HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/27/2008 Env Bd Packet•
•
City of Lino Lakes
Environmental Board Meeting
February 27, 2008
6:30 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes
November 28, 2007
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Open Mike
5. Action Items
A. Foxburough Work Plan 2008
B. Goals 2008
6. Discussion Items
A. Stream Health Evaluation Program (SHEP)
B. Heron Status Report
C. Earth Day 2008
7. Adjourn
•
•
•
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING
DATE
TIME STARTED
TIME ENDED
MEMBERS PRESENT
MEMBERS ABSENT
STAFF PRESENT
1.
2.
CITY OF LINO LAKES
APPROVED MINUTES
JULY 25, 2007
: November 28, 2007
. 6:35 P.M.
. 8:25 P.M.
: Mary Jo O'Dea, Peter Brown, Paula
Andrzejewski, Barbara Bor and Martha
DeHaven
: Alan Traylor & Kimberly Brouillet
: Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson
CALL TO ORDER
Ms. O'Dea called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
August 29, 2007
Ms. O'Dea had the following changes to the minutes. Page 2, paragraph 7,
change: Phase I and would explain to read Phase I to explain. Page 2, paragraph
10, add: there is before the words very minimal. Page 2, paragraph 11, change:
foods to fields. Page 4, paragraph 9, add: defmition for before the word
acronyms. Add: or commonly used words and phrases used by after the word
acronyms. Take out the word for after the word acronyms.
Mr. Brown made a motion to approve the June 27, 2007 minutes with changes.
Ms. DeHaven seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Add Discussion Item C: TMDL Update - Barbara Bor
Ms. Andrzejewski made a motion to approve agenda. Ms. DeHaven seconded the
motion to approve agenda. Motion carried unanimously
4. OPEN MIKE
Open mike closed at 6:38 p.m.
1 DRAFT MINUTES
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 25, 2007
5. ACTION ITEMS
A. Main Street Village Concept Plan — Azure Properties — PUD
Mr. Asleson presented his staff report to the board. This item has been previously
submitted for review. There were issues the developer needed to address before
the environmental board could move forward with this project. The issues have
since been addressed.
Mr. Asleson first reviewed the background information on this Item. He then
reviewed the analysis, SWPPP, unique resources, tree preservation, AUAR,
landscaping and recommendations.
Mr. Asleson commented that their AUAR calculations look reasonable at this
time. He stated that Rice Creek Watershed District has issued a conditional
approval at this item.
It was recommended by the board that Mr. Asleson write a letter to the City of
Lino Lakes Engineer addressing the changes being made to the SWPPP. The
following are the changes /additions made to the SWPPP:
1. Page 4 of the Main Street Village SWPPP, the words "and city" should be
added after the bullet point that states "any dewatering discharge shall be
approved per the local LGU requirements.
2. Temporary storm ponds should located on the plan sheets
3. A method of dewatering turbid storm water from temporary storm ponds
should be detailed on the plan sheets and approved by the city.
4. Location of the SWPPP and weekly, post rain all event inspection sheets must
be located on site and indicated on the plan.
5. All infiltration areas must be protected from compaction and sequenced
correctly in order to protect the integrity of the stormwater feature. Protection
devices (fences) and sequence dialog must be shown on the plans.
6. Location of a clean out area for concre4te trucks must be indicated on the
plans and clearly signed in the field.
The following changes /recommendations are made by the Environmental Board as of
November 28th, 2007:
1. All stormwater volume and flow designs must be evaluated for conformance
to RCWD and AUAR standards.
2. Site access for surface water treatment areas must be shown on the map.
3. Slopes of wetland mitigation areas be changed to conform to the AUAR.
2 DRAFT MINUTES
•
•
•
•
•
•
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 25, 2007
4. Recommend 1 -2 inch scrapping the wetland soils in the freeze /thaw situation
to control reed canary grass. Also recommend the scraped soils in wetland fill areas
be salvaged and stockpiled for use in the wetland mitigation area.
5. In general, there should be a narrative to the Boards and the City Council
addressing all of the mitigation strategies presented in the AUAR that effect this
development.
6. All infiltration areas and wetland mitigation areas should be seeded with the
city native seed mix. The city transitional mix is shown on the plan and this is a good
mix between cultural areas and wetland/pond areas. The BWSR U8 mix is shown on
the wetland mitigation slopes. A better mix selection from the BWSR choices would
be the WI mix. However, I would again recommend the city native pond seed mix for
this area, supplemented with flowering native plugs every 10 feet. All biofiltration
areas should also be supplemented with flowering plugs. Biofiltration areas planted
with the transitional seed mix should have a low - profile height associated with the
forbes.
All native seed mix areas should be planted by a contractor on the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources list of contractors. The native areas should be
maintained for a minimum of 3 years by the approved contractor and if possible
burned at the end of 3 years.
7. More trees should be planted particularly in type C and D soils. The C type
soils intersect biofiltration pond number 9 and wetland mitigation area 10 on the north
side, east side, south side and south west comer. Salix `Golden Curls' is a marginally
hardy plant and non - native. The AUAR recommends that water infiltration areas be
augmented with large herbaceous woody plant materials such as Aspen and
Cottonwoods. Therefore substituting more of these types of species and more
abundantly in the type C soil areas is in accordance with the AUAR recommendations.
