Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-18-26 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: Matthew Johnson Arden Hills Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee August 18, 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 Introduction of New Member Oaths of new member 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 D. Dog Stick Library 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 6. REPORTS FROM SUBCOMMITTEES 7. NEXT MEETING A. Tuesday, September 15 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.doc MEMORANDUM DATE: August 18, 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 2029-2031. • 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). • 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: • 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 construction in 2026. o This trail is being graded and will be paved in the next week or so, weather permitting. The entire MNDot project will not be completed until this fall. • 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 2027 if everything falls into place. This trail will be owned and maintained by the City once completed. Currently, the Developer has started construction of the development and the City has a consulting firm under contract to start design phase. • 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.  This project was postponed to start in 2027 now due to a large gas main being in conflict. Xcel Energy will be adjusting this gas main in 2026 ahead of Roseville and Arden Hills work. Page 3 of 3 • The 2027 Parks Project (Ingerson, Perry and Sampson): o Preliminary site conditions have been assessed and brought to PTRC at the last monthly meeting in November 2025. 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. o A Consultant has now been brought under contract to start the preliminary design phase for the project this summer in 2026. o There will be an open house scheduled at a later date this fall. • 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 This work is now substantially complete and the hardcourt is under use. • 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 2026 for warranty work and seed establishment. 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 This work is now substantially complete and the path is under use. • 2026 PMP Project – o Part of this year’s street project included reclaiming and repaving trail portions along the south side of Cummings Park from the parking area down the south side of Karth Lake and also along portions of Cummings Park Drive. This area is still under heavy construction for the next few weeks. • 2026 Trail and Street Maintenance Project – o Every year crack sealing and fog sealing takes place as part of our annual pavement maintenance program. In early August 2026, the low bid Contractor completed crack sealing and fog sealing of the trail segments between County Rd E and County Road D and also around the Parkshore Drive Trail System. See image below for the trail segment highlighted in yellow: NEW BUSINESS – 4A MEMORANDUM DATE: August 18, 2026 TO: Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee FROM: Matthew Johnson, Recreation Supervisor 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 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 Resource Management Plan Attachment C: Invasive Species Plant Management Protocols 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 Alexander 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 stewardship 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 .................................................................................................. 19 3.c. Floral Park Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 25 3.d. Chatham Park Recommendations .................................................................................................. 33 4. Specifications for Restoration Activities ................................................................................................ 38 4.a. Forestry Mowing (Woody Tree / Shrub Initial Removal) ..................................................................... 38 4.b. Critical Period High Cutting (Woody Tree / Shrub Initial Removal) .................................................... 40 4.c. Woody Tree / Shrub Control and Maintenance ................................................................................ 41 4.d. Woody Herbicide Application ......................................................................................................... 42 4.e. Herbaceous Invasive Control ......................................................................................................... 43 4.f. Native Species Planting .................................................................................................................. 44 4.g. Native Species Seeding .................................................................................................................. 45 4.h. Prescribed Fire .............................................................................................................................. 46 4.i. Woody Debris Disposal Options ...................................................................................................... 48 4.j. Goat Browsing ................................................................................................................................ 49 Appendix A: Seeding Species Lists ............................................................................................................ 51 Appendix B: Tree and Shrub Planting Species List ...................................................................................... 58 Appendix C: Soil Surveys ............................................................................................................................ 59 Appendix D: 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 Conditions 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 D 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 MHs38. 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—began 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 black 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 there 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 urbanized, with trees filling in most undeveloped spaces including the extent of the woodland space within the park. Today woodland 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 depressional 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 native 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. The 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 or WMs83 – Southern Seepage Meadow/Carr. Unlike in the woodland, prescribed fire can be used effectively here to promote native species composition and control invasive species proliferation. Prescribed fire may not be possible during spring thaw as the prairie seems to retain water close to soil surface. 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, contracted 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, but will depend on water saturation in the soil. 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 should 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 as a separate document titled NRPC_InvasiveSpeciesNoxiousPlantManagementProtocols_2026. 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 • WMs83 – Southern Seepage Meadow/Carr 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. Bolded habitat summary codes correspond to the systems that best match site conditions. 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 south 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) Floodplain Forest - (FFs59) North woodland and lowland areas throughout (6.1acres) Forested areas of site (20 acres) 17 Southern Seepage Meadow/ Carr – (WMs83) Prairie in SE corner (1 acre) These classifications provide the most appropriate ecological reference points for existing vegetation across the site. 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 promptly. If needed, foliar herbicide and targeted mowing should be used to limit 18 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. 19 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. 20 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. 21 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. 22 Table 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. 23 Table 3.b.2: Recommended maintenance tasks for Hazelnut Park after completion of the currently funded restoration project. Dollar values are 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 an 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 $2,000 /ac $2,000 /ac $2,000 /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, UPs23 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. 24 Table 3.b.3: Recommended summary budget for Hazelnut Park after completion of the currently funded restoration project. Year 1 is assumed to begin in July 2027, after the completion of the OHF funded work, though the schedule can extend beyond the first five years. All prices are estimates based on current market rates at the time of writing. Note - The Buckthorn Control Focused Plan is intended to be a bare minimum maintenance / low-cost option for continued park maintenance. The Additional Maintenance Activities recommend tasks for herbaceous control or native vegetation establishment. Entries with “Volunteers” written in assume that most of the labor will be handled by volunteers and does not account for whatever volunteer coordination labor the city conducts. Ha z e l n u t P a r k Buckthorn Control Focused Plan Plant Community Activity Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Over 5 years Mesic Hardwood Forest MHs38, 6.9ac Woody Invasive Control $13,800 $13,800 Goat Browsing maintenance $3,100 Planting or seeding Volunteers Volunteers Total Focus Plan $13,800 $ - $ 3,100 $ - $13,800 $30,700 Additional Maintenance Activities Powerline Prairie, UPs23, 1.8ac Planting or seeding Volunteers Volunteers Woodland and Prairie, 8.7ac Herbaceous Invasive control $20,000 $17,500 $14,500 $13,100 Total Additional $20,000 $17,500 $14,500 $13,100 $65,100 Total Combined $33,800 $17,500 $17,600 $0.00 $26,900 $95,800 25 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. 26 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 that 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. 27 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. 28 Table 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. 29 Table 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 $2,000 /ac + $10,000 /ac $2,000 /ac $2,000 /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. 30 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 $2,000 /ac $2,000 /ac $2,000 /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. 31 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 $2,500 /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 Table 3.c.3: Recommended summary budget for Hazelnut Park after completion of the currently funded restoration project. Year 1 is assumed to begin in July 2029, after the completion of the OHF funded work, though the schedule can extend beyond the first five years. All prices are estimates based on current market rates at the time of writing. 32 Note - The Buckthorn Control Focused Plan is intended to be a bare minimum maintenance / low-cost option for continued park maintenance. The Additional Maintenance Activities recommend tasks for herbaceous control or native vegetation establishment. Entries with “Volunteers” written in assume that most of the labor will be handled by volunteers and does not account for whatever volunteer coordination labor the city conducts. Fl o r a l P a r k Buckthorn Control Focused Plan Plant Community Activity Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Over 5 years Mesic and Wet Forested areas 14ac Woody Invasive Control $28,000 $28,000 Goat Browsing maintenance $7,000 Planting or seeding Volunteers Volunteers Total $28,000 $ - $ 7,000 $ - $28,000 $63,000 Additional Maintenance Activities Amur Maple, Unit 1, 1ac Woody Invasive Control $10,000 Powerline Prairie, UPs23, 0.6ac Planting or seeding Volunteers Volunteers Woodland and Prairie, 14.6ac Herbaceous Invasive control $33,580 $29,200 $24,800 $21,900 Total Additional $43,580 $29,200 $24,800 $0.00 $21,900 $109,500 Total Combined $71,580 $29,200 $31,800 $0.00 $49,900 $172,500 33 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 and city-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 incorporated 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. 34 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. GRG staff conducted a brief visit to the prairie in spring 2026 and determined that the prairie is more of a wet meadow, such as WMs83. A more thorough 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 during drier months. 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. Goat browsing can also be used in combination with volunteer leaf stripping of invasive woody species. Each management technique creates different ecological responses. As a result, plant, fungal, and wildlife communities will vary depending on the methods applied. 35 Table 3.d.1: Recommended maintenance tasks for Chatham 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 2026, though the schedule can extend beyond the first five years. Goal Native Plant Community Recommended Actions Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Notes Pr 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 woody invasive species removal and continued control $7,000 /ac $2,000 /ac $2,000 /ac $2,000 /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. 36 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 $2,000 /ac $2,000 /ac $2,000 /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, WMs83 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. 37 Table 3.d.2: Recommended summary budget for Hazelnut Park after completion of the currently funded restoration project. Year 1 is assumed to begin in July 2027 and would be supported by the proposed OHF funding, though the schedule can extend beyond the first five years. All prices are estimates based on current market rates at the time of writing. Note - The Buckthorn Control Focused Plan is intended to be a bare minimum maintenance / low-cost option for continued park maintenance. The Additional Maintenance Activities recommend tasks for herbaceous control or native vegetation establishment. Entries with “Volunteers” written in assume that most of the labor will be handled by volunteers and does not account for whatever volunteer coordination labor the city conducts. Ch a t h a m P a r k Buckthorn Control Focused Plan Plant Community Activity Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Over 5 years Untouched Floodplain Forest FFs59, 15.5ac Initial Woody Invasive Control $108,500 $31,000 $31,000 $31,000 Planting or seeding Volunteers Floodplain Forest, FFs59, 4.2ac Woody Invasive Control $8,400 $8,400 Goat Browsing maintenance $2,100 Planting or seeding volunteers volunteers Total $116,900 $31,000.00 $33,100.00 $31,000 $8,400 $220,400 Additional Maintenance Activities Wet Prairie, WMs83, 2.8ac Planting or seeding Volunteers Volunteers Woodland and Prairie, 22.4ac Herbaceous Invasive control $51,500 $44,800 $38,100 $33,600 Total Additional $51,500 $44,800 $38,100 $0.00 $33,600 $168,000 Total Combined $168,400 $75,800 $71,200 $31,000 $42,000 $388,400 38 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) Timing • 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) 39 • 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. 40 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. 41 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. 42 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. 43 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. 44 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. 45 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. 46 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. 47 • 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. 48 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. 49 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. 50 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. 51 Appendix A: Seeding Species 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 when selecting and purchasing seed for the site. Table 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 Wet Prairie 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 34-161 Early Successional Floodplain General 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). 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 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 Appendix A, Table A.1. (Tree / Shrub plant types are designated by the color coding in the Key). 