has significantly reduced invasive shrubs in portions of the woodland, with native species planted in select areas. However, large sections of the park have not yet received coordinated invasive species management. Future work should combine maintenance in volunteer-cleared areas with initial removal in untreated sections. Some areas will require continued follow-up to prevent buckthorn reinvasion, while others will first need initial removal before being incorporate d into a long-term maintenance program. Figure 3.d.1 Chatham Park Plant Communities. Map shows the full extent of park, highlighting native plant community goals. 31 Initial removal should focus on mechanical buckthorn control. Two primary strategies are recommended. One approach is winter cutting with stump treatment, supported by forestry mowing where feasible. The second approach is basal bark treatment in winter, followed by mechanical cutting once stems are confirmed dead during the next growing season. Both strategies require removal or disposal of cut material, which is often one of the most significant costs in woody invasive control. After initial removal, management should include three years of growing-season follow-up to control resprouts and seedlings emerging from the seed bank. Foliar herbicide application is typically used for this work, though alternative methods are listed in Table 3.d.1. Following this period, the remaining areas can transition into routine maintenance. Concerning the prairie in the SE portion of the park’s property, an initial survey of the plant community is needed before any work is conducted. The initial survey should be used to identify the balance of invasive versus native species present, and what those invasive species are. Depending on the community composition, and the invasive species present, the city should at least conduct some supplemental seeding, and consider other management tasks as warranted by the invasive species present. See table 3.c.2 for recommended tasks if invasive species are abundant and problematic. Otherwise, see table 3.d.2, below. Native Vegetation Establishment and Continued Maintenance After the third year of follow-up work, treated areas can transition into the same maintenance program used for previously cleared sections of the park. During the following growing season, restoration should focus on planting native trees and shrubs and seeding native graminoids and wildflowers. Species should be selected from the appropriate plant community types listed in Table 3.a.1. These plantings will compete directly with buckthorn and other invasives for space and light while also providing alternative food sources for birds, which are the primary dispersal agents for buckthorn. Planting should occur in spring or fall to maximize survival. Understory and prairie seeding is recommended from fall through spring to improve germination and establishment. Beginning in year five, targeted foliar herbicide applications should address invasive herbaceous species that colonize open areas created by buckthorn removal. Woodland areas should also receive renewed buckthorn control every two to three years using critical period cutting, foliar herbicide application, or other approved methods. Alternative control methods include prescribed fire and goat browsing. Due to wet soils and the proximity of wetlands, prescribed fire is unlikely to be effective in the wooded portions of this site , though the prairie would support it. Goat browsing may instead serve as a practical alternative to suppress woody growth within enclosed areas. This method is most effective where shrubs and trees regain dominance and can be used year-round. Each management technique creates different ecological responses. As a result, plant, fungal, and wildlife communities will vary depending on the methods applied. 32 Ta ble 3.d.1: Recommended maintenance tasks for Chatham Park after completion of the current project. Dollar values are estimated labor cos ts based on 2025 market rates. Year 1 is assumed to begin in 2026, though the schedule can extend beyond the first five years.. Goal Native Plant Community Recommended Maintenance Actions Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Notes P r i o r i t y Ar e a s , Un m a n a g e d (2 . 2 5 a c r e s ) an d O t h e r U n m a n a g e d P a r k A r e a s Initial Work in Floodplain Forest, FFs59 Initial w oody invasive species removal and continued control $7,000 /ac $3,500 /ac $3,500 /ac $3,500 /ac The initial removal in the unmanaged areas of the park will be expensive due to topography, accessibility, and the density of the buckthorn. Regular sweeps of the park space should be conducted to control remaining patches and keep them to small spatial extents. Woody material disposal included in Year 2 price estimate. Herbaceous invasive control $2,000 /ac $1,500 /ac $1,500 /ac Repeated spot spraying and spot mowing will be needed, long term, to maintain a reduced population of invasive forbs and grasses, especially in the initial 5 years as native grasses and forbs establish. Goat browsing (alternative to hand work/ herbicide) $500 /ac Goat browsing can be a lower cost option to control invasive woody species long term. Sheep grazing may also assist in suppressing invasive herbaceous populations. Supplemental planting (price varies by plant selection and quantity) $3,000 for labor As needed in areas that underperform. Good option for stewards or volunteers. Planted trees and shrubs may need herbivory protection for 2 – 5yrs. Supplemental seeding $1,700 /ac for labor Hazard tree removal approximately $370 / tree depending on felling complexity May be required for continued native tree canopy and understory diversity maintenance as the existing ash and non- native populations diminish. 33 Goal Native Plant Community Recommended Maintenance Actions Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Notes Pr i o r i t y A r e a , V o l u n t e e r -wo r k e d ( 3 . 7 5 a c r e s ) an d S u r r o u n d i n g A r e a s Continued Maintenance on Floodplain Forest, FFs59 Woody invasive control $3,500 /ac $3,500 /ac $3,500 /ac Regular sweeps of the park space should be conducted to control remaining patches and keep them to small spatial extents. Herbaceous invasive control $2,300 /ac $2,000 /ac $1,700 /ac $1,500 /ac Repeated spot spraying and spot mowing will be needed, long term, to maintain a reduced population of invasive forbs and grasses, especially in the initial 5 years as native grasses and forbs establish. Goat browsing (alternative to hand work/ herbicide) $500 /ac $450 /ac Goat browsing can be a lower cost option to control invasive woody species long term. Sheep grazing may also assist in suppressing invasive herbaceous populations. Supplemental planting (price varies by plant selection and quantity) $3,000 for labor $3,000 for labor As needed in areas that underperform. Good option for stewards or volunteers. Planted trees and shrubs may need herbivory protection for 2 – 5yrs. Supplemental seeding $1,700 /ac for labor $1,700 /ac for labor Hazard tree removal approximately $370 / tree depending on felling complexity May be required for continued native tree canopy and understory diversity maintenance as the existing ash and non- native populations diminish. Native Establishment in SE Prairie, UPs23 Supplemental seeding (price varies by species selection and quantity) $1,700 /ac for labor $1,700 /ac for labor Initial efforts to establish native species as competition against invasive and weedy species, and to increase floral resources for local fauna. 