Cottonwoods must be of the non - seeding types. Recommend one tree per 25' O.C. in
these type C soil areas.
8. Side slope of the wetland mitigation area be no steeper than 6:1 horizontal to
vertical.
9. Site access for maintenance reasons must be shown on the plan for stormwater
treatment areas.
10. A letter be written to the City Engineering adding issues to the project Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan
11. Keep parking stalls down to the minimum allowed by zoning code. Add
pervious paving if additional parking stalls are necessary.
12. Lighting should not exceed the city minimum lighting allowed by city code.
Canopy lights of the gas station must be flush mounted bulbs that present no glare
issues and downward directed. Monuments should be kept to a minimum and
minimize light spill.
3 DRAFT MINUTES
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 25, 2007
13. Request planning staff review trash and recycling accessibility as they relate to
truck movements.
14. No soils may be imported or exported to the site without city approval. Soils
hauled in should not be substantially different from soils that were inputted into the
stormwater model.
Motion: Motion was made by Bor, seconded by Andrzejewski to approve the
recommendations and forward to Planning & Zoning.
B. Vaughan's First Addition
Mr. Asleson stated this item was proposed for platting in 2004. At that time, there
was an extensive study (EAW) to look at impacts from proposed development
from the north end of Rough Grouse Road to the island in Wards Lake, connected
by a bridge. The project was approved at that time. The developer decided not to
construct the bridge connection.
The landowner (Mr. Vaughan) has proposed developing one lot at the end of
Rough Grouse Road.
Mr. Asleson presented his staff report. He reviewed site data, natural resources,
SWPPP, natural resources inventory, watershed issues, unique resources,
landscaping and recommendations. He also reviewed the attachments.
Mr. Asleson stated the flood plain does not meet regulations. The developer has
an incorrect ordinary high water plan. He stated there is very little room to work
on this plan. Ms. O'Dea asked if they have room to build a house. Mr. Asleson
stated that the lot area standards may be met if they use both lots.
Ms. O'Dea questioned how is the high water verified? Mr. Asleson stated it is the
DNR who verify's the high water. The information we have from the developer
does not adhere to the DNR's information.
Ms. Bor stated there was not a tree preservation plan included. Number 5 under
Mr. Asleson's recommendations addressed this issue. If the plan comes back
again, it will need this information.
The Environmental Board has reviewed this item and finds it incomplete at this
time and makes the following recommendations:
1. Possibly move the house to be part of outlot A so it meets the shoreland
requirements.
2. No importing or exporting of soils.
3. Include a tree preservation plan.
4 DRAFT MINUTES
•
•
•
•
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 25, 2007
Motion to approve recommendations indicating that we found application
incomplete and forward to Planning and Zoning Board at this time. Motion by
Ms. DeHaven and seconded by Ms. Andrzejewski. Motion carried unanimously.
6. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Comp Plan Update —
Mr. Asleson reviewed the Comprehensive Plan Update. He discussed the
upcoming open house. Ms. Bor mentioned at this time she is the only member of
the Environmental Board who volunteered for the comp plan committee who has
been regularly attending meetings. She suggested having another board member
attend the comp plan meetings. She suggested that if a member volunteers for a
committee outside of the Environmental Board and cannot attend on a regular
basis, an alternate or new member should fill the vacancy. She also stated the
opportunity to be on the comp plan committed is a great learning experience.
It was discussed by Board Members who they will send in place of Kim Brouillet
to the CPAP Open House of December 4, 2007. It was decided that Mr. Traylor
would attend.
B. Preliminary goals 2007 —
Mr. Asleson stated before our next meeting members should think about new
goals for 2008. He also stated he has an upcoming meeting with an Eagle Scout at
the middle school on November 29th, which is one of our 2007 goals. He stated we
are participating in comp plan process and in the RMP process which is part the
comp plan and is currently being worked on. He asked members to bring
suggestions, new ideas or changes to our next meeting.
C. TMDL Update Barbara Bor
Ms. Bor stated that the public needs to be aware of the issues regarding Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). State and federal law states the city is going to
have to fix pollutant loading issues within the city.
The question was raised about who is subject to adhere to these requirements and
who are they directing to fix the problems at this point? It was stated that RCWD
is our LGU but the city is called an MS4 and has to adhere to TMDL. That is why
we are doing a Resource Management Plan. The question was raised concerning
the responsibility of the surrounding cities. Mr. Asleson stated they are
responsible for meeting their own TMDL requirements. By law other cities will
have to meet standards as well. To help expedite the improvement process there
are several options suggested to assist with current problems. One option would
5 DRAFT MINUTES
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JULY 25, 2007
be a drawdown which might include a total fish kill or fish gates. Ms. Bor stated
that there will be a public hearing and an opportunity to give input.
7. ADJOURN
It was noted that the next meeting of the Environmental Board will be on
December 19, 2007.