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 Aspen Populus grandidentata White Oak Quercus alba Cottonwood Populus deltoides Quaking Aspen 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 Prickly Ash Zanthoxylum americanum Common Elderberry Sambucus canadensis Pussy Willow Salix discolor Basswood Tilia americana Red Berried Elder Sambucus racemosa Key - Plant Type American Elm Ulmus americana Nannyberry Viburnum lentago Tree Shrub High Bush Cranberry Viburnum opulus 59 Appendix C: Soil Surveys Hazelnut Park 60 Floral Park 61 Chatham Park 62 63 Appendix D: 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-Lee, 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. INVASIVE SPECIES AND NOXIOUS PLANT MANAGEMENT PROTOCOLS (UPDATED MARCH, 2026) Complete eradication of some invasive species from a site is often not an attainable goal once they have become well established. A more realistic goal is to achieve a reduction of cover and ongoing management over time. In general, any given invasive species should not dominate and compromise the integrity of the ecosystem. For invasive populations that are reasonable to manage, inputs in the short-term are required, as well as a long- term commitment. However, even this goal is not practical for some populations of invasive species. Establishment and maintenance of a diverse native plant community can help prevent further invasion. Short-term plans Plans are necessary to diminish existing and seedling populations of undesirable species. When undesirable vegetation dominates a patch, ecosystem attributes such as nutrient flow, hydrology, and microclimates are determined by the dominate vegetation. The vegetation ensures dominance through regulating the ecosystem attributes in ways that reinforce their dominance. Tactical procedures should target the species in attempts to reduce their influence over ecosystem attributes; however, solutions don’t target the altered ecosystem attributes, such as eutrophic soils, and the site will remain highly invasible until those attributes are changed in ways that facilitate a more desirable vegetation. Long-term Commitment Over the long term the site needs to be continually monitored for invasive species while managing for native species habitat. This would include some form or combination of biomass harvest procedures may include grazing, haying (cutting and removing biomass), prescribed fire, and mowing. The primary benefits of biomass harvest to plant community configuration is control over nutrient flow and secondarily over light competition. Without some form of biomass harvest, many desirable plant species drop out of the community configuration. All restoration projects require long–term commitment in order to ensure long-term success. Overview of Management Strategies There are a range of effective treatment options for invasive species management. The trade-offs in terms of cost, effectiveness, and collateral impacts should all be factored in when making management decisions. Some treatment options may not be practical for any number of reasons including lack of equipment access, disruption to visitor access, etc. Prescribed burns, biological control, and various chemical or mechanical treatments can be considered as management options. Combinations of treatment methods often offer better control. Mechanical: Mechanical control can include girdling, mowing, haying, cutting, and physical removal by hand-pulling or digging. Properly timed mowing can achieve some management objectives, particularly for managing annual weeds or in lieu of a prescribed burn when prescribed burn objectives cannot be met due to the lack of appropriate burn conditions. Forestry mowing in winter that shatters the base of woody stems can lead to the death of an invasive tree by desiccation under the right winter conditions. Hand removal can be effective for small populations or when groups of volunteers can be organized to work through an area. Prescribed Burns: Fire can serve a few of functions in the maintenance and management of native ecosystems. It is an effective tool for maintaining fire dependent grassland and woodland ecosystems which require periodic fires to remove thatch or leaf litter, return nutrients to the soil, and set back invasive species. The timing of fire in various ecosystems can be used to impact woody or herbaceous invasive species that are in a susceptible life stage. Fire can be used as a tool to facilitate herbicide treatments by removing thatch either in preparation for herbicide treatment or as a follow-up to herbicide treatment. Fire can also be used to remove thatch or litter in preparation for seeding or interseeding. Chemical: The herbicide product, herbicide formulation, timing of application, site conditions, target species, and proximity to non-target species must all be factored in when designing an herbicide treatment plan. A range of herbicide products are available to use selectively for specific restoration applications. Herbicide treatments can be broadcast or spot treatments depending on the density of the target species and the composition and density of the surrounding desirable species. Herbicides can be applied by a variety of different methods, including foliar, basal bark, or cut stem treatments. Herbicides for selective or broad spectrum applications can be chosen to either fine tune a response or to treat large contiguous areas of invasive or weed species. Biological Control: Biological control agents are available for a handful of invasive species. Leafy spurge and purple loosestrife may be potential candidates for treatment with biological control agents. At applicable sites, the density and extent of the species need to be enough to sustain a population of biological control agents. Biological control will not typically eliminate an invasive species, but rather, is more likely to reduce populations to tolerable levels at which the native plant community can also express itself. Cultural Control: Preventing new invasions plays a role in habitat management as well. There are several best practices that can minimize the potential of invasive species to establish. In general, maintaining a stable, healthy and diverse plant community in forest, prairie, and wetland ecosystems will be one key to preventing invasions. Human caused disturbances, such as uncontrolled foot traffic that kills vegetation or causes compaction or high water levels that drown native vegetation, are examples of disturbances that create conditions that favor invasive species. It is likely that impacts from foot traffic can be mitigated by redirecting and managing traffic flow patterns. On the other hand, high water levels caused by runoff from surrounding impervious surfaces are not a condition that can likely be resolved easily, if at all. To prevent or limit introductions of invasive species on public lands, the Minnesota DNR has implemented Operational Order 113, ‘Come Clean, Leave Clean’. Many of these commonsense protocols can be used in the setting of an urban park reserve as well. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/dnrlands.html Recommendations for management treatments to control invasive species outlined below. Timing maps were derived from the guidelines in the MN DOT Noxious Weed Document found here - http://www.dot.state.mn.us/roadsides/vegetation/pdf/noxiousweeds.pdf Contents Forbs ........................................................................................................................... 6 Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata) .............................................................................. 6 Common Burdock (Arctium minus) ............................................................................ 8 Narrow-leaf Bittercress (Cardamine impatiens) ......................................................... 9 Creeping bellflower (Campanula rapunculoides) ..................................................... 11 Musk/ Nodding Thistle (Carduus nutans) ................................................................. 12 Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea spp.) ....................................................................... 13 Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense) ............................................................................ 14 Bull Thistle (Cirsium vulgare) ................................................................................... 16 Queen Ann’s Lace (Daucus carota) .......................................................................... 17 Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia virgata and esula) .............................................................. 18 Dame’s rocket ....................................................................................................... 20 Motherwort (Leonurus cardiaca) .............................................................................. 21 Yellow Toadflax (Linaria vulgaris) ............................................................................. 22 Birds-foot Trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) ...................................................................... 23 Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria, L. virgatum) ................................................... 24 Sweet Clover (Melilotus officinalis, M. alba).............................................................. 26 Wild Parsnip (Pastinaca sativa) ............................................................................... 27 Crown Vetch (Securigera varia) ................................................................................ 28 Common Tansy (Tanacetum vulgare) ....................................................................... 30 Japanese hedge parsley (Torilis japonica) .................................................................. 31 Garden Heliotrope (Valeriana officinalis) ................................................................. 32 Mullein (Verbascum thapsus) .................................................................................. 33 Graminoids ................................................................................................................ 34 Smooth Brome (Bromus inermis) ............................................................................. 34 Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) ................................................................................ 36 European Common Reed (Phragmites australis) ...................................................... 37 Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea) .............................................................. 39 Narrow-leaf and Hybrid Cattail (T. angustifolia, Typha x glauca) ................................ 41 Shrub and Tree Species ............................................................................................... 42 Japanese Barberry (Berberis thunbergii) ................................................................... 42 Oriental Bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus) ............................................................ 43 Winged Euonymus (Euonymus alatus) ..................................................................... 44 Russian Olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) ..................................................................... 46 Honeysuckle (Lonicera tartarica, L. morrowii, L. x bella) ............................................ 47 Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), Glossy Buckthorn (Frangula alnus) ........ 48 Multiflora Rose (Rosa multiflora) ............................................................................. 51 Siberian Elm (Ulmus pumila) ................................................................................... 52 Combined Tables by Type of Management .................................................................... 53 Forbs Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata) Description Garlic mustard is native to Europe. In Minnesota, it is listed as a restricted noxious weed. Garlic mustard invades woodlands, riparian forests, and disturbed ground along forested roadsides, trails and waterways. Its proliferation in Minnesota native ecosystems has had a significant impact on forest understory habitats. It is able to spread aggressively, create large monocultures, outcompete native forest ground layer species, and displace ecologically important components of the native flora. Habitat suitability for native wildlife is severely reduced where garlic mustard has taken hold. Garlic mustard is an early season biennial herb with coarsely toothed, alternate, triangular to heart-shaped leaves that release a garlic-like smell when crushed. Evergreen basal rosettes are produced from seeds the first year. In the second year, the rosettes mature and bolt, producing erect, 1- to 3-foot tall stalks. Small 4-petaled white flowers develop into slender 1-2.5 inch long seed capsules, each with a single row of oblong black seeds. Garlic mustard reproduces via the prolific seed it generates. A single garlic mustard plant drops hundreds of seeds that remain viable in the seed bank for up to five years. The seeds are readily dispersed initially from the tall stiff flowering stems that catapult the seed away from the mother plant and secondarily via soil displacement during erosion events and when soil containing the seed is picked up on the feet of wildlife or humans or on tools and equipment. Eradication of garlic mustard may not be feasible. However, there are areas that are a higher priority for control. Strategies for control include maintaining zero tolerance for seed production in priority areas. Volunteers can be utilized to monitor and prevent establishment of new isolated populations. Mechanical If a population of garlic mustard is small enough, the best option for control is to manually pull the plants before they develop seed and bag them for removal. If the infestation is too large or too dense for hand removal, Weed whipping or mowing are viable control options. It is essential to mow before the plant flowers because garlic mustard will continue to develop seeds even after being cut. It is recommended to mow vegetative plants to the ground with a flail mower to shred the plant and prevent seed production. If the plant is in flower or past flower, mowing will spread the seed and increase the infestation footprint. Careful attention to sensitive native plants around the mowed areas will need to be taken to ensure they are not impacted. Mowed garlic mustard will either die or may form new flowers; however the plant will be much shorter and will typically produce fewer seeds. A second mowing is sometimes needed to treat the regrowth. In fire dependent ecosystems, prescribed fire is an effective management tool against first year garlic mustard, if there is sufficient fuel to carry a fire. Second year garlic mustard will potentially sprout following a burn, so follow up treatment is required. Prescribed fire is best used as part of an integrated management approach in which mechanical or chemical control are used as a follow- up treatments. Spot treating small populations with a propane torch can be effective on garlic mustard seedlings. Where garlic mustard is found growing amongst native wildflowers, it should be hand pulled. Garlic mustard pulled when it is flowering or in seed should be bagged in black plastic bags and allowed to “cook” to kill the seed. Chemical Garlic mustard can be chemically treated with glyphosate in early spring before flowering or in the late fall when native plants are dormant. Glyphosate is a nonselective herbicide and will kill all plants including forbs, grasses, sedges and woody species. Triclopyr, a broadleaf specific herbicide can be used to control garlic mustard when native species are dormant or when garlic mustard is growing amongst grasses and sedges. Monitoring and follow-up treatment will be necessary. Long-term Management Because garlic mustard is such a prolific seed producer and because the seed is readily transported in soil from neighboring populations, it is likely that seedlings will appear for many years in areas that have previously been treated. Monitoring and follow-up treatment will be needed annually. Important Considerations Although pulling is noted as a suitable control method, roots snap easily and time is often limited as garlic mustard often bolts and produces seed within days of suitable conditions emerging. Targeted control is advised to attain the most efficient impact. Emerging Research Some research and anecdotal information indicates that garlic mustard acts like an early successional invader. It invades disturbed soils readily but seems to have the ability to choke its own population out, eventually allowing other species to recruit into spaces that A. petiolata formerly occupied. References Davis, M. A., C. MacMillen, M. LeFevre-Levy, C. Dallavalle, N. Kriegel, S. Tyndel, Y. Martinez, M. D. Anderson, and J. J. Dosch. 