34 4 . Specifications for Restoration Activities The following specifications provide general guidance for conducting restoration activities at the sites addressed in this document. Contractors should refine and tailor these specifications to the specific conditions and requirements of each work area. 4.a . Forestry Mowing (Woody Tree / Shrub Initial Removal) Example target species: • Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica and Frangula alnus ) • Amur maple (Acer ginnala) • Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) Tim ing • Conduct forestry mowing only when soil is frozen at least 6 inches deep. This prevents soil damage and compaction. Follow-Up Treatment • All mowed areas must receive foliar herbicide treatment the first fall after removal. • See foliar herbicide specifications for details. Vegetation Protection • Avoid mowing or damaging non-target vegetation. • Brush near desirable trees must be removed with hand tools such as chainsaws or brush saws. • In areas dominated by high-quality native trees, use hand cutting instead of forestry mowing. Work Near Trails • Forestry mowing may occur along site edges. • Within 20 feet of interior trails, vegetation must be removed by hand cutting unless otherwise noted. • Close trails to the public during mowing. A spotter is required. • Direct debris away from trails. Use brush saws or other methods to reduce debris on trails. Equipment and Operation • Set mower heads low, no higher than 3 feet above ground. • Do not eject debris off site or toward private property. Debris Management • Mowed vegetation should be shredded and left in place to decompose. • If debris builds up, spread it out so the depth does not exceed 6 inches. Acceptable Incidental Removal • The following species may be removed during mowing if necessary: • Boxelder (Acer negundo) • Silver maple (Acer saccharinum) • Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica ) 35 • Black walnut (Juglans nigra ) • Cottonwood (Populus deltoides ) • American elm (Ulmus americana) Tree Protection • Contractors are responsible for any damage to desirable trees caused by operator negligence, including scalping with the mower head. • Use extreme care around designated save trees, especially oaks, to prevent the spread of oak wilt. • If a save oak tree is wounded, notify the project manager. The tree may require removal or pruning paint treatment. 36 4.b. Critical Period High Cutting (Woody Tree / Shrub Initial Removal) Target species: • Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica and Frangula alnus ) Purpose • This method kills mature buckthorn by repeatedly removing new growth during the growing season. Treatment Scope • Applies to buckthorn greater than 2 inches DBH (diameter at breast height). • Stems less than 2 inches DBH must be controlled using other removal methods. Year 1 • Late May–Early June o Cut the main stem 3–5 feet above the ground using a hand saw, chainsaw, or brush cutter. o Remove all side branches and growth from the remaining stump using loppers or pruners. • Mid -September o Remove any new branches or regrowth from the sides of the stump (“re -strip”). Year 2 • May –Early June o After spring leaf-out, remove all new growth again. • Early–Mid September o Re -strip all target stumps before plants enter dormancy. o Once plants die, push over and remove the stumps. Handling Cut Material • Cut material may be bucked into pieces no longer than 4 feet. • Branches may not extend more than 45 degrees above the ground. • Spread material in wooded areas in a single layer that does not block movement or access. • Material may also be piled and burned where allowed. Ongoing Work • Repeat treatment until all target buckthorn is removed. 37 4.c. Woody Tree / Shrub Control and Maintenance Cut and Stump Treat • Brush near trees that will be saved, or in areas where forestry mowers cannot reach (including slopes), must be cut with handheld tools such as chainsaws or brush cutters. • Cut material may remain on site when mowing, burning, or chipping is not practical. • All cut material must be cut into smaller pieces and placed so it lies flat on the ground. Low -Density Areas • Cut material may be cut into pieces no longer than 4 feet. • Branches must not stick up more than 45 degrees above the ground. • Spread material in a single layer that does not block access or movement, or pile and burn it. Basal Bark Treatment • For black locust under 4 inches DBH, apply basal bark herbicide using an oil-based triclopyr ester formulation under appropriate weather conditions. • For black locust over 4 inches DBH, use frill cutting and treat the cut with Transline under appropriate weather conditions. Frill Cutting • Frill cutting is a type of girdling. • Make downward-angled cuts around the entire trunk. • Leave the bark and wood attached at the bottom of each cut. • Cuts may be made with a saw, axe, or hatchet. Follow-Up Treatment • Apply foliar herbicide during the following growing season to treat resprouts. Removal of Treated Trees • Trees treated with basal bark or frill cutting must be cut and mowed after at least 4 weeks. • The delay allows herbicide to move into the root system. Woody Follow-Up Maintenance • After forestry mowing, apply foliar herbicide in summer or fall to treat resprouting woody plants. • Spray all leaf surfaces of the target species. Do not spray only the top layer. • Use an herbicide indicator dye during application. • Treatments must achieve at least 95 percent control. • Take care to avoid overspray. 