There being no further business, Mr. Brown moved to adjourn at 8:25 p.m. Ms.
Bor seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Transcribed by:
Lisa Hogstad
Community Development Secretary
6 DRAFT MINUTES
•
f
• Agenda Item 5A
•
•
Environmental Board Meeting Date: February 27, 2008
Topic: Expenditure Review, Yearly Work Plan for Foxburough Development
and Recommendations.
Background: Foxburough is a conservation development that set up a
stewardship fund to manage natural resources in conservation easements of the
development. The Foxburough Stewardship fund was established to provide a
funding source for the maintenance, repair and improvement of conservation
areas. The Developer contributed $100,000.00 as an endowment to the
establishment of the fund. Interest earned each year on the $100,000 is the
providing source of funds for scheduled work to be done in Foxburough. In
addition, each lot has an annual assessment from the association of $100 for the
Conservation fund. Since there are 57 lots in the development, $5700 is
contributed each year to the fund.
The Association will pay the annual Fund payments for each of the 57 lots within
the development to the City on or before January 31 of each year. The first $100
per lot Fund assessment shall be assessed and collected during calendar year
2006 and shall be paid by the Association to the City on or before January 31,
2007. The City is the custodian of the Fund and is responsible for the
management of the Fund.
There was also $40,000 allocated by the Developer for initial restoration work in
the conservation easements during development.
As of January 1, 2008, there is approximately $17,000 in the fund to spend. The
Association is responsible each year to write a management proposal for the
conservation areas, within the scope of yearly budget. This plan must be
approved by the City and then the funds are released after completion of the
work plan.
Mr. Mike Black of North Oaks Realty, and Jason Husveth of Critical Connections
have submitted the attached Management Proposal documents for your
Consideration. A burn was also done last fall. The cost for this burn was
$4,770.00. The burn was within the scope of work described in on page 31
(Attachment 1) of the Foxburough Development Restoration and Management
Plan "Restoration and Management Needs and Tasks (Years 1 -5), for Fall
2005 /Spring 2006." This theoretically should have been cleared by the Board but
time got short for accomplishing the task and Environmental decided to go
forward with it.
Analysis:
Critical Connections Foxburough Conservation Development, Lino Lakes,
Minnesota Restoration and Management Planning for 2007 and 2008 are
attached. This document describes work that is within the budget constraints of
the endowment fund.
Recommendation: Approve the Maintenance Plan for Foxburough for
2007/2008
Attachments
1. "Restoration and Management Needs and Tasks (Years 1 -5) ", Foxburough
Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan.
2. Foxburough Conservation Development, Lino Lakes Minnesota Restoration
and Management Planning for 2007 and 2008
•
•
Natural
Resource
Consulting
Landscape
Ecology
Botanical
Inventories
Critical Connections Ecological Services, Inc.
14760 Oakhitt Road, Scandia, Minnesota 55073
Threatened &
Endangered
Species Surveys
Greenway &
Open Space
Planning
Natural
Community
Restoration
Wetland
Delineation &
Permitting
Wetland
Banking &
Monitoring
Minnesota
Land Cover
Classification
Geographic
Information
Systems
Global
Positioning
Systems
Database
Management &
Development
Environmental
Education
Mr. Marty Asleson
Natural Resources Specialist
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014
February 21, 2008
Mr. Mike Black
Royal Oaks Realty
1000 County Road E, Suite 150
Shoreview, Minnesota 55126
Re: Foxborough Conservation Development, Lino Lakes, Minnesota
Restoration and Management Planning for the 2007 and 2008
Dear Mr. Asleson and Mr. Black:
At the request of Royal Oaks Realty (ROR) and the Foxborough Homeowner's Association,
Critical Connections Ecological Services, Inc (CCES) has been asked to prepare a scope of work
for restoration and management needs and priorities for the Foxborough conservation
development in 2008. These tasks are consistent with the Foxborough Restoration and
Management Plan, developed by CCES in August 2005. The proposed restoration and
management tasks will be implemented during the 2008 growing season, and will rely on
available funding within the Foxborough Conservation Fund.
The following proposed tasks, timelines, costs, and priorities constitute the planned scope of
work for 2008 within Foxborough's conservation outlots. Task 1 (prescribed burn) was
previously implemented in April 2007, and is included in this scope of work.
2007 Restoration and Management Tasks (Completed):
Task 1: Prescribed Burn of Conservation Outlots.
A prescribed burn was planned and implemented by Critical Connections Ecological Services
in cooperation with Marty Asleson, City of Lino Lakes Natural Resources Specialist. The burn
was implemented on April 25, 2008 within approximately 75% of the conservation outlot
acreage within the Foxborough conservation development. Accessible wetland and upland
habitats were burned successfully. In addition, an adult female Blanding's Turtle was
discovered during the prescribed burn, and was re- released after the burn was completed.
CCES submitted and invoice for this completed work to the City of Lino Lakes on February 19,
2008 in the amount of $4,770.