2014. Population and plant community dynamics involving garlic mustard ( Alliaria petiolata ) in a Minnesota Oak Woodland: a four year study1. The Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 141:205–216. Pardini, E. A., J. M. Drake, J. M. Chase, and T. M. Knight. 2009. Complex population dynamics and control of the invasive biennial Alliaria petiolata (garlic mustard). Ecological Applications 19:387– 397. Garlic Mustard April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Burn Foliar Herbicide Hand Pulling Mow Don’t mow Flowering Common Burdock (Arctium minus) Description Burdock is a biennial native to Europe. In the plant’s first year, it forms a rosette, similar in appearance to rhubarb. The rosette can reach 3 feet across, with large, heart-shaped leaves. In its second year, the plant develops a branched, 3- to 7-foot tall hollow stem. The grooved stem can be green or reddish-purple in color, with tapered leaves along its length. Leaves are dark green, coarse-textured above and woolly beneath, with wavy margins. The plant arises from a large, fleshy taproot. Flowering occurs from July until frost. The pink to purple flowers of this member of the Aster Family occur in heads that are about ¾ inch wide. The thistle-like flower heads are surrounded by spiny bracts with hooks at the tip. Flowers heads are clustered at the ends of branches and in leaf axils along the stem. The mature flower heads become burs that facilitate seed dispersal by clinging to clothing and hair. A single plant produces an average of 15,000 seeds. Common burdock occurs along roadsides and ditch banks, as well as in pastures and other disturbed areas, where the plant effectively outcompetes desirable species by shading them out with its large basal leaves. Burdock generally prefers moist, nitrogen-rich soils, but will grow in a variety of soils. Mechanical Cultivation can be used to control small plants. For larger plants, the entire plant needs to be removed which can be challenging because of the long taproot. Severing the tap root as deep as possible with a shovel or a modified spade designed to sever roots deep in the soil from a 45 degree angle adjacent to the plan (such as a parsnip predator from the Prairie Enthusiasts) can knock the plant back, if not kill it completely. Mowing the rosette or lopping the flowering stalk when it is in bud or recently flowered will prevent the plant from seeding or at least significantly reduce the amount of seed the plant produces. Mowing the plant when it begins to bolt (send up a flower stalk) will allow time for a second mow later in the year to control any resprouts. If burdock has already gone to seed, clip and bag the seed heads to prevent seed dispersal. Prescribed fire can kill young burdock and top kill older plants if there is sufficient fuel to carry a burn. Chemical Apply 2,4-D, glyphosate, or triclopyr as a foliar application to the first-year rosette. Foliar herbicide treatment may only top kill the plant, Follow-up treatment may be required. Alternatively, cut the plant below the basal leaves and stump treat the tap root with glyphosate before the bud stage. Long-Term Management In fire adapted plant communities, prescribed burns can alter the conditions of the site to favor the establishment of native species that can compete with burdock. Fire will also accelerate removal of nutrients including nitrogen which favors burdock. Common Burdock April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Burn Foliar Herbicide Cut Stem Herbicide Mow Pull/ Dig Flowering Narrow-leaf Bittercress (Cardamine impatiens) Description Narrow-leaf Bittercress is a relatively new exotic species in Minnesota, and quite invasive. According to the MN Dept. of Agriculture, a single plant was discovered at Riverside Park in 2008; by 2009 they were pulling out truckloads of it. It has been found along waterways and especially along trails, very likely via hikers, bikers and dog walkers spreading weed seed when travelling from infested to uninfested areas. This species is either an annual or biennial, and can reach three feet in height. Narrowleaf bittercress is commonly found in forested floodplains and along rivers and streams in both its native and naturalized ranges. Occasionally, isolated populations occur in dry, sunny areas away from water. Mechanical Small infestations can be hand-pulled easily. The site should be monitored and narrowleaf bittercress plants removed in the spring, summer, and fall to prevent seed production. Plants with flowers and/or seedheads should be bagged and disposed. Hand-pulling large infestations may result in soil disturbance that favors the germination of more narrowleaf bittercress. Chemical There is little information available for chemical control of narrowleaf bittercress. Following guidelines for controlling other biennial mustards such as garlic mustard: [Narrowleaf bittercress] can be chemically treated with glyphosate in early spring before flowering or in the late fall when native plants are dormant. Glyphosate is a nonselective herbicide and will kill all plants including forbs, grasses, sedges and woody species. Triclopyr, a broadleaf specific herbicide can be used to control [narrowleaf bittercress] when native species are dormant or when [narrowleaf bittercress] is growing amongst grasses and sedges. Monitoring and follow-up treatment will be necessary. Biological Control Studies of narrowleaf bittercress in its native range indicate that plant competition may reduce colonies to a few plants. Improving the overall vegetation quality and diversity may reduce the dominance of narrowleaf bittercress. Long-term Management Narrowleaf bittercress is suspected to spread via waterways by floodwater deposition. Long term monitoring should involve scouting for new pockets of establishing plants. References https://extension.umn.edu/identify-invasive-species/narrowleaf-bittercress https://www.minnesotawildflowers.info/flower/narrow-leaf-bittercress Narrow-leaf bittercress phenology April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Foliar Herbicide Pull/ dig Flowering Creeping bellflower (Campanula rapunculoides) Description Creeping bellflower (Campanula rapunculoides), also known as European bellflower and rampion, is an invasive perennial plant and member of the Campanulaceae (bellflower) family. Growing between 2 and 3 feet tall, creeping bellflower outcompetes other species and requires dedicated removal efforts as it spreads by both seed and roots. Bloom time is summer to early fall. Creeping bellflowers have bell-shaped, blue-purple flowers with five pointed lobes that grow primarily along one side of a flower stalk, growing 2-3 feet tall. Multiple flowering stems. After flowering, creeping bellflower produces up to 15,000 seeds per plant. Leaves at the base of the plant are heart-shaped but become shorter and narrower (lance-shaped) moving up the plant stem. Leaves alternate with slightly hairy undersides and coarse-toothed edges. Stems are green or purple and contain a milky sap when broken. Forms extensive root systems with a combination of large, tuber-like storage roots, horizontal rhizomes, and small, thin roots. New plants can form from small root pieces in the soil. Creeping bellflower thrives in disturbed soils and prefers to establish in moist garden sites, although due to its high adaptability, it can thrive in most environments. Root systems of creeping bellflowers outcompete nearby plants by choking them out. Small pieces of roots can form new plants. Mechanical Hand removal is effective for removing small patches but may need to be repeated. Remove all parts of the roots and shoots to prevent regrowth. Chemical Chemical control is most effective in the fall. If needed, spring application is also effective. Dicamba and triclopyr provide some selective post-emergent efficacy but need higher doses and repeated use. Glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide that will require sequential applications for control. 2,4-D and Quinclorac are not effective. Broadleaf herbicides can be effective on large patches with repeat applications, but creeping bellflower has shown resistance to many herbicides. Important Considerations Pulled creeping bellflower plants should be burned or allowed to decompose in a bag to minimize their aggressive spread via seeds and rhizomes. It is illegal to place yard waste, such as weeds, in solid waste containers. References https://extension.umn.edu/weeds/creeping-bellflower Creeping Bellflower timeline April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Burn Foliar Herbicide Mow Pull/ Dig Flowering Musk/ Nodding Thistle (Carduus nutans) Description Musk thistle is a biennial thistle that is a rosette of leaves in its first year and sends up a flowering stalk in its second year, then dies. Musk thistle is also sometimes called "nodding thistle" because the flower heads can droop to a 90 degree angle instead of facing toward the sky. Musk thistle is primarily an issue in overgrazed pastures and disturbed areas and is generally not a threat to intact prairies. Musk thistle is native to Europe. It was accidently introduced to the United States in the early 1800s likely as a contaminant in seed mixtures and ship ballast. Musk thistle is widespread in the United States and Minnesota. Mechanical Mechanical control can be done by pulling the plant by hand or with equipment such as a shovel. If pulling plants, leave plants to decompose on-site or follow Minnesota Department of Agriculture guidance for plant disposal. Mow second year stalks in May or June during the flower bud stage. Do not mow after plants have gone to seed as this will spread seeds. Chemical Herbicide control can be done using systemic herbicides which are taken up by plants and move within the plant, which can kill leaves, stems, and roots. Spot-spray with glyphosate, triclopyr or 2,4-D. The most effective timing is to apply herbicide to the rosettes in spring (April, May or June) or fall (October or November). Long-term Management If a population is located nearby, then it can serve as a wind dispersal source for seeds into adjacent and nearby habitats. Long-term management will require repeated interventions whenever individuals begin to establish on site again. References https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialplants/herbaceous/muskthistle.html https://www.minnesotawildflowers.info/flower/nodding-thistle https://extension.umn.edu/identify-invasive-species/musk-thistle Musk Thistle phenology April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Foliar Herbicide Mow Don’t mow Flowering/ Seeding Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea spp.) Description “Spotted knapweed is a biennial or short-lived perennial herbaceous plant that grows two to three feet tall. It can form dense cover in prairies, pastures, and open habitats. Cattle and other animals avoid eating it so it can cause large reductions in available food for grazing animals. Biological control insects are used to help manage this plant,” (MN DNR). Spotted knapweed is not the only invasive Centaurea species in Minnesota, though management options are largely the same. Mechanical Mechanical control can be done by digging or pulling the plant by hand or with equipment such as a sharp shovel. Spotted knapweed has a deep taproot so care must be taken to remove as much of the taproot as possible. Cover your skin by wearing gloves and long sleeves when working with this plant as it can be a skin irritant for some people. Mowing before seed has developed can help prevent seed spread. Mow from May to July to prevent flowers from forming. Do not mow if seed is present (July and later). (MN DNR) Chemical Herbicide control can be done using systemic herbicides. Systemic herbicides are taken up by plants and move within the plant, which can kill leaves, stems, and roots. Herbicide formulations including aminopyralid, clopyralid, glyphosate, imazapyr, aminocyclopyrachlor, and picloram have been found to provide good control. Always follow label instructions when working with herbicides. Spotted knapweed is a rosette of leaves in its first year. Herbicide treatments are most effective when applied to this leaf rosette stage. Fall can be a good time to find and target the rosettes. Herbicides are also effective on the stem bolting stage of the plant in spring of its second year. Use caution and specifically target the herbicide to knapweed plants to avoid damage to non-target plants. Biological Biological control in Minnesota is done using two seedhead weevils (Larinus minutus and L. obtusus) and a root-boring weevil (Cyphocleonus achates). The larvae of seedhead weevils eat developing spotted knapweed seeds and reduce the number seeds that spotted knapweed plants produce. The seedhead weevils are widely distributed in Minnesota. The larvae of root-boring weevils eat the roots of the plants and weaken or kill the plants. Root-boring weevils are not as widely distributed in Minnesota as the seedhead weevils. For more information about spotted knapweed biocontrol, visit the Minnesota Department of Agriculture spotted knapweed biocontrol webpage and contact your local county agricultural inspector. Important Considerations When hand pulling, it is advised to wear clothing and gloves to cover and prevent skin exposure. References https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialplants/herbaceous/spottedknapweed.html https://www.minnesotawildflowers.info/flower/spotted-knapweed Knapweed timeline April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Foliar Herbicide Mow Don’t mow Flowering Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense) Description This Eurasian member of the Aster Family was introduced to North America in the early 1600s, and is now one of the most tenacious and economically important agricultural weeds. It is listed as a noxious weed in 43 states. This perennial has an extensive root system with horizontal roots extending 15 feet or more and vertical roots which may grow to 15 feet deep. Its extensive rhizomatous growth allows it to form large clones. Canada thistle’s ability to rapidly spread both by rhizomes and prolific seed make it particularly difficult to manage. Canada thistle emerges as a small rosette in late-April to early-May, but new shoots can emerge during most of the growing season. Leaves are irregularly lobed with small spines along the margins. The upper surface of mature leaves is dark green, with a paler underside. Mature plants reach two-five feet in height and begin flowering in June. The numerous magenta florets are arranged in ¾”-1” diameter heads. By July the seeds are windborne on their delicate pappus, and can be found throughout the landscape. Canada thistle may produce 1,000 to 1,500 seeds per flowering stalk and seeds can remain viable in the seed bank up to twenty years. Canada thistle grows in meadows, prairies, fields, pastures and waste places with a variety of site conditions including full sun or part-shade exposure, and wet or dry soils. Mechanical Mowing or cutting Canada thistle may be effective if repeated on a regular basis until the plant’s root reserves are depleted. The optimal time to mow Canada thistle is when the buds are formed or early flowering stage. Mowing should be avoided after seeds have developed, as it may disperse the seed. Clipping and bagging seed heads can be done in smaller populations. Infrequent mowing can lead to aggravated expansion as the colony attempts to establish in unmowed spaces. Chemical Foliar treat Canada thistle with clopyralid, glyphosate, or triclopyr. Glyphosate can be used for careful spot treatment or when broadcast treating in areas where there is no cover of desirable species. Clopyralid, a broadleaf herbicide for use particularly on members of the Aster and Legume family, is useful for control of Canada thistle where cover of native species is high. Herbicide should be applied during the rosette stage for best results, but can be applied up until flower buds are formed and again in the fall. Repeat treatments are required. Herbicide can also be applied to cut stems for treatment of small areas. It is essential to apply herbicide to each stem that may be connected by rhizomes. Any missed stems will allow the clone to survive. Continued follow-up treatments will be needed. Biological There are biological control agents available for thistle control. However, caution is warranted as the available weevils have been observed feeding on native thistles. Additionally, anecdotal and scientific experiments increasingly show that Canada thistle can be outcompeted by overseeding a site with graminoids and forbs. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh1UgGaiuLA from the Pollinator Friendly Alliance; Long-term Management Prescribed fire can have mixed results for Canada thistle control and is best used as part of an integrated management program. Using prescribed fire to increase the health and diversity of fire dependent native plant communities is a recommended tactic. Canada Thistle April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Burn Foliar Herbicide Cut Stem Herbicide Mow Don’t mow Flowering Bull Thistle (Cirsium vulgare) Description Bull thistle is a biennial herbaceous plant which develops a rosette in the first year and then sends up a 3-6 foot flowering stalk the second season. The plant is prickly, with spine-tipped lobes on the leaves and stems with prominent ridges armed with spines. The upper surface of the leaves is rough to the touch. Bull thistle is in the composite or Aster Family, so the purple florets are arranged in dense flower-heads. Seeds with their attached plumes are dispersed by wind and may persist in the seed bank for 10 years or more. Bull thistle readily invades disturbed prairies, as well as low quality pastures, fallow fields, and roadsides. It is readily identifiable in over-stocked pastures where the livestock have grazed around it. It is not a significant problem in high quality natural areas where it cannot easily get a foothold. Mechanical Bull thistles can be cut or mowed prior to their going to seed. If seeds have developed, the plant material should be removed from the site. Severing the tap root as deep as possible with a shovel or parsnip predator can kill the plant. This method can be used for rosettes or flowering plants. Chemical Bull thistles can be spot treated with glyphosate, clopyralid, triclopyr, or metsulfuron while they are in the rosette stage. Biological There are biological control agents available for thistle control. However, caution is warranted as the available weevils have been observed feeding on native thistles. Long-term Management Maintaining a vigorous, diverse plant community is a first line of defense against invasion by bull thistle. When bull thistle is present, simply cutting off and removing the inflorescences can prevent additional seed inputs to the system. Bull Thistle April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Foliar Herbicide Mow Flowering Queen Ann’s Lace (Daucus carota) Description Queen Anne's lace is native to Europe and Asia. It is also known as wild carrot as it is the parent of the cultivated varieties of carrots we have today. Queen Anne's lace is an herbaceous plant that can grow 3-4 feet tall. In its first year, it has only low-lying leaves coming from the base of the plant (basal rosette). The second year the plant will grow a tall stalk, then flower, set seed, and die. Each plant has one or several hairy hollow stems, growing from one central stem, each with an umbrella- shaped flower cluster at the top. The plant smells like a carrot as it is the ancestor of the garden carrot. Queen Anne's (Daucus carota) lace may have arrived in the U.S. as a seed contaminant in grain and through planting in gardens. It invades disturbed dry prairies, abandoned fields, waste places, and roadsides. Queen Anne's lace is a threat to recovering grasslands. Queen Anne's lace is often found in disturbed areas, including along roadsides, right-of-ways, abandoned fields, and forest edges. It does not do well in shaded habitats. This plant typically has a two-year life cycle. First- year plants are a clump of low-lying leaves called a basal rosette. In their second year, plants grow a tall stalk, flower, set seed, and die. Mechanical Mechanical control can be done by cutting, mowing, or pulling the plant before the seed is present in mid-summer. Because of the plant’s growth habit, it does not carry fire well, and resprouts readily from its tap-root, making fire an ineffective control method, though fire may still be used to promote native competition. Chemical Herbicide control can be done using 2,4-D or 2,4-D formulations with triclopyr. Apply herbicide to the seedling or rosette stages from mid-May to mid-October. Long-term Management Regular monitoring of cleared areas once control has been established is required as the species proliferates easily and quickly. Important Considerations Avoid skin contact with the toxic sap of the plant by wearing gloves, long sleeves and long pants. This species’ sap may cause phytophotodermatitis where sap touches the skin and is exposed to sunlight Queen Anne's lace also looks very similar to hemlock species that can be deadly if ingested. References https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialplants/herbaceous/queenannslace.html https://www.minnesotawildflowers.info/flower/queen-annes-lace https://extension.umn.edu/identify-invasive-species/queen-annes-lace Queen-Ann’s Lace timeline April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Foliar Herbicide Mow/ cut/ pull Don’t mow Flowering Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia virgata and esula) Description Leafy spurge is native to Eurasia. Plants are characterized by white milky sap and flower parts in three's. The erect, perennial herb is 2 to 3½ feet tall. Smooth stems arise in clusters from a vertical root that extends many feet into the ground. Leaves are alternate and lance-shaped on upper stems and scale-like on the lower stem. Inconspicuous flowers are surrounded by showy yellow- green bracts. Bracts open in late May, while flowers bloom June into fall. Leafy spurge is an aggressive invasive and once present, can completely overtake large areas of open land. Leafy spurge tolerates moist to dry soil in sun or part shade. It is most aggressive in dry conditions where competition from native plants is reduced. It is capable of invading disturbed prairies, savannas, pastures, fallow fields, and roadsides. Leafy spurge reproduces readily by seeds, which may remain viable in the soil for at least seven years. Seed capsules open explosively, dispersing seed up to 15 feet from the parent plant. Leafy spurge spreads vegetatively at a rate of several feet per year. The root system may reach 15 or more feet into the ground, and also spreads laterally. Buds at the base of the stem sprout when the plants are grazed or mowed. Mechanical An integrated approach that combines prescribed burning, chemical treatment, and/or biological controls is ideal. If biological control agents are introduced, other treatments must be timed so they don’t impact the biological control agents. Spring fires can reduce the number of new seedlings. Mowing can be conducted repeatedly within a given season to suppress their growth, but is not effective without other management techniques. Grazing has been documented by the University of Minnesota as a viable technique for controlling their population as well. Similar to mowing though, repeated grazing is needed alongside other techniques for adequate control. Chemical Treating leafy spurge is tough in any situation, but when it occurs in an established prairie, it is particularly difficult to manage without collateral damage to desirable native species, even when carefully attempting to spot treat it. If the leafy spurge occurs in a discreet area and not throughout the unit, it may be necessary to sacrifice some forbs to obtain control. A mix of chemicals will be more effective for treatment. Glyphosate, quinclorac, and 2,4-D are an effective mix when applied in June at flowering and again in September prior to senescence. Glyphosate, of course is a broad spectrum herbicide and will kill both graminoids and forbs, so must be used with caution or avoided in high quality areas. Leafy spurge can also be treated with broadleaf specific herbicides only to avoid impacts to native grasses. Chemical treatment will be needed for several years. Efficacy of chemical treatments may be improved when combined prescribed fire. Biological Biological control agents can be obtained and released to control spurge. The flea beetle, Aphthona lacertosa, has been found to be particularly effective against leafy spurge in Minnesota. Adult flea beetles feed on leafy spurge foliage, while the larvae feed on the roots, damaging or killing the plant. Control can take 3-10 years to achieve depending on the size of the site, density of the invasion, and other environmental factors. Chemical treatments can negatively impact the biological control agents, so consideration should be given to these impacts prior to incorporating herbicide treatments. Cultural Leafy spurge can invade and thrive in established prairies. The best method of control is prevention. Long-term Management Once leafy spurge has established a seed bank, it is very difficult to eradicate. Biological control can be used to maintain populations at low levels. Leafy Spurge April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Burn* Foliar Herbicide Mow Don’t mow Graze/ biocontrol Flowering Dame’s rocket (Hesperis matronalis) Description Dame’s rocket is a member of the mustard (Brassicaceae) family with a life cycle of either a biennial or short lived perennial. Originating in Europe, they are facultative species in Minnesota, adapted to wet to mesic woodland edges where they form moderately dense monocultures. Their flowers are often and easily confused for native phlox species. Where phlox has 5 petals, though, Dame’s rocket has 4. The seed pods grow similar to other mustards as bean like growths near the flower heads at the tops of stalks. Mechanical Mechanical removal can include timed mowing during flower but before seed production to inhibit seed production. Pulling is also effective in soft soils, but the entire plant, stalk and roots, must be pulled. If seed pods are present, these must be bagged and disposed of or they will continue to ripen and seed out. Chemical Dame’s rocket is responsive to herbicides including triclopyr and glyphosate based formulations. Like other mustards in Minnesota, spraying is easiest in early spring when dame’s rocket is one of the few species bolting upwards and visible. Long-term Management Because dame’s rocket is such a prolific seed producer and because the seed is readily transported in soil from neighboring populations, it is likely that seedlings will appear for many years in areas that have previously been treated. Monitoring and follow-up treatment will be needed annually. References https://www.minnesotawildflowers.info/flower/dames-rocket https://citizensforconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/CFC_Dames_Rocket.pdf Dame’s rocket April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Burn Foliar Herbicide Mow/ Pull Flowering Motherwort (Leonurus cardiaca) Description Motherwort is a perennial, herbaceous plant in the mint family. Originally from Eurasia, it is widely established around the world due to its use as a medicinal herb. Motherwort is found in both sun and shade, often in highly disturbed sites, and is becoming particularly common and problematic in many woodland sites. Motherwort is 2-4 feet tall. As is typical of members of the mint family, the stem is square and the leaves are opposite. The leaves are variable in shape, with 3 or 5 sharply- pointed lobes, and deeply toothed margins. The flowers are arranged in whorls at the nodes where the leaf stalks meet the stem. The small, tubular, lavender flowers are generally hairy or fuzzy and bloom from June through August. The seeds have spiny burs that catch in clothing or animal fur. Mechanical Digging or hand-pulling motherwort can effectively control the plant if all of the root is removed. Continuous mowing or whipping can reduce the vigor of the plant over time and reduce seed production. Chemical Applying glyphosate or triclopyr prior to seed production can effectively control motherwort. Follow-up applications are required for plants that germinate from the seed bank. Long-term Management Planting and seeding native species to provide competition will help suppress and eliminate motherwort. Motherwort April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Burn Foliar Herbicide Mow Flowering Yellow Toadflax (Linaria vulgaris) Description Butter and eggs is a 1-3 feet tall plant that has yellow flowers with a long spur. Butter and Eggs is an invasive, perennial species which has spread to more than half the counties in Minnesota. It tends to grow in clumps and spreads vegetatively as well as by seed. Its main blooming season is early to mid summer, but it's not unusual to find some patches blooming in late spring or early fall. The flowers are very similar to Dalmatian Toadflax (L. dalmatica) but that species has broad leaves. Like several other species, Linaria has been moved from the Scrophulariaceae (Figwort) family to Plantaginaceae (Plantain). Mechanical Mechanical control can be done by hand pulling or digging the plant up by hand. Frequent mowing can weaken the plant. Chemical Herbicide control can be done using systemic herbicides, which are taken up by plants and move within the plant, killing leaves, stems, and roots. Always follow herbicide label instructions. 2,4-D is an herbicide that is generally easy to find, but it may require multiple years of application. Additional herbicides reported to be effective for butter and eggs are metsulfuron, chlorsulfuron, imazapic, and picloram. Biological Control Several insects were unintentionally introduced to the United States that appear to provide some biocontrol of butter and eggs. The Biological Control (PDF) section on page six of the USDA document on butter and eggs (yellow toadflax) provides more details. Long-term Management As a perennial that thrives in dry, disturbed environments, such areas should be monitored for reinvasion and resprouting after initial control is established. References https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialplants/herbaceous/butterandeggs.html https://www.minnesotawildflowers.info/flower/butter-and-eggs Butter and Eggs/ yellow toadflax phenology April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Burn Foliar Herbicide Flowering Birds-foot Trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) Description Birds-foot trefoil is a low-growing perennial, native to Eurasia and North Africa. It was introduced into the United States for erosion control and livestock forage and is still sold commercially. Birds- foot trefoil is a member of the Legume Family. Its compound clover-like leaves are alternate with three oval leaflets and a pair of stipules. Bundles of yellow, pea-like flowers develop from May to August. Brown cylindrical seed pods develop after flowering in clusters that resemble a bird’s foot. Birds-foot trefoil produces a long taproot that may extend over three feet. It also has rhizomes that form secondary roots. Stolons, or modified above-ground stems, allow it to form dense mats. The plant reproduces by seeds and spreads laterally by stolons and rhizomes. Birds-foot trefoil tolerates a wide range of soil conditions and is found along roadsides, in fields, prairies, wildlife openings, and other open disturbed areas. Burning increases seed germination allowing the plant to spread rapidly in areas where it is established. Mechanical Mowing is not an optimal treatment for birds-foot trefoil, which responds quickly to being mowed and will regrow within a couple of weeks. Continuous monitoring and mowing would be required to prevent it from going to seed. Continuously mowing birds-foot trefoil at a 2” height periodically throughout the year for several years may eventually kill the plant. However, doing so will obviously also harm native plants in the mowed area. Birds-foot trefoil is plastic in its growth form and in some settings adapts to frequent mowing by growing as a low-profile ground-hugging plant, thereby avoiding the mower blades. Birds-foot trefoil can be hand-pulled in areas where it has only very low cover and the soils are light. Severing the tap root as deep as possible with a shovel or parsnip predator can kill the plant. Prescribed fire is not recommended as the sole management strategy as it increases seed germination; however, it can be part of an integrated approach to increase effectiveness of other methods. A spring burn will remove thatch, exposing the soil and stimulating germination from the seed bank. Such timing will increase the effectiveness of herbicide applications and accelerate the depletion of the seed bank. Chemical Triclopyr applied to fast growing plants before flowering, or glyphosate applied in spring before or during flowering will kill birds-foot trefoil. Clopyralid, a broadleaf herbicide selective for members of the aster and legume families, can also be used to control