38 4.d. Woody Herbicide Application Application Timing • Basal bark treatments are best applied in winter. • Foliar treatments are best applied in late summer or early fall. • Cut stump treatments should occur when sap flow is low and water-based herbicides are not suitable. Herbicide Selection • Triclopyr ester (Garlon 4 Ultra or approved equivalent) is preferred for winter, early spring, and late fall applications, including cut stump, basal stem, and foliar treatments, unless otherwise specified. • Amine formulations (for example, Garlon 3a) are preferred during summer (June –August) to reduce volatilization and off-target damage. • In wetlands or near aquatic areas, only aquatic-approved herbicides containing triclopyr amine may be used for cut stump or basal stem treatments. Mixing and Carriers • Oil carriers must be products designed for herbicide use (for example, Diluent Blue). Diesel fuel may not be used. • Blue indicator dye must be added to the herbicide mix, even if dye is already present in other ingredients. • Follow all herbicide label directions. Use concentrations strong enough for effective control. Application Methods • Apply herbicide to stumps or basal stems using a backpack or handheld sprayer. • Boom sprayers and similar equipment are not allowed. • Cut stumps must be treated within two hours of cutting. • Foliar sprays must cover more than 50 percent of each plant’s leaf surface. • Take care to prevent overspray. Weather and Site Conditions • Apply herbicide only when surfaces and air conditions are dry. Dry weather must continue for at least 24 hours after application. • Do not apply foliar herbicide if the forecast high temperature is 85°F or higher and relative humidity is 45 percent or lower at any time during the day. • Ester -based foliar herbicides (for example, Garlon 4) may not be used in June, July, or August. Safety and Documentation • Spill kits must be on site at all times. • Original herbicide and carrier containers, with labels, must remain on site or in the parking area for inspection. • Maintain daily herbicide logs and submit them weekly. 39 4.e. Herbaceous Invasive Control Cool-Season Grasses • Treatment window: April–June or September–October. • Herbicides: Clethodim, sethoxydim, or glyphosate. Warm -Season Grasses • Treatment window: June–September. • Herbicides: Clethodim, sethoxydim, or glyphosate. Initial Mowing • Mow multiple times during the growing season to reduce plant growth. • Cool-season grasses, especially reed canary grass, may regrow later in the season. Herbicide Application • At least 90% of target plants must be removed using mowing, herbicide, or both. • Report any additional invasive species to the project manager. • Some invasive species are outside the project scope and are not treatment priorities. • Clopyralid (e.g., Transline) is preferred for invasive forbs because it breaks down faster in soil. • Apply herbicide summer through early fall. • Spray all leaf surfaces. Do not spray only the top foliage. • Do not apply herbicide if temperatures exceed 85°F or humidity drops below 45%. • Allow plants to regrow between treatments so herbicide works effectively. Spot Mowing • Mow annual or biennial invasive forbs before they produce seed. • Use weed whips, brush cutters, or brush hogs. • Cut plants at ground level. • Avoid damaging nearby native plants. Turf or Invasive Grass Removal (Herbicide) • Up to two herbicide treatments may be used, with mowing between treatments. • Use aquatic-approved herbicides near water. • Boom sprayers may be used for the first treatment with landowner approval. • Timing depends on the species and earlier removal work. • At least one fall treatment is usually recommended. • Follow-up treatments must use spot spraying. Dethatching or Full Grass Removal • In dense turf, use a vertical cutter to remove the thatch layer. • Reed canary grass and other large grasses may be hand-pulled or dug out in small areas. • Remove the entire root mass to prevent regrowth. • At least 95% of target plants must be removed or controlled within each work unit. 40 4.f. Native Species Planting Storage and Handling • Store bare -root plants in dry conditions at 45–70°F, or place them outside on bare ground if temperatures allow. • Group plants into bundles of 5–10. Each bundle must contain only one species. • Keep plants out of direct sunlight. • Wet roots thoroughly with a hose or water dip. • Cover roots with wet straw, burlap, or excelsior to retain moisture. • Cover plants with plastic sheeting and secure the edges to maintain warm, humid conditions. • Do not allow roots to dry out. Planting Bare-Root Plants • Plant when buds begin to swell. • Dig a hole twice as wide and slightly deeper than the root length using a shovel or planting bar. • If the hole cannot fit the full root system, trim roots to no shorter than 10 inches. • Place roots so the top of the root system sits slightly below ground level. • Spread roots evenly. Do not bend or “J-root” them. • Backfill soil slightly above the first root and press soil firmly to remove air pockets. Planting Native Plugs • Plant plugs in clusters of the same species, spaced about 6 inches apart. • Distribute clusters throughout the planting area. • Dig holes twice as wide and slightly deeper than the plug’s root mass. • Remove the plug and gently loosen circling roots. • Form a small soil mound in the hole so roots can spread down the sides. • Plant plugs at the same depth as in the container. • Backfill and press soil firmly around the roots. • Water and firm the soil to remove air pockets. 41 4.g. Native Species Seeding Forbs and Grasses • In existing turf areas, seed with a mix that includes fine fescues at 5 pounds per 1,000 square feet. This helps increase grass diversity and reduce long-term maintenance. • If using a forb -only mix, apply seed at 0.5 pounds per square foot. • Some species may be added as plugs instead of seed due to cost, such as pussytoes, common violet, and wild petunia. • After seeding, culti-pack the area to ensure good soil contact, unless using equipment designed for native seed planting. • Water regularly for the first three weeks. Avoid heavy, infrequent watering. • Compost or aquagel may be added to help retain moisture. • Do not mow for at least three weeks after seeding. Woody Understory Seeding • After woody invasive removal, broadcast seed by hand across woodland areas. • Use an approved BWSR seed mix that matches the target ecosystem. • Winter seeding may occur about 30 days before consistent above-freezing temperatures. • Spread seed in open areas with good soil contact so freeze–thaw cycles help incorporate it into the soil. Turf to Prairie Seeding • In compacted soils, till the top 6 inches before seeding. • Seed immediately after site preparation. • Seed may be broadcast or drill-seeded using equipment designed for native seed. • Do not plant seed deeper than 0.25 inches. • Small seeds should be broadcast on the soil surface. • Culti-pack all seeded areas during or after seeding. Erosion Control Blanket • Install erosion control where needed to prevent seed washout and ensure even distribution. • Use Category 3N straw natural net blanket (MnDOT standard) on slopes steeper than 3:1. Cover Crop • Bare soil or erosion-control areas must receive a cover crop of oats or winter wheat. • The contractor must purchase, deliver, and seed the cover crop. • Establishment Maintenance • Mow seeded areas to 4–5 inches two to three times in the first year and at least once in the second year. • Mow when weeds reach 12–18 inches tall, before they produce seed. 42 4.h. Prescribed Fire Contractor Requirements • Provide one or more burn bosses with an RXB2 certification or equivalent. • Submit documentation of burn boss qualifications, including training, experience, number of burns, and any incident history. • Burn crew members must have S-130 and S-190 training