Task 1 Timeline: April 2007 (completed)
Task 1 Costs: $4,770 (invoiced February 19, 2008)
Phone: 651.433.4410 Fax: 651.433.4528
Emai4 info @ccesinc.com Web: www.ccesinc.com
Foxborough Conservation Development, Lino Lakes, Minnesota
Restoration and Management Planning for 2007 and 2008
Scope of Work and Cost Estimate
Critical Connections Ecological Services, Inc.
2008 Restoration and Management Tasks (Planned):
Page 2 of 3
Task 2: Additional Native Seeding.
CCES will develop specifications and order native seed mixes for inter - seeding into wetland and upland
areas needing additional native seed and plant material. Priority areas to be targeted for re- seeding and
inter - seeding in 2008 are bare soil areas within stormwater management wetlands and along the edges
of established trails. All species will be native and appropriate to the existing and prescribed native
habitats being seeding. Seed will be ordered in March and seeding in late March or April.
Task 2 Timeline:
Task 2 Costs:
March through April 2008
$1,500 Seed
$3,000 Labor
Task 3: Management of Invasive Species.
Invasive species occurring within the conservation outlots will be inspected, managed, and treated with
appropriate herbicides during the 2008 growing season. Buckthorn seedlings and re- sprouts will be
chemically treated with Roundup (Glyphosate) herbicide. Reed canary grass will be treated with a grass -
specific herbicide (Sethoxydim) in species diverse areas, or Rodeo (Glyphosate) herbicide in areas with
over 90% reed canary grass cover. Invasive cattails, such as narrow leaved cattail and hybrid cattail, will
be treated with Rodeo (Glyphosate) herbicide. Invasive species management and herbicide treatments
will be prioritized to areas that were burned in 2007, to follow up on this management approach, and
will then be implemented in other areas as the budget financial resources allow.
Task 3 Timeline:
Task 3 Costs:
April through October 2008
$1,200 Herbicide
$8,500 Labor
Task 4: Removal of Damaged Oak Tree.
A damaged oak tree within the northeast corner of the Foxborough site will be removed. This tree is
located within the conservation area, and is immediately adjacent to the trail. The tree was damaged by
wind storms two years ago, and its substantial side -limbs have fallen onto the trail in last year. The tree
presents a safety liability and could result in further damage to the adjacent City -owned trail, if left
untreated. CCES will fall and remove the tree during the winter months, to reduce the possibility of
damage to the trail and ground vegetation (while the ground is frozen).
Task 4 Timeline: March 2008
Task 4 Costs: $960 Labor and disposal
Total Costs Tasks 1 through 4: $20,005.00
•
•
•
t
•
•
Foxborough Conservation Development, Lino Lakes, Minnesota
Restoration and Management Planning for 2007 and 2008
Scope of Work and Cost Estimate
Critical Connections Ecological Services, Inc.
Page 3 of 3
Thank you for assisting in the development of and reviewing this proposed scope of work for the
Foxborough conservation development. Mr. Jason Husveth and Mr. Mike Black plan to attend the Lino
Lakes Environmental Board meeting on Wednesday, February 27, 2008. At this meeting, Mr. Husveth
and Mr. Black will present the proposed scope of work and will answer any questions that the
Environmental Board or City staff may have. In the interim, please feel free to contact Jason Husveth
(CCES Principal Ecologist) if you have any questions or require additional information.
Respectfully submitted,
Critical Connections Ecological Services, Inc.
•
•
•
Foxborough Conservation Development
Restoration and Management Plan for Conservation Areas
Lino Lakes, Minnesota
FINAL DRAFT
Prepared By: Prepared For:
Critical Connections
Ecological Services, Inc
Critical Connections Ecological Services, Inc.
14758 Ostlund Trail North
Marine on St. Croix, MN 55047
August 8, 2005
ROYALOOAKS
REALTY. INC
Royal Oaks Reality, Inc.
1000 County Road E
Suite 150
Shoreview, MN" 55126
Table of Contents
I. Introduction 1
II. Landscape Context and Site History . 3
Geology, Soils, and Groundwater 3
Presettlement Vegetation (Circa 1850) 5
III. Ecological Survey of the Foxborough Conservation Areas 6
Major Vegetation Types 6
Wildlife Observations 12
Rare Plants and Animals 12
IV. Restoration and Management Needs and Recommendations 14
Restoration and Management Goals and Objectives 14
Prescribed Native Plant Communities 14
V. Restoration and Management Tasks and Timeline 35
Pre - Construction Restoration and Management Activities (Spring 2005) 25
Phase 1 - Site Recovery and Restoration: Years 1 -5 26
Phase 2 - Maintenance and Management: Years 5 -10+ 32
VI. Socio - Cultural Considerations and Recommendations 33
VII. Recommendations for Monitoring and Adaptive Management 35
VIII. References 37
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan
•
•
•
•
•
List of Figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Foxborough Conservation Development Site Location and Landscape Context
Typical Pattern of the Isanti - Soderville -Rifle Soil Association
Presettlement Vegetation of the Foxborough Conservation Development
Foxborough Site Plan Depicting Conservation Area Outlots
Pre - Development Conditions and Vegetation Quality (April 2005)
Conservation Area Restoration and Management Plan
Final Trail Alignment within the Foxborough Conservation Development (August 2005)
List of Tables
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Wildlife Observations, April through July 2005 Surveys
Phase 1 Restoration and Management Needs and Tasks (Years 1 — 5)
Phase 2 Restoration and Management Needs and Tasks (Years 5 - 10 +)
Appendices
Appendix A Foxborough Soil Types - Official Soil Series Descriptions
Appendix B Prescribed Natural Community Species Lists
Appendix C Noxious and Problematic Weed Species of Minnesota
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan ii
I. Introduction
Royal Oaks Reality (ROR) retained Critical Connections Ecological Services, Inc. (CCES) to
develop a natural resources restoration and management plan for the conservation areas
associated with the Foxborough Conservation Development within the City of Lino Lakes,
Minnesota. The 51 -acre residential conservation development is located south of Birch Street
and east of Deerwood Lane in the southeastern corner of Lino Lakes (Figure 1). Of the 51 acres,
approximately 29 acres have been set aside in three outlots as permanent conservation areas, to
be restored and managed as natural open space in perpetuity. Furthermore, a public pedestrian
trail will be constructed within a trail easement through the outermost conservation area (Outlot
A), and will serve to connect existing and proposed regional trail systems throughout the city of
Lino Lakes and the greater regional trail system of the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes open space.