birds-foot trefoil. Follow-up applications will be required over several years to manage new plants establishing from the seed bank. Long-term Management Maintaining a healthy diverse, plant community that limits light to the soil is the best defense against invasion by birds-foot trefoil. Birds-foot Trefoil April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Burn Foliar Herbicide Mow Don’t mow Flowering Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria, L. virgatum) Description Introduced as an ornamental to North America from Europe and Asia, purple loosestrife is now an invasive species in wetlands, lakeshores, and ditches. It replaces native vegetation in the habitats it invades, forming dense stands with low wildlife food or cover value. Plants are 2-7 feet tall, with an upright habit. Leaves are slender, oblong-oval and downy, with smooth margins. Leaves are arranged in opposite pairs or whorls of 3. Stems are variously 4, 5, or 6-sided and feel grooved to the touch. Reddish-purple, 5-7-petaled flowers are produced in terminal spikes, with flowering from lateral stems as well. Flowering occurs in mid-summer. Purple loosestrife produces as many as 2 million seeds per plant each year. Seeds are efficiently dispersed by moving water and by animals. Purple loosestrife root systems consist of fibrous roots as well as rhizomes, allowing it to spread vegetatively as well as by seed. Mechanical Hand-pulling or digging purple loosestrife is not recommended. Any pieces of the roots that are missed when a plant is removed by pulling or digging can resprout. Mowing could be used to reduce seed inputs, but is often not practical due to the wet site conditions that loosestrife is typically found in. Follow-up treatments will be needed to control the resprouts. Chemical Where purple loosestrife is established in smaller accessible populations, it can be controlled by herbicide treatment. It may be possible to time the treatment when other herbaceous species, such as reed canary grass, are being controlled. Glyphosate formulated for use over water will likely be needed as the purple loosestrife typically grows in wetlands. Herbicide treatment for purple loosestrife should be timed for July through August. Herbicide treatment will be most effective in this window and the plants are readily identifiable while they are in bloom. Treating while in bloom also preempts additional seed inputs into the seed bank. Small populations can be treated by spot spraying with a glyphosate product formulated for use over water (Rodeo, Aquaneat, etc.). To ensure no seed is produced, small populations can be deadheaded as they are treated. Bag the inflorescences and remove from the site. Permits are required for treating aquatic weeds within the boundaries of state protected waters. Triclopyr, a broadleaf herbicide, can be effective on loosestrife, when used from late May through September. This herbicide is more selective and will not harm monocot species such as cattails. Renovate is the aquatic formulation of triclopyr that can be used to control loosestrife in Minnesota. This product however, is sold by very few dealers and in large quantities. Biological Biological control is effective at reducing populations of purple loosestrife in large wetland systems. Four species of insects have been approved as biological control agents, two leaf eating beetles, a root boring beetle, and a flower feeding beetle. Biological controls will reduce the population of purple loosestrife to low levels but will not likely eliminate it. Long-term Management Any areas previously treated for purple loosestrife will require ongoing monitoring and management. Follow-up treatment is needed each growing season since some plants will be missed, new seedlings will sprout, and a few plants will survive the initial treatment. Important Considerations To reduce erosion and damage to native plants, it is recommended that Mechanical Removal: cannot exceed 50% of the littoral area. Herbicide: cannot exceed 15% of the littoral area. Mechanical and Herbicide Combined: cannot exceed 50% of the littoral area Purple Loosestrife April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Foliar Herbicide Cut Stem Herbicide Flowering Sweet Clover (Melilotus officinalis, M. alba) Description As biennials, the white and yellow sweet clovers invest in a healthy root system the first year. In the second year, new shoots emerge from the taproot. Second year plants flower from May through September. The small white or yellow pea-like flowers are crowded in narrow spikes at the tips of the flowering stems. Each flower produces one or two seeds. Seeds may remain viable in the soil for up to 30 years or more and are dispersed by runoff and stream flow. The compound leaves of sweet clover are alternate with three finely toothed, longer than broad leaflets. Sweet clover is native to Europe and Asia, but was recorded in North America as early as 1664. Sweet clover is cultivated as a forage crop and soil builder, and is also cultivated as a wildlife cover crop and for the production of honey. Sweet clover is adapted to a variety of conditions, growing well in full and part sun. Sweet clover prefers calcareous or loamy soils. Sweet clover readily invades roadsides, abandoned fields, pastures and open natural communities such as a prairies. Mechanical Sweet clover can be mowed or cut below the lower stems in the early flower stage before seed production has occurred. If cut low enough, the plant will typically not regrow. Sweet clover can be hand-pulled when soils are moist and the taproot can easily be removed. Fall cutting of first year growth disturbs the plant while it is sending nutrients into its taproot, making the plant weaker the next year. Well-timed prescribed burns are a recommended control method for sweet clover. As it is a biennial, pairing burns together in consecutive years is optimal. An early spring season burn (April) will increase germination rates of sweet clover. A hot, complete late spring burn (May) the following year should kill the germinated sweet clover before it flowers and seeds. Doing this every two years can successfully control sweet clover. If the burn is not complete and thorough, spot treatment with another control method will be necessary. Chemical Glyphosate or triclopyr can be used to spot treat sweet clover; however, follow-up treatments might be necessary. A surfactant is also recommended. A good time to spray is before the early flower stage or in the fall when other native plants are dormant. Sweet clover can grow quite tall and foliage may be sparse, so spray drift and overspray should be noted and avoided. Long-term Management Sweet clover is a biennial, so seed production is critical for its life cycle. Interrupting seed development is key to controlling it. If the flowering stage of sweet clover is halted, so is seed production. Management procedures must continue long enough to deplete viable seeds remaining in the soil. Sweet Clover April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Burn Foliar Herbicide Mow Don’t mow Flowering Wild Parsnip (Pastinaca sativa) Description Wild parsnip is a member of the carrot family, grows similarly to others of that phylum, and is a biennial plant with a rosette stage and distinct flowering stage. Originally from Eurasia, wild parsnip grows throughout MN, largely along roadsides, railroads, and in other high sun, dry soil, and frequently disturbed environments. At early growth stages, the plant can be mistaken for golden alexanders, Zizia aptera, though it grows in abundant patches of greater density than most Z. aptera and can be differentiated by growth behavior. Mechanical Wild parsnip can be mechanically controlled via pulling, making sure to pull the whole plant including the taproot, and mowing before seed setting. Caution is advised and wearing clothing to protect skin exposure is recommended as the sap is photoreactive and can cause chemical burns and induce photodermatitis in humans. Chemical Wild parsnip is responsive to glyphosate or selective metsulfuron, according to the MN DNR. Herbicide is best applied to rosettes in the fall before their second year, or to resprouting individuals post fire disturbance. Long-term Management Wild parsnip can be mostly cleared from an area within 2 to 3 years of initiating removal efforts, though low intensity monitoring and management will be necessary for as long as nearby seed sources exist. Important Considerations Caution is advised and wearing clothing to protect skin exposure is recommended as the sap is photoreactive and can cause chemical burns and induce photodermatitis in humans. References https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialplants/herbaceous/wildparsnip.html https://www.minnesotawildflowers.info/flower/wild-parsnip Wild Parsnip Timeline April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Burn Foliar Herbicide Pull/ dig/ mow Flowering Crown Vetch (Securigera varia) Description Crown vetch is a perennial legume, native to Eurasia. It reproduces both by seed and vegetatively by rhizomes, forming large patches. Its sprawling growth habit allows it to rapidly cover and shade out native vegetation. A single plant may fully cover 70 to 100 square feet within a four-year period. Leaves are pinnately compound with 15 to 25 pairs of oblong leaflets. The two-toned pink and white flowers are arranged in umbels on long stalks. Slender finger-like seedpods develop after bloom. The mechanism of seed dispersal is not known, however animals likely play a role, since some populations turn up miles from a nearby seed source. Crown vetch blooms from May through August, during which time it is very conspicuous with its profuse pink blossoms. Crown vetch has been grown extensively in the northern two-thirds of the United States as a temporary ground cover, for erosion control, and as a green fertilizer crop. It prefers open, sunny areas; typically occurring along roadsides, other rights-of-way, and in open fields and prairies. Where it establishes, it readily displaces native plants and decreases biodiversity. Mechanical Crown vetch can be mowed in June when the plant is flowering. Mowing slows the growth of the plant and removes thatch, making future chemical applications more efficient. Repeated mowing can be used to negatively impact the plant long-term. Plants can be pulled where infestations are small and soil conditions are amenable. Prescribed fire can be helpful in removing thatch to facilitate herbicide treatments; and it can kill some small plants and can impact the growth of larger plants. However, prescribed fire is not enough to control crown vetch and should be integrated with other control methods. Chemical Chemical applications are currently the most effective management strategy. Glyphosate, clopyralid, and triclopyr can all be used for foliar treatment. Glyphosate is non-selective and may not be a viable choice for managing small scattered populations in established native plant communities. Clopyralid and triclopyr are both broadleaf specific and can be used where native grasses are established. Follow-up treatments will be required to ensure mature plants are controlled and to manage seedlings that establish from the seed bank. Long-term Management Crown vetch can readily invade established native plant communities. Monitoring and ongoing management will be required to maintain control of previously treated locations and to identify and treat new invasions. Important Considerations As with all herbicide applications, caution should be exercised to avoid spraying foraging pollinators. Crown vetch in particular is attractive to many pollinators early in the daytime as the flowers do not seem to open and close on a diurnal cycle, instead remaining open overnight and providing early morning foraging options to pollinators. Crown Vetch April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Burn/Foliar Foliar Herbicide Mow Flowering Common Tansy (Tanacetum vulgare) Description Common tansy is a perennial herbaceous plant that can grow 3 - 5 feet tall. A single stem branches extensively toward the top into short stems forming a flat-topped cluster of numerous yellow, button-like flower heads. It reproduces by seed and can also spread by rhizomes and root fragments. It is most often found in dry soils growing in full sun. Often, it is found in open, disturbed areas such as roadsides, gravel pits, and pastures. It was also planted in gardens so can be found near old homesteads. Common tansy was introduced to the United States from Europe for medicinal purposes. Seeds have spread from places where common tansy was planted intentionally. Mechanical Mechanical control can be done by digging or pulling the plant by hand or with equipment such as a shovel. Root fragments left behind in the ground could resprout. Cover skin and wear gloves when handling common tansy. Mowing will not kill the plants but can reduce seed production. Mow from May to July to prevent flowering. Do not mow if plants have seeds (July and later), as this will spread the seeds. Chemical Herbicide control can be done using systemic herbicides, which are taken up by plants and move within the plant, killing leaves, stems, and roots. Herbicides that can be effective for common tansy include glyphosate, 2,4-D, metsulfuron-methyl, and imazapyr. The herbicides should be applied as foliar (leaf) applications in the spring. Always follow the herbicide label instructions. Biological Control Biological control is under exploration. Insects from common tansy's native range are being studied to determine if any are appropriate for use as biological control insects in the United States. Biological control insects have not been approved for use at this time. The CABI common tansy biological control research webpage explains the project. Long-term Management Long-term management will require monitoring for new propagule establishment. References https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialplants/herbaceous/commontansy.html https://www.minnesotawildflowers.info/flower/common-tansy Tansy phenology April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Foliar Herbicide Mow Pull/ Dig Don’t mow Flowering Japanese hedge parsley (Torilis japonica) Description Japanese hedge parsley is a relatively new invasive species, first documented in Battle Creek Park, St. Paul in 2009, according to Minnesota Wildflowers, and has since spread throughout the seven county metro. It is a member of the carrot family and shares much of the growth behavior. It is an annual forb that prefers mesic soil in hardwood forests. Its fruit have hooked pubescence that allows them to spread via epizoochory, hooking onto hairs, feathers, and clothing. Mechanical Like other carrots and parsley plants, T. japonica grows from a taproot, making pulling a viable control technique. Its brittle, pithy stem can snap easily, though, enabling the plant to be grazed and easily retain its root structure. Chemical Broad spectrum herbicides are anecdotally known to be effective in controlling the plant, but the narrow leaf shape makes targeting the plant without effecting off-target spray difficult to impossible. Long-term Management Long-term management is still being tested due to the newness of the species. References MN Wildflowers. “Torilis japonica (Japanese Hedge Parsley)” Minnesota Wildflowers, Natural Resource Trust Fund as recommended by the Legislative Citizen Commision on Minnesota Resources, www.minnesotawildflowers.info/flower/ japanese-hedge-parsley. Accessed 1 Apr. 2026. Japanese Hedge Parsley Timeline April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Foliar Herbicide Pull/ Dig Flowering Garden Heliotrope (Valeriana officinalis) Description Garden heliotrope grows 1.5-4 feet tall from fibrous roots. It spreads by rhizomes or aerial stolons. Stems are usually pubescent, especially at the leaf nodes. Basal rosettes develop first. Leaves of the basal rosette and the stem leaves are similar in appearance, although the stem leaves may be less coarsely toothed. Leaves are opposite and pinnately divided into 11 or more segments, which are entire to coarsely toothed. Leaves may have a few hairs on the lower side. Leaves are petioled, with petiole length decreasing up the stem. The fragrant flowers are white to pale pink and arranged in a flattened to rounded umbel. It blooms from June to August. Seeds are wind dispersed. Garden heliotrope is native to Europe and parts of Asia. It was cultivated for its medicinal uses, but can now be found escaped and spreading in native habitats. It is tolerant of a variety of conditions including wet to dry soils and full sun to part shade exposure. Mechanical Garden heliotrope may be dug out when isolated plants or small populations are found. Small populations can