or equivalent. • All crew members must complete an annual safety refresher (RT-130 or equivalent) and pass a physical fitness test. • The burn boss must have experience leading burns with similar fuels and complexity. • Provide all equipment and PPE needed for the burn. • Provide proof of insurance. • Provide two references for similar completed projects. Access and Staging • Vehicles may access the site for fire break preparation, burning, and mop-up. • Trails entering the property must remain open and accessible after the burn. • Coordinate with the landowner to temporarily close trails or field roads during the burn. Personnel Safety • The contractor must provide qualified personnel, PPE, equipment, and supplies. Minimum PPE • NFPA-certified fire -resistant shirt and pants. • Leather gloves. • Hard hat. NFPA shrouds available if requested. • Safety goggles or glasses with side shields. • Leather boots. • Fire shelters available if requested. • Radios or other communication equipment for all crew members. Permitting • The contractor must obtain all required state and local permits and prepare burn plans. • Provide copies of permits and burn plans to the project manager. • This includes permits for pile burning and running fire. • Coordinate with the landowner on neighbor notifications. Fire Break and Woody Debris Management • Fire breaks must contain the burn and meet DNR and local permit requirements. • Fire breaks must follow the burn unit perimeter shown on the site map, unless the contractor proposes a larger unit at no extra cost and receives approval. • Fire breaks may be prepared during the off-season if conditions allow. Fire Break Clearing • Woody debris must not bridge fire breaks. • Cut vegetation must not be windrowed along fire breaks or work area edges. 43 • Remove snags or hazards within 15 feet of the fire line as needed. • Remove all woody material on or across the fire break. Chainsaws may be required. Deadfall and Debris • Deadfall may be burned or hauled off site before the running fire. • If hauled, debris must be removed from the site. Do not push debris outside the unit or into wetlands. • Removing or pile -burning debris larger than 8 inches diameter requires project manager approval. • Removing snags before the burn is discouraged unless required for safety and must be approved. • Optional internal fire breaks may be created around snags. Running Fire • Provide the project manager at least 48 hours’ notice before the burn. • Follow all state and local permit requirements. • Manage smoke to avoid impacts to homes, livestock operations, roads, railways, and neighboring properties. • Follow weather prescriptions and check for drought conditions, red flag warnings, burn restrictions, and burn bans. Burn Objectives • Burn conditions should match resource goals, such as removing thatch or killing target trees. Protecting Desirable Trees • Protect trees by mowing, raking, leaf-blowing, or creating wet lines around trunks if needed. • The contractor is responsible for smoke management during the burn. • Notify the project manager within 12 hours after the burn is complete. Mop -Up and Snag Management • The contractor is responsible for all mop-up work and extinguishing smoke that could cause complaints or flare -ups. • Retain snags unless safety concerns require removal. • If snags or trees ignite, attempt to extinguish them before felling. • Return the next day to confirm the fire is fully out and no smoke remains. Documentation • Submit a brief burn report to the landowner. • Include weather conditions, burn results, unexpected events, and any changes from the burn plan. • Report must also describe conditions during the first day after the burn. • Report Requirements • Submit the report within one week of the burn. • Include a map of the burn results. • A hand-drawn map is acceptable, but a GPS-based map is preferred. 44 4.i. Woody Debris Disposal Options Dead Down Woody Debris Disposal • Remove dead down woody material with priority given to the following areas: • Along property lines, maintaining a 10-foot clearance • Along trails, maintaining a 20-foot clearance • Areas where dead down wood significantly interferes with buckthorn management • Dead down wood eligible for removal includes trunks, limbs, and branches from fallen trees that are less than 12 inches in diameter and shorter than 10 feet in length. • Woody debris may be managed using the disposal methods described in this section. Biochar Kilns • The contractor will burn piles of previously cut brush using county- or contractor-supplied biochar kilns. • The contractor must prepare, submit, and obtain all necessary permits and approvals before burning brush piles. • The contractor must address plant mortality caused by burn piles by preparing and reseeding the affected areas. • Ash and any remaining woody debris must be dispersed by the contractor, and the area must be thoroughly raked before seeding. Biochar kiln material requirements: • Biochar kilns are designed to process woody material less than 4 inches in diameter and no longer than 4 feet. • Any material in burn piles that does not meet these specifications must be processed on site to meet them or removed from the area by the contractor before seeding. Burn process: • After ignition, additional material may be added to the burning pile inside the kiln until the coals are within 1 foot of the top of the kiln. • Larger material, up to 4 inches in diameter, chars most effectively during the middle stages of the burn. • A pressurized water tank of at least 100 gallons, with hose, must be available on site. • Burned material must be quenched with water once flames are no longer visible within the kiln. Off-Site Removal by Contractor • Trees harvested from the project area may be chipped and removed from the site. • Trees may be hauled directly off site or chipped and then hauled off site. • Chips may be transported to a compost facility to reduce nutrient cycling within the project site. 45 4.j. Goat Browsing Requirements • Use Boer, Boer-cross, Spanish, Savanna, Kiko, or similar meat goat breeds. • Standard-size dairy goats may be used but may not exceed 50% of the herd. • Long -haired or miniature breeds are not allowed. • Herds must include mixed-age goats. Herds of only young goats are not allowed. • All goats must be fence trained. • Stocking density must be high enough to achieve ecological goals. • The Project Manager may increase or reduce herd size if needed. • The contractor must state the number of goats proposed in the project proposal. • Chemical deworming is not allowed on site and must occur at least two weeks before arrival. Winter Grazing • Target browse rate: 85–90% visible damage or bark stripping on target species. • The Project Manager may adjust this target based on site conditions and goat behavior. • Some non-target trees and shrubs may be affected by grazing. Growing Season Grazing • Each paddock should receive at least two grazing events during the growing