The residential development consists of 57 residential lots and narrowed residential streets that
were designed to cluster housing, reduce overall impervious surfaces, minimize stormwater
runoff and maintain site hydrology, and restore and preserve existing natural areas within the
development in the form of permanently protected and managed outlots. Conservation areas
contained within the outlots will be restored and managed as natural communities consistent with
the pre - settlement vegetation of the site, such as oak forests and savannas, lowland hardwood
forest, wet meadows, emergent marshes, and dry, mesic, and wet prairies.
The inventory and ecological assessment for this report was conducted April through July of
2005, and represents baseline information regarding the natural resources of the site. The site
inventory and assessment was designed to document the extent and types of existing vegetation
and native plant communities, to assess the relative ecological quality of remaining natural
vegetation and semi - natural areas, and to identify opportunities and prioritize resource needs for
immediate and long -term restoration and management within the conservation areas. Additional
surveys and monitoring will be required in future years to gain a more complete understanding of
the site's flora and fauna, the ecological functions and values of the conservation areas, and the
response of vegetation to initial restoration and management treatments.
Landscape scale information (e.g., surficial geology, soils, presettlement vegetation) and past
land use history were researched from historic documents and other resources, and are cited
within the text where appropriate. Background information regarding the site's landscape
context and context within the City's planned open space and greenway system were considered
and incorporated into the development of this plan as well.
This plan describes natural resource restoration and management recommendations for the
various natural community remnants and semi - natural areas within Foxborough's permanent
conservation areas. The intent of the plan is to assist the Royal Oaks Reality, the City of Lino
Lakes, and the future Foxborough's Homeowners Association in stabilizing, establishing,
restoring, and managing the site's natural resources in the short term (one to five years), and to
improve the ecological quality and function of the open space over the long term through an
adaptive management approach. Successful restoration and management will likely require
long -term collaborative efforts of various organizations and individuals, community groups,
municipalities, and government agencies, including the residents of Foxborough, the City of
Lino Lakes, the Rice Creek Watershed District, the Saint Paul District of the US Army Corps of
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan 1
•
•
•
•
•
Foxborough Conservation Development Site Location and Landscape Context
Legend:
Proposed Greenway Corridor
In Section Boundaries
Exisiting Trails
ProposedlConcept Trails
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan
Figure 1
2
Engineers, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
As the conservation areas are restored, managed, and enjoyed by the residents of Foxborough
and visitors to the conservation areas, it is important that the residents of Foxborough and other
project stakeholders be kept well informed and involved in planning and implementation of
management actions, as well as the supporting science, policies, and agreements that support
these management decisions. Such an approach has been demonstrated within similar private
conservation developments and public preserves and open spaces to be successful in helping to
foster a core group of local citizens who are well informed, more involved, and take a proprietary
interest in the restoration and stewardship of the natural resources and cultural amenities within
permanent conservation areas.
II. Landscape Context and Site History
Foxborough is a 51 -acre residential conservation development located in southeastern Lino
Lakes. The legal description for the site is T31N R22W NE'/ of the NE'/ of Section 33. The
conservation development is located along a regionally significant greenway and open space
corridor that has been identified by the City of Lino Lakes and the Minnesota DNR (Figure 1).
Geology, Soils, and Groundwater
The Foxborough Conservation Development is located within the Anoka Sand Plain ecological
subsection of Minnesota. The Anoka Sand Plain is a large glacial outwash plain that includes
most of Anoka, Isanti, and Sherburne Counties and portions of Washington, Chisago, Ramsey,
and Hennepin Counties in central Minnesota. This extensive sand plain was formed at the end of
the last major ice age, circa 10,000 — 12,000 years ago, as receding of glacial ice lobes to the
north formed expansive sand and gravel outwash plains along glacial river ways within central
Minnesota.