be deadheaded to slow the spread until plants can be removed or treated. Chemical In order to prevent garden heliotrope from spreading either by seed or vegetatively, it is likely best to spot treat with glyphosate or triclopyr from May to September whenever it is found. Since it is found in wet soils in the Shrub Carr, an herbicide formulation for use over water should be used. Long-term Management Monitoring and follow-up treatments will be needed to obtain full control. References https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/Invasives/fact/Valerian https://www.minnesotawildflowers.info/flower/garden-heliotrope Garden Heliotrope April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Foliar Herbicide Mow/ pull/ cut Don’t mow Flowering Mullein (Verbascum thapsus) Description “Common Mullein originates in Europe and is a weedy species in dry, disturbed soils, often seen in large groups on roadsides, empty lots, railroads, gravel pits, and degraded fields. While weedy, it's not an especially problematic pest in high quality habitat and can be managed with mechanical removal. The dead, brown stems with the remains of the flower cluster persist through winter and into spring. The first year, Common Mullein is just a rosette of basal leaves, 1 to 2 feet across with the flowering stem bolting the second year. Common Mullein has gone by many different common names including Velvet Plant, Flannel Plant, Hare's Beard, and others that refer to the leaves,” (MN Wildflowers). Mechanical Mullein’s taproot is often easy to remove by hand pulling, though parsnip predators or shovels can be used to sever deeper roots or those that will not yield to pulling. Targeted mowing of stalks during the flowering stage can also inhibit seed production of the second year plants, if not outright halt the reproductive cycle for severed individuals. Chemical Several herbicides are noted as effective against mullein and should generally be used on the rosette/ first year stage. It’s important to note that the pubescence on the leaves inhibits herbicide contact with the leaf surface, potentially limiting herbicide uptake. Surfactants are recommended to mitigate this phenomenon. Long-term Management Once an initial population is reduced, hand pulling second year mullein stalks is effective in mitigating recolonization. Native prairie seeding can establish sufficient competition to inhibit large infestations. Important Considerations Reiterating here that mullein leaves have hair-like pubescent growths on their leaf surfaces. This can inhibit foliar herbicide uptake by suspending the herbicide as droplets above the leaf surface and then either dries out or volatilizes. Emerging Research References Lawrence, Nevin, and Mitchell Stephenson. “Common Mullein Control: Herbicide Choice and Application Timing.” CropWatch, University of Nebraska Institute of Agricultural and Natural Resources, 20 Sept. 2024, cropwatch.unl.edu/2020/common-mullein-control-herbicide-choice- and-application-timing/. MN Wildflowers. “Verbascum Thapsus (Common Mullein).” Minnesota Wildflowers, Natural Resource Trust Fund as recommended by the Legislative Citizen Commision on Minnesota Resources, www.minnesotawildflowers.info/flower/common-mullein. Accessed 6 Mar. 2026. Mullein April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Burn Foliar Herbicide Mow Pull/ Dig Don’t mow Flowering Graminoids Smooth Brome (Bromus inermis) Description Smooth brome is a perennial cool season grass introduced to North American from Eurasia as a forage crop. It is able to persist through drought and occasional flooding. It grows from 2-4 feet tall with an upright habit. The ¼” wide leaf blades have a prominent W- or M-shaped constriction across the blade. In fall the persistent leaves brown and curl on the stems. The inflorescence is an open panicle with flowers occurring on 4-10 erect branches from a main axis. Flowering occurs in June and July. When the achenes ripen, the lateral branches of the seedhead relax from their upright posture and nod sideways. Smooth brome reproduces from seed as well as by rhizomes which spread laterally through the soil. Mechanical Smooth brome often occurs in native grassland habits intermixed with warm season grasses. Because smooth brome is a cool season grass, it may be best controlled in this situation with well- timed prescribed burns. Burns timed for late spring when smooth brome is beginning to green up, but before the native grasses are actively growing will knock back the cool season grasses, although the burn will not kill the rhizomes. This same timing is advantageous to warm season native grasses which are slower to green-up in the spring. Repeated mowing can be used to set back smooth brome. However, repeated mowing can have adverse effects on populations of native species as well. Mowing combined with herbicide is a more effective treatment method. Mowing can be used to facilitate herbicide treatment of smooth brome. Mow and then allow brome to regrow before applying herbicide. Chemical Non-selective systemic herbicides (glyphosate) or grass specific herbicides (fluazifop-p-butyl) can be used to control smooth brome, particularly where it grows in monotypic stands. Where smooth brome is mixed with native grasses and forbs, treatment is best in early spring or late fall when native species are more likely to be dormant and less susceptible to the herbicides. Fall treatments favor the translocation of the chemical to the roots resulting in better control. Mowing can be used to condition a stand of smooth brome for an herbicide treatment. Mowing removes dead standing vegetation and promotes a flush of new growth. Another strategy for control is to apply a dormant overspray in areas where smooth brome provides a more dense cover. A grass specific herbicide can be applied in late fall if treatment is carefully timed when cool season grasses are still actively growing, but warm season grasses are not. Long-term Management Monitoring and follow-up treatments will be needed to obtain full control. Smooth Brome April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Burn Foliar Herbicide Mow Flowering Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) Description Bromes are cool season grasses (optimal growth below 75°), usually clump-forming, have closed sheaths, panicles that are often drooping or nodding to one side, multi-flowered spikelets, unequal glumes, and lemmas that are typically awned, hairy and usually notched at the tip forming 2 teeth with the awn arising between the teeth. The longer leaves also frequently twist from near the base so the underside and upperside are flipped. Most Bromes found in Minnesota have sheaths and nodes that are hairy to various degrees and are mostly distinguished by the number of veins on the glumes, length of the lemma awns, and sometimes leaf characteristics. Cheatgrass, also commonly called Downy Brome, is an annual, and distinguished by soft-hairy leaves and sheaths, ligule 2 to 5 mm long, 3 to 8 florets per spikelet, a 1-veined lower glume, 3- veined upper glume, variously hairy lemmas with an awn up to 25 mm long that is spreading at maturity, palea shorter than the lemma and variously hairy with sparse long hairs on the veins. Cheatgrass was introduced to North America in the mid-1800s and has spread across the continent. A winter annual, it produces a dense root mat in early spring, stealing water and soil resources from other spring plants (hence the “cheat”). It invades both high quality and disturbed areas, crowding out native species in natural areas, contaminating agricultural fields, and is especially problematic in the western US. It likes fire and can explode after a burn. Mechanical Best mechanical measures are those that promote the native plant community’s response to a given control mechanism. Appropriately timed mowing, grazing, and spring-time prescribed burning are all recommended. Chemical Herbicide can be used on small populations that are just establishing. Recommend using glyphosate and highly targeted spraying to focus on just the cheatgrass to allow native species to colonize where the cheatgrass is inhibited. Long-term Management Sometimes it is not practical to try to aggressively reduce the cheatgrass population but rather to reduce it below some level where it does not significantly interfere with management objectives. These management strategies do not seek to fully remove cheatgrass from the site. This approach may be appropriate when the cheatgrass infestation is moderate or dominant across a large management unit. Grazing should be managed to minimize an increase in the cheatgrass population and to ensure continued health of desirable vegetation. Monitoring helps identify trends in vegetation that indicate whether cheatgrass is increasing, decreasing, and/or causing impacts on desirable vegetation. Important Considerations Cheatgrass aggressively spreads via seed and rhizome, especially in disturbed ecosystems that are not experiencing their historical disturbance regime. Caution is advised when attempting to control it via fire as the species can and likely will proliferate aggressively if sufficient native species populations are not already present in the soil with root structures to resprout post-fire. References https://www.minnesotawildflowers.info/grass-sedge-rush/cheatgrass https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/cheatgrass_management_handbook_0.pdf Smooth Brome April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Burn Foliar Herbicide Mow Flowering European Common Reed (Phragmites australis) Description Non-native Phragmites is a perennial wetland grass found in a variety of wet soil habitats. It can grow over 15 feet tall. It forms dense clonal stands containing both living and dead shoots from previous growing seasons. If cut down, the plant can re-sprout along the stem in many places. It is commonly found in roadside ditches. Non-native Phragmites originated in the Middle East and is native to Europe and Asia. The species was unintentionally introduced into the United States’ Great Lakes through contaminated solid ballast of cargo ships or with packing material from shipping operations. It was also intentionally introduced in some locations to filter water in wastewater treatment lagoons. It was first discovered in the United States along the east coast between the late 1700s and early 1800s. Over the course of the 20th century, it has spread across the entire continent, invading wetlands, lake shores, streambanks and marshy areas. Refer to EDDMapS for distribution information. Chemical Herbicide control can be done using glyphosate and imazapyr herbicides. Follow-up control by mowing or cutting individual stands after herbicide treatment to remove dead plant material is recommended for additional control. Work done in other states indicates that multiple years of follow-up control are often necessary to prevent reestablishment. Applying an approved foliar herbicide that translocates its active ingredients into the root system is the most widely used method for managing invasive common reed in North America. Foliar treatments work best when applied on new growth early in the growing season and after flowering in the late summer and fall. Application of approved herbicides after grazing or mowing can also provide great results because new growth is exposed and easier to treat. Some research has shown that late winter/early spring grazing (or early season mowing) then followed by herbicide application can be very effective. Burning following a late summer or early fall herbicide application can also be very advantageous and will promote regeneration of native plants. Treatments need to be administered for several growing seasons until the population is eliminated or controlled. Mechanical Mechanical control can be done by mowing three to five times during the growing season to decrease the density. Equipment used to manage phragmites should be cleaned of all debris before removing it from the treatment site to prevent the unintended spread of seeds or rhizomes. Mowing alone will not sufficiently control the species as it can spread via its roots. Controlled burns after the plants flower can help reduce large stands of invasive common reed. Burning every year or every other year on well-established stands may be necessary to significantly reduce the population density and regeneration. Fire is not a stand-alone management option and usually works best in conjunction with herbicide applications. Burns that are prescribed before an herbicide application can expose new growth, making it easier to target plants for successful herbicide translocation. Burns after herbicide treatment can also be beneficial by removing dead stems and soil litter, thus encouraging germination of native plants. Biological Control Intensive grazing of invasive common reed stands can help reduce seed production and foster development of other more desirable plants. However, grazing alone will not provide long-term sustainable control of the population unless it is part of an integrated approach. Depending on the infestation, grazing may only be practical during droughts or the winter months when livestock can access the area. Late winter or early season grazing followed by herbicide treatment and a prescribed burn can significantly control invasive common reed and foster regrowth of native plants. Long-term Management Monitoring and follow-up treatment will be necessary to obtain control. The seeds germinate readily and roots resprout at any height of stem, even none. It is not advised to begin control unless a long-term management plan is in place. Revegetation should not be attempted until at least the end of the second season of treatment. References https://www.minnesotawildflowers.info/grass-sedge-rush/european-common-reed https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/aquaticplants/phragmites/index.html https://extension.umn.edu/identify-invasive-species/invasive-phragmites https://www.mda.state.mn.us/plants/pestmanagement/weedcontrol/noxiouslist/commonreed Phragmites timeline April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Burn Foliar Herbicide Mow Grazing Flowering Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea) Description Reed canary grass is a robust cool season grass that is likely circumboreal in origin. Ecotypes and/or cultivars of Eurasian origin were widely planted for use as a forage, conservation plantings, and erosion control, and are likely the aggressive grass that invades and dominates native wetlands and other moist soil habitats throughout Minnesota. Reed canary grass can reach 6 feet in height, but typically lays over, forming a dense mat that smothers native vegetation. The plant is hairless. Leaf blades are ½ to ¾ inches wide, flat, rough to the touch and blue-green in color. The ligule, found at the base of the leaf blade where it joins the sheath, is long and membranous. Flowering occurs from May to mid-June. The inflorescences are 3-16 inches long and initially purple tinged, with lax branches. As the seeds ripen, the inflorescences turn a tawny beige color and the branches close up against the main axis. The shiny seeds rain out of the inflorescences when disturbed after ripening. Seeds disperse on water, and are moved by humans and animals as well. The plants are clonal, spreading aggressively by rhizomes. Reed canary grass is adaptable in its cultural requirements, growing in dry upland soils and part shade as well as the moist to wet soils in full sun where it does best. Reed canary grass management should only be tackled if there are adequate resources for both adequate initial treatment as well as ongoing follow-up treatment. It is not reasonable to attempt to control a discrete area of reed canary grass within a larger system invaded by the grass, as there will continue to be inputs of seed and perhaps even invasion by rhizomes. Chemical A preferred method to control dense stands of reed canary grass is to broadcast treat it with glyphosate in early to mid-fall while the cool season plants are still actively growing and the chemical will be translocated to the plants roots and rhizomes. Glyphosate formulated for use over water should be used for reed canary grass control where it occurs in wetlands. In upland areas, glyphosate or a grass specific herbicide such as fluazifop-p-butyl can be used. When treating dense clones of reed canary grass, there is little chance of overspray contacting desirable species. However care should be taken to avoid overspray when treating smaller patches of reed canary grass occurring within a remnant or restored native plant community. Where feasible, mowing prior to herbicide treatment can facilitate application. Mow prior to seed production or in late summer for a fall foliar