season. • The schedule may be adjusted by agreement between the contractor and Project Manager. • Target defoliation per event: about 85%. • Lower defoliation targets may be used where escapes are a concern. • The contractor and Project Manager will determine grazing duration. Return Interval • Timing of additional grazing depends on vegetation regrowth. • A minimum three -week rest period between grazing events is preferred. • The contractor may adjust the rest period with Project Manager approval. Stocking and Paddock Size • The contractor determines the initial paddock size and stocking rate. • The PM may adjust paddock size, stocking rate, return interval, or defoliation targets based on site conditions. • Some impact to desirable trees and shrubs is expected. Fencing • Existing trails may divide sites into paddocks. Larger units may require additional paddocks. • The contractor must supply enough electric mesh fencing to enclose at least one paddock at a time. • The proposal must include a map or description of paddock sizes and fence locations. • Fence Specifications • Electric mesh fencing must be at least 35 inches tall. • Fencing must include at least 8 horizontal strands, with 7 conductive strands. • Vertical supports must be spaced no more than 12 inches apart. 46 Fence Posts • Many systems include built-in posts spaced about 12.5 feet apart. • Additional step-in posts may be needed on uneven ground. • If posts are not built in, the contractor must install posts no more than 12.5 feet apart. Optional Equipment • A 12 -volt deep-cycle battery may be used to power fencing where electricity is unavailable. • A solar fence energizer may be used to recharge the battery if properly sized for the fence. Grounding • Ground rods must provide adequate electrical flow. • A general guideline is 3 feet of grounding rod per joule of energizer output. Fence Maintenance • The contractor must maintain fencing at all times. • Remove fallen branches or debris and reset fallen posts as needed. Fence Lanes and Installation • Brush and vegetation may be cleared to install fencing. • Non -target trees may not be cut without Project Manager approval. • Permanent fencing is not allowed. • All fencing must be removed when goats leave the site. • Brush and debris must be removed from trails and mow strips. • The contractor must repair any damage to park property, including trail rutting. Site Visits • The contractor and Project Manager will coordinate site visits and animal health checks. • The contractor must inspect the site and animals at least twice per week. • The contractor must respond within two hours to issues such as damaged fencing or escaped goats. Weekly Communication • The contractor and Project Manager will maintain regular communication throughout the project. • The contractor will conduct weekly project check-ins on a mutually agreed schedule. Initial Mobilization • About one week before mobilization, the contractor and Project Manager will discuss the target move date. • About 24 hours before arrival, the contractor will confirm the estimated arrival time. • When goats are in transit, the contractor will notify the Project Manager. Paddock Rotations • The contractor will notify the Project Manager 12–24 hours before moving goats to a new paddock. • The contractor will notify the Project Manager immediately after the move. Performance Assessment • The project goal is at least 85% removal of target species. 47 Appendix A: Seeding Specie s Lists The following table outlines recommended seed mixes for each site’s habitat types. Full mix details are available on the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources website for each referenced seed mix code (Shaw 2023). The mixes listed were selected as the best fit for the project’s plant communities and site conditions based on Minnesota Department of Natural Resources guidance. They are not intended to be exhaustive. A professional seed vendor should be consulted whe n selecting and purchasing seed for the site. Ta ble A.1 General Seed Species Lists (shaded cells denote recommended seed mix use in those units ). Site / Unit Hazelnut Park Floral Park Chatham Park BWSR Mix Code or Vendor BWSR Habitat or Vendor Mix Name Woodland Mesic Hardwood Woodland Utility / powerline Woodland Mesic Hardwood MNL Modified Buckthorn Replacement Mix Yes Yes Yes 36-212 Woodland Edge S and W Yes Yes Yes 36-712 Woodland Edge Central Yes Yes Yes 35-642 Mesic Prairie SE Yes Pilot Mesic Short Urban Buffer S and W Yes These mix lists may also guide native plug selection. Most species are available through native plant nurseries. Plant material should be sourced within 250 miles of Arden Hills, and ideally within 150 miles, to improve establishment success. Species availability may require substitutions. A reference table for approved seed mix substitutions is available through the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources here: https://bwsr.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/2021-02/seedmix-substitution.pdf (Shaw 2017). 48 49 50 51 ك 52 53 Appendix B: Tree and Shrub Planting Species List This table recommends tree and shrub species to be planted in the habitat types present at any of the sites . Herbaceous species can also be planted based on the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) species listed in Appe nd ix A, Ta ble A.1. (Tree / Shrub plant types are designated by the color coding in the Ke y ). Species Lists by Habitat Type Lowland/ Wet Woodland Wooded shoreline Mesic Woodland Common name Scientific name Common name Scientific name Common name Scientific name Black Maple Acer nigrum Red Maple Acer rubrum Paper Birch Betula papyrifera Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Gray Dogwood Cornus racemosa Sugar Maple Acer saccharum Chokeberry Aronia melanocarpa American Hazelnut Corylus americana Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia River Birch Betula nigra Beaked Hazelnut Corylus cornuta Gray Dogwood Cornus racemosa Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Wild Honeysuckle Lonicera dioica Round Leaved Dogwood Cornus rugosa Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis Ironwood Ostrya virginiana American Hazelnut Corylus americana Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia Jack Pine Pinus banksiana Bush Honeysuckle Diervilla lonicera Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum Red Pine Pinus resinosa Black Cherry Prunus serotina Red Osier Dogwood Cornus sericea White Pine Pinus strobus Chokecherry Prunus virginiana Tamarack Larix laricina Big Toothed As pe n Populus grandidentata White Oak Quercus alba Cottonwood Populus deltoides Quaking As pe n Populus tremuloides Swamp White Oak Quercus bicolor American Plum Prunus americana Northern Pin Oak Quercus ellipsoidalis Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa Swamp White Oak Quercus bicolor Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa Red Oak Quercus rubra Wild Black Currant Ribes americanum