The soils of the Foxborough site and surrounding landscape are comprised of predominantly
sandy soil types typical of the Anoka Sand Plain. Within Foxborough's conservation areas, the
upland soils types are Soderville loamy fine sands with 0 to 3 percent slopes. Wetland and
transitional areas are comprised of Isanti fine sandy loams, with 0 to 2 percent slopes.
Soderville soils are moderately well drained, and surface runoff is negligible. Permeability of
the Soderville soil type is rapid in the upper soil horizons, and moderately rapid in the lower soil
profile. Soderville soils have a perched seasonal high water table at a depth of 2.0 to 3.5 feet
(below the soil surface) at some time from April through June in most years. Common native
vegetation of Soderville soils is White Pine (Pinus strobus), Red Pine (Pinus resinosa), and Red
Oak (Quercus rubra), and Northern Pin Oak (Quercus ellipsoidalis), as well as upland prairie
grasses and forbs in non - forested areas.
Isanti soils are poorly to very poorly drained, with a water table at plus 1 foot to 0.5 feet below
the soil surface for the very poorly drained, depressional phase, and 0.5 to 1.5 feet below the soil
surface for poorly drained phase at some time October through June in most years. Native
• vegetation of Isanti soils is typically comprised of Grasses (Poaceae), Sedges (Cyperaceae),
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan 3
•
•
•
•
Willow (Salix spp.), Quaking Aspen (Populus tremuloides), and other species adapted to
persistent wet conditions (i.e. hydrophytic plant species).
Figure 2 depicts a typical oblique view of the Isanti — Soderville soil complex in Anoka County,
Minnesota. The complete official soils series descriptions (OSD's) for the soil types of the
Foxborough site are provided in Appendix A of this report (USDA NRCS, 2005). Furthermore,
additional information on soils can be obtained from the United States Department of
Agriculture's Soil Survey of Anoka County, Minnesota (USDA 1977).
ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Figure 2. Typical Pattern of the Isanti-Soderville-Rifle Soil Association
Soil Survey of Anoka County, MN (USDA, 1977)
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan 4
Presettlement Vegetation (Circa 1850)
According to vegetation data compiled from the Original Land Survey Notes of Minnesota (circa
1850), and mapped by F.J. Marschner (1975), the natural vegetation of the Foxborough
Conservation Development and surrounding landscape at the time of European settlement was
comprised predominantly of oak openings and barrens (oak savanna/woodland) in the uplands,
and wet prairie within lower lying wetland areas extending north and south along the margins of
the chain of lakes. The pre- settlement vegetation of Anoka County was managed by occasional
to frequent wildfires during periods of drought. Occasional areas of mesic hardwood forest
( "Bog Woods ") were also in the vicinity of the Foxborough site, typically occurring in those
portions of the landscape that wildfires could not penetrate (such as isolated islands and large
isolated topographic depressions; Figure 3).
Figure 3. Presettlement Vegetation of the Foxborough Site (Circa 1850)
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan
5
•
III. Ecological Surveys of Foxborough's Conservation Areas
From April through July 2005, CCES ecologists conducted spring and early summer surveys of
the Foxborough Conservation Development site. Although the surveys were conducted
throughout the entire 51 -acre development site, CCES focused the surveys on those portions of
the site that will be incorporated into future conservation areas. Figure 4 illustrates the location
of the conservation area outlots in relation to the overall residential site plan, and the location
and alignment of the trail easement within the conservation area outlots. Existing natural
community remnants, semi - natural areas, and non - native dominated landscape types were
assessed for their extent and relative quality, and restoration opportunities and needs were
defined, on a conceptual basis, for these areas. Based on the results of the initial 2005 surveys
and review of the site plan, CCES deyeloped a concept restoration and management plan for
Foxborough's permanent conservation areas.
CCES ecologists identified, mapped, and surveyed several moderate to low quality natural
community remnants and semi - natural vegetation types within the designated conservation areas
of the Foxborough Conservation Development. The vegetation and ecological habitats of the
conservation areas at the time of the 2005 surveys were comprised of oak forest remnants, aspen
woodlands, lowland hardwood forest, wet meadows, mixed emergent marshes, and non - native
upland old fields and pastures. The location and extent of these natural community remnants and
semi - natural areas are depicted in Figure 5, and descriptions of these areas are provided in the
text below.
Major Vegetation Types
Oak Forest
The northeast corner of the Foxborough site contains an oak forest remnant that grades between
mesic and dry oak forest. The oak forest is of moderate quality, with am intact canopy
comprised predominantly of Red Oak (Quercus rubra), Northern Pin Oak (Quercus
ellipsoidalis), White Oak (Quercus alba), Bur Oak (Quercus macrocarpa), and Black Cherry
(Prunus serotina), and occasional Quaking Aspen (Populus tremuloides) Red Maple (Acer
rubrum), and Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis). Furthermore, this oak forest has small inclusions
of lowland hardwood forest within poorly drained areas and low -lying areas of the forest, with
the canopy comprised mostly of Red Maple, Hackberry, Green Ash (Fraxinus pensylvanica),
Paper Birch (Betula papyrifera) and Box Elder (Acer negundo). Portions of the oak forest are of
moderate ecological quality, with a relatively species -rich native shrub layer and herbaceous
layer. Such intact forest areas will require fewer initial restoration resources than degraded
forest remnants, but all forests on the site will require restoration, monitoring, and management
through time. Other areas of the oak forest of the Foxborough site have been more severely
degraded by past land use practices (such as grazing), and will require considerable initial
restoration resources and management in the short term to return these, areas to natural
communities that are comprised of representative tree, shrub, and herbaceous species.