herbicide treatment. If the population is especially dense, one herbicide treatment is not likely to be enough for complete control. Mechanical In theory, intensive grazing, mowing or haying could diminish the resources of this robust perennial grass, but in practice that is difficult to achieve. Reed canary grass is typically found in environments that are too wet to mow as needed. In addition, this method will not eliminate reed canary grass. More likely, it will merely set reed canary grass back temporarily allowing some other species to occupy the space. But if ongoing maintenance does not occur, reed canary grass will recover and dominate the plant community again. Mowing can be used to facilitate herbicide treatment on invaded areas that are accessible by equipment. Mow ahead of herbicide treatment, allowing adequate time for reed canary grass to grow back. Prescribed fire can be used to remove thatch and prepare a previously treated area for follow-up treatment. Mowing can be used in lieu of a prescribed fire to remove the dead canopy of previously treated reed canary grass. Mowing, of course may be limited by access on wet sites. Long-term Management Monitoring and follow-up treatment will be necessary to obtain control. The seed bank will germinate once the canopy is removed and will require follow-up management. It is not advised to begin control unless a long-term management plan is in place. Revegetation should not be attempted until at least the end of the second season of treatment. Reed Canary Grass April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Burn Foliar Herbicide Mow Flowering Narrow-leaf and Hybrid Cattail (T. angustifolia, Typha x glauca) Description The cylindrical velvet brown flower heads of cattails are readily identifiable, but distinguishing the native broad-leaf cattail from the invasive narrow-leaf cattail and hybrid cattail requires closer study. The narrow-leaf and hybrid cattail tend to grow in deeper water and form denser clones. The hybrid grows taller, 6-9 feet versus 3-9 feet for broad-leaf and narrow-leaf cattail. The narrow-leaf cattail has narrower leaves, less than ½ inch wide versus ½ - 1 inch for broad-leaf cattail. The leaves of the hybrid are variable, but range between those of the broad-leaf and narrow-leaf cattail. In cattail flower spikes, the female flowers form the brown club. The male flowers, which occur above the female flowers, are yellow when loaded with pollen, but soon wither after the pollen is shed. In narrow-leaf and hybrid cattail, the male flowers are separated from the female flowers by a gap of 1-1.5 inches. In broad-leaf cattail spikes, the male flowers are contiguous with the female flowers. The thick starchy rhizomes of narrow-leaf cattail intertwine to form a dense mat. In some wetlands, the mat may be floating. Cattails reproduce by wind-borne seeds and rhizomes. The altered hydrology of urban wetlands favors the establishment and growth of narrow-leaf cattails over desirable native species, allowing them to dominate the wetland flora. Where scattered populations of narrow-leaf cattail are established in other actively managed units, they could be controlled by treating them with herbicides when other herbaceous species, such as reed canary grass, may also be controlled. Chemical Application of glyphosate in late-summer to fall when the herbicide will be translocated to the rhizomes increases the efficacy of the treatment. Glyphosate products formulated for use over water should be used. Wick application, spot treatment, or broadcast may be appropriate techniques. Mechanical Mowing or prescribed fire could be used after an initial herbicide treatment to remove thatch and facilitate follow-up herbicide treatments. However typically these treatments would be difficult to implement considering the wet habitat preferred by narrow-leaf cattails. Where prescribed fire is possible, caution is advised as dried cattail biomass burns hot and fast. Cattails can also be controlled by low cutting their stems below the water surface to inhibit oxygen uptake and photosynthetic activity. This can be done either in the warm season, or during winter – cutting stems to ice height – to inhibit biomass accretion and promote light penetration to soil surface. The litter produced can be either hauled off site or, given sufficient ice thickness/ snow depth, burned on site. Long-term Management Monitoring and follow-up treatment will be necessary to obtain control. It is not advised to begin control unless a long-term management plan is in place. Any revegetation efforts should not be attempted until at least the end of the second season. Narrow-leaf and Hybrid Cattail April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Burn Foliar Herbicide Mow Submerged cutting Flowering Shrub and Tree Species Japanese Barberry (Berberis thunbergii) Description Barberry is a small spiny shrub, growing 3-5 feet tall. It may be rather spindly in habit when growing in deep shade, or more compact when growing in part-shade and sun. The small rounded leaves taper to the stem and occur in small clusters associated with one of the spines along the stems. Insignificant yellow flowers open in May. They occur singly or in groups of 2-4, hanging beneath the branches. Fruit are bright red oblong berries which may persist into winter if they aren’t eaten first by birds which disperse the seeds. Barberry has the ability to spread by layering, when its lower branches root into the ground. Japanese barberry, along with many of its horticultural cultivars are sold as ornamentals in Minnesota and other states. Japanese barberry is currently a Minnesota Department of Agriculture Specially Regulated Plant, which means that the species type and several cultivars of Berberis thunbergii are being phased out of the nursery trade and may not be legally sold in the state after December 31, 2017. Mechanical Small populations of Individual plants can be rogued out with a shovel, mattock, or weed wrench. Because the lower stems may have rooted down, care must be taken to up-root all stems for complete control. Forestry mowing in winter may control barberry if the shredded stems are exposed to dessicating conditions, however, follow-up foliar treatment is often necessary. Cut stems must be treated with herbicide or the shrub will resprout from the base. Chemical Cut-stump treatment with glyphosate or triclopyr is effective at controlling barberry. The herbicide should be applied to the stump without delay for optimal effectiveness. Barberry may be difficult to control due to its ability to layer. If all of the rooted stems are not cut and treated, barberry may survive cut stump treatment. Foliar herbicide treatments can also be effective, but care needs to be taken to avoid collateral damage to native species. Timing foliar treatments using glyphosate or triclopyr while native species are dormant is necessary to minimize damage to desirable species. Long-term Management Barberry are prolific seed producers, so monitoring and follow-up treatment will be needed to obtain control. Japanese Barberry April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Burn Foliar Herbicide Basal Bark Herbicide Cut Stem Herbicide Flowering Oriental Bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus) Description Oriental bittersweet is a recent threat to Minnesota native habitats, having escaped from cultivation. It is a robust vine that climbs by twining around a support. The vine can grow up to 60 feet or more. The vines have been reported to be so vigorous that they can overwhelm and kill a tree either by blocking light to the canopy or by causing it to be more susceptible to windthrow and breakage when loaded with ice or snow. The vines may also girdle trees as they twine around the trunk. Stems are gray-brown with raised lenticels and may grow as big as 4 inches around. Vegetatively, it is very similar to and difficult to distinguish from the native American bittersweet. The leaves of both species are alternate, simple, and range from oblong to nearly round in shape with rounded teeth on the margins. Male and female flowers occur on separate plants, so only the female plants will have the showy fruit for identification. American bittersweet flowers and fruits occur on the terminal ends of the stems, while those of oriental bittersweet occur in the leaf axils along the stem. The fruits of American bittersweet are red with an orange capsule, while those of oriental bittersweet are red with a yellow capsule. The two species are known to hybridize, and the hybrids should be controlled as well. Oriental bittersweet, like its native counterpart, spreads by suckering as well as by seed. Mechanical Small populations can be controlled by digging in locations where that treatment is feasible. Mowing is not recommended and may stimulate additional suckering from the root system. Chemical Cutting and treating the stumps will likely be the most effective control method. Cut stems may be treated with glyphosate or triclopyr. Cut stump treatment can occur from mid-summer through winter. In areas with extensive establishment of seedlings and young plants, a foliar herbicide treatment can be used for control. Long-term Management Oriental bittersweet is a prohibited noxious weed. All parts of it must be destroyed. Do not transport, propagate, or otherwise distribute any plant parts, including the ornamental fruits. Oriental Bittersweet April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Foliar Herbicide Cut Stem Herbicide Mow Flowering Winged Euonymus (Euonymus alatus) Description Winged Euonymus or burning bush (Euonymus alatus) has been a popular landscape shrub since it arrived in North America in the mid-1800s. A member of the bittersweet family (Celastraceae), Euonymus alatus is indigenous to Northeastern Asia, Japan and Central China. Winged burning bush is a woody, perennial shrub. It can grow in a wide range of conditions, from full sun to full shade. It can tolerate a wide range of soils, except for wet, poorly drained soils. It can establish in woodlands, forests, fields, roadsides, and disturbed areas. Its brilliant red fall foliage, corky “winged” branches, and orange-red fruits, as well as its adaptability, have made it a desirable ornamental landscape plant with four-season interest. Unfortunately, the seediness of the plant has caused it to escape the managed landscape to inhabit the natural landscape where it outcompetes native vegetation for sunlight, soil nutrients and space. Mechanical Mechanical control can be done by digging or pulling the plant by hand or with equipment such as a shovel when stems are small. Larger or mature plants must can be controlled via targeted cutting using chain and brush saws. Chemical Herbicide control can be done using systemic herbicides, which are taken up by plants and move within the plant, killing leaves, stems, and roots. Cut plants will resprout if the stump is not treated with herbicide after cutting. Immediately after cutting (within 2 hours), apply an herbicide containing triclopyr (Garlon 3A/Vastlan, Garlon 4, or other brush killers with triclopyr) or glyphosate to the cut stump to prevent re-sprouting. Always follow label instructions for herbicides. Herbicides can be applied to cut stumps with a paintbrush, wick applicator such as a dauber or "buckthorn blaster," or a low volume sprayer. For basal stem treatment, a method that applies chemical through the bark, low volume spray applications can be made with Garlon 4, Pathfinder II and similar oil-based products. This application method uses triclopyr ester mixed with an oil diluent (i.e. Bark Oil Blue, kerosene) applied directly to the bark of winged burning bush from the root collar up about 12-18 inches. An ultra-low volume spray wand should be used to minimize herbicide use and reduce the potential for non-target injury. Long-term Management Winged euonymus typically grows in patches by rhizomatous expansion. Where one stem is, other stems are close by. Birds that consume the fruits can start new populations far from the mother tree, and deer don't eat it and further deplete the native flora instead. Long term monitoring should be conducted to detect new stems. References https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialplants/winged-burning-bush.html https://www.minnesotawildflowers.info/shrub/winged-burning-bush Burning Bush April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec- Mar Foliar Herbicide Basal Bark Herbicide Cut Stem Herbicide Flowering Russian Olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) Description Russian olive is a deciduous nitrogen fixing small tree/large shrub, growing up to 25’ tall. Its crown is generally rounded, but often unruly in appearance. Twigs have a terminal spine. Leaves are alternate, lance-shaped and silvery-white in color. Fragrant yellow flowers bloom in late spring and produce a hard, olive-like fruit. The trees are tap-rooted. Russian olive was introduced to North America for use in shelterbelt plantings and highway rights-of-way. It is hardy, tolerant of a range of soil conditions and capable of sprouting from adventitious buds on the crown and root suckers. Mechanical Seedlings can be hand-pulled and saplings can be removed with a weed wrench or shovel. To be effective, all roots must be removed. Repeated mowing of small plants initiated in summer when stored root reserves are low may be an effective control. A regime of periodic prescribed fire will control seedlings in communities that are managed with fire. Chemical Trees may be cut stump treated in fall and winter. Cut stems may be treated with glyphosate or triclopyr. Basal bark spray around the lower stem with triclopyr when dormant. Long-term Management Monitoring for establishment of new individuals and populations will be necessary. Treat seedlings and saplings before they are large enough to develop seed. Russian Olive April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Burn Foliar Herbicide Basal Bark Herbicide Cut Stem Herbicide Honeysuckle (Lonicera tartarica, L. morrowii, L. x bella) Description Invasive honeysuckles most often occur on forest edges and interiors, but also occur on fallow agricultural land, and road and rail rights-of-way. They grow in poor to well-drained soils. Exotic honeysuckles replace native forest shrubs and herbaceous plants by their invasive nature. They leaf out early, shade out herbaceous ground cover and deplete soil moisture. Research suggests that honeysuckles inhibit the growth of nearby plants through allelopathy. Honeysuckle reproduces primarily via seeds which are dispersed by birds that eat the fruits. Honeysuckle is one of the first plants to leaf out in the spring and one of the last to retain its leaves in the fall. It is challenging to correctly identify L. tatarica, L. morrowii, or the hybrid, L. x bella. Since they are managed the same way, it is not necessary to make a positive identification. Lonicera tatarica (native to central Russia) has 1-2.5 inch long, glabrous, ovate to oblong leaves. Its white-pink flowers are glabrous. Fruits are red or rarely yellow. Height reaches 9 feet. The gray-green leaves of Lonicera morrowii (native to Japan) are soft-pubescent beneath. Flowers are pubescent, white fading to yellow on densely hairy peduncles. Fruits are red. Height reaches 6 feet. The hybrid L. x bella has intermediate characteristics. Leaves are slightly hairy beneath. Flowers are pink fading to yellow, on sparsely hairy peduncles. Fruits are red or rarely yellow. Height can reach 15 feet. Mechanical Brush mowing or cutting honeysuckle without herbicide treatment is ineffective unless done continuously for several years. The lower branches tend to grow horizontally along the ground, making it challenging for mowers to effectively cut the plant. Combining mowing with a fall herbicide application is very effective. Repeated prescribed fire will kill young honeysuckles and potentially girdle and top kill larger plants. However, carrying fire through areas of high infestation is a challenge because of insufficient fuel. Combining prescribed fire with other control methods is preferable. Chemical Cut-stump treatment with glyphosate or triclopyr is effective at controlling honeysuckle. The herbicide should be applied to the stump without delay for optimal effectiveness. Honeysuckle can be difficult to control due to its ability to layer. Layering occurs when plant stems lay on moist ground and root from adventitious buds. If all of the rooted stems are not cut and treated, honeysuckle may survive cut stump treatment. Foliar herbicide treatments can also be effective, but care needs to be taken to avoid collateral damage to native species. Timing foliar treatments using glyphosate or triclopyr while native species are dormant is necessary to minimize