Red Oak Quercus rubra Prickly Gooseberry Ribes cynosbati Prickly Gooseberry Ribes cynosbati Common Elderberry Sambucus canadensis Missouri Gooseberry Ribes missouriense Missouri Gooseberry Ribes missouriense Downy Arrowood Viburnum ralinesquianum Black Raspberry Rubus occidentalis Bebb's Willow Salix bebbiana Pric kly As h Zanthoxylum americanum Common Elderberry Sambucus canadensis Pussy Willow Salix discolor Basswood Tilia americana Red Berried Elder Sambucus racemosa Ke y - Pla nt Type American Elm Ulmus americana Nannyberry Viburnum lentago Tre e Shrub High Bush Cranberry Viburnum opulus 54 Appendix C: Soil Surveys Hazelnut Park 55 Floral Park 56 Chatham Park 57 58 Appendix D: Invasive Species and Noxious Plant Management Protocols Note – the full 27-page document will be attached to the final draft after updates; example pages follow – 59 60 61 62 63 Appendix E: Plant Species Referenced in the Natural Resource Management Text Tree and Shrub Species Forb Species Common Name Species Name Common Name Species Name Amur maple Acer ginnala Bittersweet nightshade Solanum dulcamara Ash Fraxinus spp. Burdocks Arctium spp. Basswood Tilia americana Canada thistle Cirsium arvense Black Cherry Prunus serotina Common burdock Arctium minus Black locust Robinia pseudoacacia Common milkweed Asclepias syriaca Black walnut Juglans nigra Dame's rocket Hesperis matronalis Box elder Acer negundo Early meadow rue Thalictrum dioicum Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa Enchanter's nightshade Circaea canadensis Chokecherry Prunus virginiana Garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata Common elder Sambucus canadensis Goldenrods Solidago spp. Common buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica Hoary vervain Verbena stricta Cottonwood Populus deltoides Jack-in-the-pulpit Arisaema triphyllum Glossy buckthorn Frangula alnus Jewelweed Impatiens capensis Grey dogwood Cornus racemosa Lamb's quarters Chenopodium album Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Motherwort Leonurus cardiaca Hawthorns Crataegus spp. Raspberry Rubus spp. Honeysuckle Lonicera spp. Red baneberry Actaea rubra Ironwood Ostrya virginiana Rue anemone Thalictrum thalictroides Maple Acer spp. Solomon's plume Maianthemum racemosum Missouri gooseberry Ribes missouriense Solomon's seals Polygonatum spp. Nannyberry Viburnum lentago Spotted touch-me-not Impatiens spp. Northern red oak Quercus rubra Spiderwort Tradescantia spp. Oak Quercus spp. Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia Poplar Populus spp. Virginia waterleaf Hydrophyllum virginianum Prickly ash Zanthoxylum americanum White snakeroot Ageratina altissima Quaking aspen Populus tremuloides Wild geranium Geranium maculatum Red-osier dogwood Cornus sericea Wood nettle Laportea canadensis White mulberry Morus alba Grass / Sedge Species White oak Quercus alba Common Name Species Name Pennsylvania sedge Carex pennsylvanica Dark = Species highlighted for management Reed canary grass Phalaris arundinacea Gray = Species of management concern Smooth brome Bromus inermis 64 Citations and References Anderson, James. “Soil Orders and Suborders in Minnesota.” Extension at the University of Minnesota , University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, 2021, extension.umn.edu/soil-management-and-health/soil- orders -and-suborders -minnesota. Arden Hills. “Parks.” Parks | Arden Hills, MN - Official Website , 2006, www.cityofardenhills.org/185/Parks . Domyancich-Le e , Laura. August 18, “A New Tool in Our Toolbox for Buckthorn Control: Critical Period Cutting.” Friends of the Mississippi River , Minnesota Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund, LCCMR, 18 Aug. 2023, fmr.org/updates/conservation/new-tool-our-toolbox-buckthorn-control- critical-period -cutting. Johnson, Lucinda, et al. “Minnesota Natural Resource Atlas.” Minnesota Natural Resource Atlas: Online Mapping Tools and Data for Natural Resource Planning, Management, and Research in Minnesota, Natural Resources Research Institute, University of Minnesota Duluth, 2022, mnatlas.org/. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota. The Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province. Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources, 2005. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources . “Minnesota’s Native Plant Communities.” Minnesota Department of Natural Resources , 2003. www.dnr.state.mn.us/npc/index.html. “Minnesota Historical Aerial Photographs Online.” MHAPO , John R Borchert Map Library, University of Minnesota, and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2015, apps.lib.umn.edu/mhapo/. “Minnesota Land Cover Classification System User Manual Version 5.4.” Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2004, files.dnr.state.mn.us/assistance/nrplanning/community/mlccs/mlccs_manual_v5_4.pdf. Sagor, Eli. “Oak Wilt in Minnesota.” UMN Extension , 2024, extension.umn.edu/plant-diseases/oak-wilt - minnesota . Schuster, Michael J., et al. “No evidence of a long-lived seedbank in common buckthorn, Rhamnus cathartica L., within Minnesota deciduous forests.” Biological Invasions , vol. 25, no. 10, 22 June 2023, pp. 3043–3048, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-023-03113-4 . Shaw, Dan. “Seed Mixes.” Seed Mixes | MN Board of Water, Soil Resources , Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2023, bwsr.state.mn.us/seed-mixes . Shaw, Dan. “Seed Substitution List.” MN Board of Water, Soil Resources , Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 5 Jan. 2017, bwsr.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/2021-02/seedmix-substitution.pdf. Soil Survey Staff. “Web Soil Survey Mapper.” Web Soil Survey, United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 16 Aug. 2005, websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. NEW BUSINESS – 4B MEMORANDUM DATE: May 19, 2026 TO: Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee FROM: Jess Skalicky, Parks and Recreation Manager SUBJECT: Parks CIP Updates Requested Action Review and discuss the high-level overview of the 2026–2030 Parks CIP and the initial preview of projects anticipated for submission as part of the 2027–2031 Parks CIP process. Background The Parks Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is reviewed annually to help guide future park improvements, identify anticipated project needs, and support long-term planning for the park system. At the meeting, staff will provide a high-level overview of the current 2026–2030 Parks CIP, including projects that are currently planned or anticipated within the five-year period. Staff will also provide an initial preview of items expected to be submitted for the 2027–2031 CIP process. This discussion is informational only. No formal recommendation or action is requested at this time. The overview is intended to keep the PTRC informed of upcoming park improvement priorities and provide early context before the next CIP cycle moves forward. Attachments Attachment A: 2026-2030 CIP Attachment B: 2027-2031 CIP Draft (Parks System Plan) 124 Action Plan Arden Hills Park System Plan 125 Each year the city updates and approves a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to layout a roadmap for projects for the next 10 years. The table below shows spending by park for each year through 2035. 