Problematic invasive species that require removal, treatment, and management within
Foxborough's oak forest remnants include: Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), Reed
Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea; along forest/wetland edges and into adjacent uplands),
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan 6
P0x130ROUGH
-57: 889.52.21-E
- 450.00
. i
at•-■-•,--,"" *1
1 33l 1 \ . 24 , . . 1
- -11
/ ,24. 1
,
....-- -
.\ 4,-4 b itd
ir
.
.
is..... w....• S.A. Le \
, • ' A.: • ' • 0... C....11. 4. narl••• ea •• tat w,..., :',.. ,
' \ / . , ..• •
\ ' • • . ' . [7. ...." ,er••••••I Ce•••••bvir. (.... 4. \ /
.:::::-JI 1'
t t
I tbyratty ea., Mel I...4*, Obb, .., Zyir=."" m '..."." .."1„..
.001 .S s.....aa by bY• . b... ,
dna amn,..an 0••• MO • •••• a .1/
La.. S...., ..... m. s,...
LJod
Vat. o ....
1,144,14.1......... N, aitil
Figure 4. Foxborough Site Plan Depicting Conservatjon Area Outlots
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan 7
Foxborough Conservation Development
Pre - Development Conditions and Vegetation Quality (April 2005)
Legend:
Oak Forest
Lowland Hardwood Forest Degraded Wet Meadow
Degraded Hardwood Forest
Aspen Woodland
OAF
LHF
DHF
AW
OF /P
Old Field / Pasture
DWM
Property Boundary
Figure 5
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan 8
Prickly Ash (Zanthoxylum americanum), Smooth Brome (Bromus inermis), Kentucky Bluegrass
(Poa pratensis), and Raspberry (Rubus spp.).
Oak Woodlands /Savannas
Portions of the site contain small, fragmented oak woodland remnants and overgrown oak
savanna remnants of low to moderate quality. These small woodland and savanna remnants are
commonly associated with the oak forest and aspen woodlands of the Foxborough site.
Fortunately, within these remnants, the oak canopy structure remains intact, and initial
restoration efforts should focus on the re- establishment of representative shrub and herbaceous
layers, selective thinning of the oak canopy and removal of damaged or diseased canopy limbs,
prescribed burning, and the removal and management of invasive species such as Smooth
Brome, Reed Canary Grass, Common Buckthorn, and Prickly Ash. Some woodland and savanna
areas contain small depressional wetland areas that will also benefit from prescribed burning and
invasive species management, and additional management strategies commonly associated with
oak woodland and savanna management and restoration.
Wet Meadows (and Associated Shallow Marsh Fringes)
The many wetlands that occur within Foxborough's conservation areas are relatively degraded
due to past land use practices (such as grazing, drainage, nutrient loading, and vegetation
manipulation) and the establishment of aggressive invasive species. Foxborough's remaining
wetland plant communities will require considerable restoration and long -term management to
re- establish and maintain higher quality natural vegetation and representative hydrology over
time.
Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea) is an invasive wetland grass, and is the primary
problematic invasive species within all of the wetlands (and adjacent upland transitions) of the
Foxborough site. Reed Canary Grass monotypes (aggressive, single species stands) within
isolated wetlands are more likely to be eradicated and managed, than reed canary grass stands
within the larger interconnected waterways and wetlands along the eastern and southern
boundary of the site and at the northeast corner of the site. It will be very difficult (and
expensive) to control the re- invasion of Reed Canary Grass from adjacent, hydrologically
connected wetlands and regional waterways, since reed canary grass seed is commonly dispersed
via floodwater and migrating waterfowl. For these reasons, short-term priorities should be
focused on restoring and managing the smaller, hydrologically isolated wetlands within
Foxborough's conservation areas. To be successful and cost effective, longer -term restoration
efforts within the outermost regional waterways that define portions of the north, east, and
southern boundaries of the site should be addressed on a collaborative basis with adjacent
landowners and future restoration efforts on adjacent lands.
Although Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) and Common Reed (Phragmites australis) were
not detected within the wetlands of the Foxborough property during the initial 2005 surveys,
these aggressive invasive species may be present within adjacent wetlands. Both species should
be surveyed for during future monitoring, and should be managed with biological controls and
herbicide if detected within Foxborough's conservation areas. The northern end of the
westernmost wetland on the site also supports a dense stand of Narrow- Leaved Cattail (Typha
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan 9
•
angustifolia) and Broad - Leaved Cattail (Typha latifolia) within the lowest and wettest
topographic areas of the wetland basin. Cattails are often a problematic wetland species within
degraded wetlands of central Minnesota, and should be aggressively managed as to favor
conditions favorable to the establishment of more diverse native wetland plant communities.