damage to desirable species. There is anecdotal evidence indicating that basal bark applications have also been effective for controlling honeysuckles. Notably, this technique is observed to be effective when applied at any time of year. Long-term Management Long-term management focus should be on minimizing seed dispersal via monitoring and on-going management efforts. Honeysuckle April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec- Mar Burn Foliar Herbicide Basal Bark Herbicide Experi mental Experi mental Experim ental Experi mental Experi mental Experi mental Cut Stem Herbicide Flowering Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), Glossy Buckthorn (Frangula alnus) Description Both common buckthorn and glossy buckthorn were introduced to North America as ornamental shrubs for use in fence rows, and as wildlife habitat. Both buckthorns were valued for their hardiness and ability to thrive in a variety of soil and light conditions. They also have a dense habit making them ideal for use as privacy hedges in densely populated urban areas. As an invasive in native habitats, common buckthorn tends to form dense, even-aged thickets, crowding and shading out native shrubs and herbs. Dense buckthorn invasions also prevent native tree and shrub regeneration. Common buckthorn is a shrub or small tree that can grow to 22 feet in height with as much as a 10” diameter trunk, although stems are typically more in the range of 2”-5” diameter. The crown of mature plants is spreading and irregular. The bark is gray to brown, rough textured when mature and may be confused with that of plum trees in the genus Prunus. When cut, the inner bark is yellow. Twigs are often tipped with a spine. In spring, dense clusters of 2 to 6, inconspicuous yellow-green, 4-petaled flowers emerge near the bases of the leaf stalks. Male and female flowers are borne on separate plants. Small black fruits about 1/4 inch in cross-section and containing 3-4 seeds, develop after blooming. Leaves are broadly oval, with toothed margins, rounded or pointed at the tip, and with 3-4 pairs of up-curved veins. The upper and lower leaf surfaces are hairless. Leaves appear dark, glossy green on the upper surface and stay green late into fall, after the leaves of most other deciduous species have fallen. Glossy buckthorn does not have a spine at its twig tips, its leaves are not toothed, and the undersides of the leaves are hairy. The trunks and stems have lighter colored lenticels. It similarly produces dark fruit on the female plants. The fruits of both species, if not eaten by birds, typically fall directly beneath the shrubs, creating a dense understory of seedlings characteristic of common buckthorn stands. The fruit is eaten by birds and mice and is known to cause a severe laxative effect, helping distribute seeds via birds, often far from the parent plant. Common buckthorn is primarily an invasive species of upland habitats, but it also occurs within wetlands. It prefers lightly shaded conditions, invading open oak woods, and wood edges; it may also be found in prairies, open fields, and wetlands. It is tolerant of many soil types; well drained sand, clay, poorly drained calcareous, neutral or alkaline, wet or dry. Common buckthorn occurs very frequently in Minnesotan forests. Management strategies vary depending on the terrain and timing of control. Glossy buckthorn prefers wetland habitats, but will grow in upland conditions as well. Initial control of glossy buckthorn should therefore occur in winter when the ground is frozen to facilitate access to all areas. Some areas will be difficult to access with equipment even in winter because of the other shrub species amongst which it grows. Mechanical On level upland areas, forestry mowing is an efficient method to remove the standing trees. If the stems are shattered close to the base and conditions after forestry mowing are very cold and dry, the wood is prone to drying out and may not be capable of resprouting. On steep slopes, brush saws can be used to cut the stems. The cut stumps should be treated immediately with herbicide. In wetland areas, brush saws will likely be needed to cut the stems. A forestry mower should be used only in areas where it will be possible to access the site for follow-up foliar treatment. Triclopyr with blue marker dye or a 50% solution of glyphosate with blue marker dye are effective for control. Areas cut by either method will require a follow-up foliar herbicide treatment, as it is likely that a percentage of the stems will resprout. Mowing repeatedly for several years, often multiple times a year, will eventually kill buckthorn. The goal is to deplete the roots of stored energy. Smaller buckthorn and seedlings will require fewer mowings. Small saplings can often be hand-pulled if the soil conditions are right, as in invaded forests without a dense ground layer. Manually pulling smaller buckthorn with weed-wrenches or simply levering it out with a shovel is a useful method in smaller populations or when volunteers are involved. Weed-wrenches and shovels create disturbance in the soil which can expose new weed seed, so consideration should be given to the results of this disturbance when choosing where to implement this method. It is possible in some settings that disturbance may facilitate establishment of suppressed native species as well. Prescribed fire can be a useful tool as part of an integrated buckthorn management approach in fire dependent plant communities. Fire provides a means to kill buckthorn seedlings and set back mature plants. However, even in fire-adapted ecosystems when buckthorn is present in dense patches, it is often difficult to carry fire because of the lack of ground cover to provide fuel. Chemical There are several strategies to chemically treat buckthorn. Applying triclopyr or glyphosate to the cut stump of buckthorn is highly effective. Triclopyr can also be applied as a foliar spray in late summer, or in fall when other desirable woody species have dropped their leaves. Cutting buckthorn in June and returning to foliar spray in the fall when the stumps have resprouted is an effective way to kill it. Frill cutting and spraying larger buckthorn is also effective. It can also be treated by spraying around the base of the trunk with triclopyr. Long-term management & Revegetation Buckthorn seeds can stay viable in the soil for up to 5-7 years. In addition, dispersal of buckthorn seeds from adjacent properties makes long-term monitoring and management essential in all formerly invaded ecosystems. Areas disturbed by heavy infestations of buckthorn are often prone to invasion by other exotic species as well, so revegetation to provide competition, as well as ongoing management are necessary. Where hand removal is feasible scouting and hand-pulling on an annual basis will be a useful method to maintain sites where initial management has occurred. Alternatively, budgeting for follow-up forestry mowing, prescribed burns, and/or chemical treatment will be required. Common buckthorn April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Burn Foliar Herbicide Basal Bark Herbicide Cut Stem Herbicide Flowering Glossy buckthorn April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Burn Foliar Herbicide Basal Bark Herbicide Cut Stem Herbicide Flowering Multiflora Rose (Rosa multiflora) Description Multiflora rose is a perennial shrub that can grow to 13 feet tall and 13 feet wide. It reproduces by seeds which can be spread to new sites. Within a site, an individual plant can spread vegetatively when its stems arch over, touch the ground, send out roots, and start a new plant. Multiflora rose is found in forest edges, woodlands, oak savannas, prairies, fields, pastures, and roadsides. Multiflora rose is native to eastern Asia. It was brought to the United States from Japan in 1866 for rootstock for ornamental roses. Starting in the 1930s multiflora rose was widely planted in the United States for erosion control, wildlife, and ornamental purposes. Multiflora rose is widespread in the northeastern United States and is also present in the southeastern and western United States. In Minnesota, multiflora rose is mainly in southeastern Minnesota. Mechanical Mechanical control can be done by pulling seedlings in small infestations when soil is moist. Due to the thorns on multiflora rose, care must be taken with manual removal if you choose to pull or dig up plants so you do not injure yourself on the thorns. Review Minnesota Department of Agriculture disposal information for noxious weeds. Cutting or mowing plants three to six times a year over two to four years can reduce the number of plants. Prescribed burning in the spring will kill seedlings and small plants, but mature shrubs may resprout. Repeated burns may be needed to control infestations. Chemical Herbicide control can be done using systemic herbicides which are taken up by plants and move within the plant, which can kill leaves, stems, and roots. Immediately after cutting (within 2 hours), apply an herbicide containing triclopyr (Garlon 3A/Vastlan, Garlon 4, or other brush killers with triclopyr) or glyphosate to the cut stump to prevent re-sprouting. Always follow label instructions for herbicides. Herbicides can be applied to cut stumps with a paintbrush, wick applicator such as a dauber or "buckthorn blaster," or a low volume sprayer. In cases where more than a few plants are treated, add an indicator dye (available where pesticides are sold), such as Mark-It Blue, to the herbicide to mark which cut stumps you have sprayed. July through October is the most effective time for cut-stem herbicide treatments. References https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialplants/multiflorarose/index.html https://www.minnesotawildflowers.info/shrub/multiflora-rose Burning Bush phenology April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec- Mar Prescribed Burn Cut Stem Herbicide Flowering Siberian Elm (Ulmus pumila) Description Siberian Elm is a small or medium-sized tree with spreading branches. Bark is gray-brown with shallow furrows. Twigs and buds are nearly hairless. Leaves are elliptical, prominently veined and single-toothed. Leaves are softly pubescent when young and arranged alternately. Leaves are rarely more than 2 inches long, distinguishing it from native elms, for which the leaves are typically more than 3 inches long. Another distinguishing difference between the two is that Siberian elm buds are spherical, whereas American elm buds are elipsoidal. Siberian elm is tolerant of dry, nutrient poor soil. The winged seeds are wind-dispersed in spring, soon after flowering. Seedlings grow rapidly and may form thickets in disturbed areas Mechanical Trees may be girdled and allowed to die over time. Girdle in late-spring to mid-summer while the sap is flowing and the bark peels away from the sapwood. Use caution that the girdling cut is not made too deep as this will cause the tree to resprout from the base. If the tree resprouts, the sprouts can be cut and stump treated. Seedlings can be hand-pulled and saplings can be removed with a weed wrench or shovel. A regime of periodic prescribed fire will control seedlings in fire dependent plant communities. Chemical Trees may be cut stump treated in fall and winter. Cut stems may be treated with glyphosate or triclopyr. Basal bark treatment with triclopyr will also be effective. Long-term Management Monitoring for establishment of new individuals and populations will be necessary. Treat seedlings and saplings before they are large enough to develop seed. Important Considerations If disposal option involves burning, it is very important to dry the wood before burning as elm carries a lot water through its vascular tissue in mesic to wet soils. In wetter habitats too, this may make fire as a control mechanism less likely to successfully kill a tree. Siberian Elm April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Burn Girdle Foliar Herbicide Basal Bark Herbicide Cut Stem Herbicide Combined Tables by Type of Management Burn April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Garlic mustard Burdock Canada thistle Crown vetch Leafy spurge Motherwort Birds-foot trefoil Sweet clover Smooth brome Reed canary grass Narrow-leaf cattail Honeysuckle Buckthorn Siberian elm Russian olive Foliar Herbicide April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Garlic mustard Burdock Canada thistle Bull thistle Crown vetch Leafy spurge Motherwort Birds-foot trefoil Purple loosestrife Sweet clover Garden heliotrope Smooth brome Reed canary grass Narrow-leaf cattail Oriental bittersweet Honeysuckle Buckthorn Siberian elm Russian olive Basal Bark Herbicide April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Buckthorn Siberian elm Russian olive Cut Stem Herbicide April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Canada thistle Oriental bittersweet Japanese barberry Honeysuckle Buckthorn Siberian elm Russian olive Mow April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Garlic mustard Burdock Canada thistle Bull thistle Crown vetch Leafy spurge Motherwort Birds-foot trefoil Sweet clover Smooth brome Reed canary grass Narrow-leaf cattail Oriental bittersweet Don’t Mow April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar Garlic mustard Canada thistle Leafy spurge Birds-foot trefoil Sweet clover Garden heliotrope NEW BUSINESS – 4B MEMORANDUM DATE: August 18, 2026 TO: Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee FROM: Matthew Johnson, Recreation Supervisor 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: August 18, 2026 TO: Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee FROM: Matthew Johnson, Recreation Supervisor 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. NEW BUSINESS 4-D MEMORANDUM DATE: August 18th, 2026 TO: Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee FROM: Matthew Johnson, Recreation Supervisor SUBJECT: Dog Stick Library Discussion: Discussion of the donation of a Dog Stick library at one of our Dog Parks in the City of the Arden Hills. If committee would like to move forward with a suggestion to bring to a work session. Background: A member of the community would like to donate a newly crafted dog stick library to the City of Arden Hills. See attachment A. Attachment A: Dog Stick Library Information Dog Stick Library Information Below is some additional information about the proposed donation and installation. It's not a big project and can easily be removed and reinstalled if needed. Below is a couple photos and you can also see more here: https://www.dogsticklibrarymn.com 1. Monetary value of the donation The retail value of the completed Dog Stick Library, including the library, treated 4x4 post, mounting hardware/ground stake, and signage, is approximately $80. Donation would include the library and all necessary installation materials to the City of Arden Hills at no cost. 2. Description and community benefit A Dog Stick Library is a small outdoor station that holds sticks for dogs to play with - the library is about 20” wide x 33” tall x 4” deep, overall height: 3.5 feet with the post. It's primed and then painted with heavy duty exterior paint. The concept is fun and simple: dogs and their owners can take a stick to play with, return it when they’re finished, or leave another stick for the next dog. It's really meant to be fun for the dogs, sure, but also for the humans who can gather and chat about the concept and their dogs. Located near one of Arden Hills’ dog parks, it would be a fun and unique amenity for residents and their dogs. In addition to providing sticks for play, the library could: • Add a playful and welcoming feature to the dog park area. • Encourage interaction and a sense of community among dog owners. • Give residents another small reason to enjoy and take pride in our local Arden Hills parks. • Provide a practical place to collect and share appropriately sized sticks rather than having them scattered around the immediate dog park area. 3. Installation requirements and responsibility The Dog Stick Library is designed for a pretty simple installation. It mounts to a treated 4x4 post secured in the ground using a heavy-duty metal ground stake/post anchor. No concrete or electrical work is required. Donator is willing to provide the Dog Stick Library, treated post, ground stake, and necessary mounting hardware. Donator can provide all of the materials and the City could install it. You could also easily screw it into and existing post of your choosing. The library itself would be installed at a comfortable height for people and dogs to access and positioned so that it does not interfere with pathways, mowing, snow removal, or other park operations. Donator is happy to work with City staff on the exact location and any installation requirements the city may desire.