10-Year CIP (2026-2035) Table 29. 10-Year Parks and Trails CIP Park FY-26 FY-27 FY-28 FY-29 FY-30 FY-31 FY-32 FY-33 FY-34 FY-35 Community Garden $6,500 Arden Manor $200,000 $50,000 Arden Oaks $17,500 Chatham Trails $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 Crepeau Nature Preserve $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $4,800 Cummings $125,200 $353,000 Floral $4,000 $9,000 Freeway $40,000 $430,000 Hazelnut $185,000 $150,000 Ingerson $550,500 Johanna Marsh $2,400 Lindey’s Perry $226,500 $235,000 $9,500 Royal Hills $460,000 $6,400 $43,000 Sampson $6,700 $400,500 South Point $3,500 South Shore Valentine $375,000 Trails $440,000 $4,500,000 $562,500 $200,000 $1,800,000 $75,000 $4,000,000 Total Cost/Year $446,700 $6,062,500 $736,500 $853,200 $1,849,00 $314,400 $503,000 $830,000 $90,500 $4,030,900 NEW BUSINESS – 4C MEMORANDUM DATE: May 19, 2026 TO: Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee FROM: Jess Skalicky, Parks and Recreation Manager SUBJECT: 2027 PTRC Work Plan Requested Action Adopt the PTRC 2026 Work Plan. Background The Parks, Trails, and Recreation Committee creates an annual work plan to guide its work each year. The work plan includes recurring annual topics, as well as additional projects, initiatives, and priorities the committee may choose to focus on throughout the year. The work plan helps the committee stay organized, establish priorities, and guide meeting agendas and discussions. The PTRC will begin initial discussion and brainstorming for the 2027 Work Plan at this meeting. Discussion may include potential focus areas, projects, recurring topics, and other ideas for future committee consideration. This discussion is intended to gather preliminary input only, and no formal decisions or approvals will be made at this time. Attachment Attachment A: 2026 PTRC Work Plan Attachment B: PTRC Work Plan Guidebook Parks, Trails, and Recreation Committee 2026 Work Plan Parks, Trails, and Recreation Committee The Parks, Trails, and Recreation Committee (PTRC) represents residents by helping guide the development and improvement of parks, trails, and natural spaces. The PTRC advises the City Council, monitors the use and improvement of parks, trails, and recreation areas, and works with other city committees and commissions to enhance them. As an advisory committee, the PTRC does not have decision-making authority, but rather serves as a voice that makes recommendations to the City Council. Meetings Meetings are held monthly at Arden Hills City Hall: • Third Tuesday of the month • 6:30 pm – 8:00 pm PTRC Members • SJ Julius, Chair - term expires 2027 • Dan Dietz, Vice Chair - term expires 2027 • Elizabeth Johnson - term expires 2026 • Nikhath Nazir Ahmed - term expires 2027 • Derek Hilding - term expires 2027 • Lacy Loosbrock - term expires 2028 • Kate Olson - term expires 2028 • Ted Chesrand - Youth Committee Member, 2025 - 2026 City Council Liaison • Emily Rousseau Staff Liaison • Jess Skalicky, Parks and Recreation Manager PTRC Work Plan The Annual Work Plan serves as the primary roadmap for the Parks, Trails, and Recreation Committee (PTRC), outlining the committee’s focus areas, meeting agendas, and key goals throughout the year. It helps ensure that the Committee’s efforts are organized, purposeful, and aligned with the community’s needs and the City’s broader parks and recreation objectives. By establishing clear priorities and action steps, the Work Plan guides how the Committee advises City Council and engages with the public. 2026 PTRC Subcommittees Trails Group (Chair: Liz Johnson) The Trails Group partners with the City and local municipal partners on Arden Hills trail planning. The Trails Group focuses on long-term trail visioning and future trail improvements, providing input well before projects enter planning or design. This work is intended to inform projects expected to begin planning three or more years in the future and does not apply to active or approved projects. Volunteer Coordination (Chair: Lacy Loosbrock) The Volunteer Subcommittee supports strengthening volunteer involvement in City programs and events. Members help identify volunteer needs, suggest recruitment strategies, and recommend ways to recognize and retain volunteers. The group works to build a positive volunteer experience that supports successful programs and meaningful community engagement. Special Event Enrichment (Chair: Kate Olson) The Special Event Enrichment Subcommittee develops ideas that enhance community events. Members review event plans, suggest new activities, identify partnerships, and recommend improvements that increase participation and community connection. The group helps ensure City events remain creative, welcoming, and responsive to residents across all ages. 2026 PTRC Goals & Priorities “Love Your Parks” Clean Up Day Love Your Parks Day would be a community volunteer event focused on caring for City parks. Residents would be invited to help with litter pickup, light landscaping, and beautification projects, building community pride while helping keep parks clean, welcoming, and well cared for. Civic Group Connections Strengthen relationships with local service organizations such as Lions and Rotary by creating opportunities for collaboration. The committee will seek ways to connect these groups with City events, volunteer opportunities, and community initiatives that support residents and strengthen community engagement. 2026 Annual Calendar January Annual Work Plan Draft Develop a draft of the Annual Work Plan outlining priorities, projects, and goals for the 2026 year. Adopt-a-Park Review the updated informational documents about the City’s Adopt-a-Park, Adopt-a- Trail, Adopt-a-Garden, and Adopt-a-Spot program. Give feedback before final presentation to City Council for approval. February Public Works Maintenance Plan Evaluate the annual maintenance schedule and priorities set by Public Works for parks and trails. Offer input on maintenance priorities, planting plans, and recommend park improvements to include in the plan. March Finalize 2026 PTRC Annual Work Plan Review, refine, and adopt the 2026 PTRC Annual Work Plan with the Committee before sharing it with Council. Park System Plan Updates Review the new Park System Plan and give final feedback and recommendations before it is accepted and adopted by Council. Spring Egg Hunt Serve as volunteers for the Annual Spring Egg Hunt in Cummings Park on March 28, 2026. April Current Year Parks CIP Review the current Capital Improvement Plan to assess active projects, budgets, and timelines for this year and the next 5 years. May 2027 Annual Work Plan – Create 1st Draft Develop a draft of the Annual Work Plan outlining priorities, projects, and goals for the 2027 Calendar Year. June Parks Tour Conduct a tour of local parks to observe conditions firsthand. Use this opportunity to identify maintenance needs, potential improvements, and gather ideas for future projects. July 2027 Work Plan – Create 2nd Draft Continue to craft, edit, and develop the draft of the Annual Work Plan, outlining priorities, projects, and goals for the 2027 Calendar Year. Attend Annual Committees and Commissions Appreciation Picnic Participate in the yearly appreciation event to connect with other City advisory members, celebrate accomplishments, and strengthen community relationships. Attend Arden Hills’ 75th Anniversary Celebration Attend the 75th Anniversary Celebration on July 17, 2026. This event will celebrate the City’s anniversary and have food trucks, family games, live entertainment, and a drone show. August 2027 Work Plan – Create Final Draft Create the final draft of the 2027 Annual Work Plan, outlining priorities, projects, and goals for the 2027 Calendar Year. September 2027 Work Plan Presentation to Council Present the 2027 PTRC Work Plan to City Council. October Flashlight Pumpkin Hunt Recruit volunteers for the annual Flashlight Pumpkin Hunt and serve as volunteers at the event, too. November Future Year Parks CIP Review proposed capital projects and budgets planned for upcoming years. Provide recommendations to help prioritize projects that best serve the community. December PTRC Membership & Leadership Select the Chair and Co-Chair for the upcoming year. Members with expiring terms may choose to recommit for another three-year term or conclude their PTRC service. Parks, Trails, and Recreation Committee Work Plan Guidebook Parks, Trails, and Recreation Committee The Parks, Trails, and Recreation Committee (PTRC) represents residents by helping guide the development and improvement of parks, trails, and natural spaces. The PTRC advises the City Council, monitors the use and improvement of parks, trails, and recreation areas, and works with other City committees and commissions to enhance them. As an advisory committee, the PTRC does not have decision-making authority, but rather serves as a resident voice to make recommendations to the City Council. PTRC Work Plan The Annual Work Plan serves as the primary roadmap for the Parks, Trails, and Recreation Committee (PTRC), outlining the committee’s focus areas, meeting agendas, and key goals throughout the year. It helps ensure that the Committee’s efforts are organized, purposeful, and aligned with the community’s needs and the City’s broader parks and recreation objectives. By establishing clear priorities and action steps, the Work Plan guides how the Committee advises City Council and engages with the public. Each year, the PTRC adopts the Annual Work Plan in February after careful discussion and input from members. Following adoption, the Work Plan is formally presented to City Council in March for their review and approval. This process allows the Council to understand the Committee’s priorities and planned activities, providing an opportunity to offer feedback or request adjustments. Once approved, the Work Plan becomes the foundation for the PTRC’s work for the remainder of the year, supporting transparency and accountability in their advisory role. Core Elements The core elements of the PTRC Annual Work Plan list the items that must be included every year and placed on the annual meeting calendar. These items ensure the Committee consistently completes its expected responsibilities and provides timely input to City Council. Yearly Special PTRC Projects Each year, the PTRC may also choose 1 to 5 additional special projects to include in the Work Plan, based on member interest and community needs. These projects are optional and allow the Committee to focus on topics or activities beyond the required annual items. Annual Work Plan – Core Elements The PTRC should schedule time to review each of the following on the annual work plan’s calendar. Current Year Parks CIP Review the current Capital Improvement Plan to monitor active projects, budgets, and timelines. Provide feedback to ensure projects align with community needs and Committee priorities. Public Works Maintenance Plan Evaluate the annual maintenance schedule and priorities set by Public Works for parks and trails. Offer input on maintenance effectiveness and recommend improvements where needed. Recreation Annual Report Assess the yearly report on recreation programs, participation rates, and outcomes. Use this information to advise on program improvements and new opportunities. Future Year Parks CIP Review proposed capital projects and budgets planned for upcoming years. Provide recommendations to help prioritize projects that best serve the community. Park System Plan Updates Examine updates or revisions to the overall parks system plan. Ensure the plan reflects changing community needs and supports long-term goals. Parks Tour Conduct an annual tour of local parks and facilities to observe conditions firsthand. Use this opportunity to identify maintenance needs, potential improvements, and gather ideas for future projects. Work Plan Review Conduct an annual review by Quarter 3 to evaluate progress on the Work Plan and present findings and recommended adjustments to City Council. Annual Work Plan – Yearly Special PTRC Projects Each year, the PTRC should select 1 to 5 special projects to focus on. For each chosen project, the Committee should develop clear SMART goals—goals that are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound. This approach ensures that the projects have well-defined objectives, realistic expectations, and timelines for completion. Establishing SMART goals helps the Committee stay organized, track progress effectively, and provide meaningful updates to City Council and the community. The list below is not exhaustive but serves as a helpful starting point for identifying potential projects: Park and Trail Maintenance Support Assist with general upkeep and improvements to keep a specific park and/or trail safe, clean, and enjoyable for all users. Create volunteer days for the chosen project. Natural Resource Conservation & Invasive Species Removal Create a short-term project to restore a natural habitat within a specific park or trail. Recreation Program Development and Support Help plan, promote, or assist with running a recreational program or event. Beautification and Enhancement Projects Lead or support an effort to improve the visual appeal and usability of a park through a planting project, cleanup campaign, or facility enhancement. Add Yearly Special PTRC Projects to Work Plan Annual Calendar Once the PTRC has decided on 1 to 5 yearly special PTRC projects, the Committee should add these projects to the Work Plan calendar for the year. Make sure to add opportunities for research, follow-up, and final reporting on each of these projects throughout the annual Work Plan calendar, too.