Narrow- Leaved Cattail (Typha angustifolia) is a non - native, invasive plant that hybridizes with
the native Broad - Leaved Cattail (T. latifolia) to produce the invasive Typha x glauca. Cattails
can be managed by manual removal and herbicide treatments.
Most of the wetlands on the Foxborough site support at least a minimal native species
component. Lake Sedge (Carex lacustris), Porcupine Sedge (Carex comosa), and Tussock
Sedge (Carex stricta) were commonly observed within Foxborough's wetlands. However, Reed
Canary Grass is so prevalent throughout all wetlands, that these representative native sedge
species have been reduced in cover and number, and considerable resources and effort will be
required to restore native sedge meadows to the site over the next five to ten years.
Two noteworthy wetland areas were encountered within the proposed conservation area during
the early spring (2005) survey, which represent unique opportunities for restoration of
uncommon wetland plant assemblages within the Foxborough conservation areas. A small
groundwater seepage area was documented within the oak forest/woodland remnant of the
northeast corner of the site. This area of groundwater discharge contains a small Tussock Sedge
(Carex stricta) meadow. In the southwest corner of the site, a small and overgrown wet
meadow /wet prairie remnant was encountered. If cleared of brush (Buckthorn, Willow, Aspen,
and Dogwood) and properly managed to favor diverse native herbaceous vegetation (with
prescribed burning or other methods), this area may support rare species and/or diverse remnant
wet prairie vegetation associated with similar restored areas within Lino Lakes and adjacent
communities.
Aspen Woodlands
Most of the wetlands on the site are encompassed by relatively dense, immature stands of
Quaking Aspen (Populus tremuloides) along the wetland/upland transitional zones. As is the
case with the Foxborough site, aspen stands frequently establish along wetland fringes on the
Anoka Sand Plain in the absence of fire, and form dense, shaded, species -poor stands. In the
absence of past management, these aspen stands of the Foxborough site are further degraded by
Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea), Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), Glossy
Buckthorn ( Rhamnus frangula), and other noxious or aggressive weed species.
The aspen woodland fringes of the Foxborough site are comprised (most often) of single- species
canopies of 2 to 12 inch diameter aspen, with Reed Canary Grass, Sensitive Fern (Onoclea
sensibilis), and Pennsylvania Sedge (Carex pensylvanica) common to the ground layer. CCES
recommends that at least some of these Aspen dominated wetland fringes be selectively thinned
or completely cleared of Quaking Aspen, as to promote the re- establishment and management of
more diverse herbaceous communities, such as mesic /wet prairie, and wet meadow natural
communities. However, CCES recognizes that some of the aspen stands should remain intact, as
these young woodland stands do provide limited ecological functions and aesthetic values, and
serve as useful visual screens of adjacent residential structures and industrial land uses.
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan 10
Degraded Hardwood Forest
A 1.5 acre degraded hardwood forest occurs within the far northwest corner of the site. This
forest remnant canopy is comprised of American Elm (Ulmus americana), Box Elder (Acer
negundo), Black Cherry (Prunus serotina), Green Ash (Fraxinus americana), and Hackberry
(Celtis occidentalis), with occasional large Northern Pin Oak (Quercus ellipsoidalis) and Red
Oak (Quercus rubra) trees intermixed. Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), an invasive
exotic understory species, is dominant throughout the understory and shrub layer of this forest
remnant, as understory trees (up to 12" in diameter), large shrubs, saplings, and seedlings. Due
to the presence of the dense buckthorn stand and past soil disturbance and compaction, the
herbaceous layer is highly degraded (and absent in places). Forest soil development is poor, and
forest leaf little is sparse to absent. Buckthorn removal and management is an immediate need
within this forest remnant, and will require several years of follow -up restoration and
management to begin re- establishing a native shrub and herbaceous layer.
Upland Old Fields and Pastures
Portions of the proposed conservation areas are currently non -native dominated old field and
pastures dominated by Smooth Brome and Kentucky Bluegrass, and other introduced pasture
grasses. The old fields typically occur on sandy, well- drained soils on pronounced knolls, but
also transition into more poorly drained areas at toe slopes and along wetland edges. Within
lower -lying areas, the old fields are dominated by Reed Canary Grass and Sensitive Fern, with
occasional Aspen, Willow, and Raspberry. Old fields should be restored to dry prairie in the
driest of areas, and transition to mesic and wet prairie at the base of slopes and along wetland
edges. Furthermore, restored prairies of Foxborough's conservation areas will likely grade into
restored oak savannas and oak woodlands, as well as managed aspen woodlands.
Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Area (SE Corner of Site):
The compensatory wetland mitigation area 1.99 -acre (87,097 square feet) in size is planned for
construction within a degraded upland old -field over sandy, well - drained soils. Vegetation of the
old field in May 2005 was predominantly invasive non- native grasses, such as Smooth Brome
(Bromus inermis) and Kentucky Bluegrass (Poa pratensis), with Pennsylvania Sedge (Carex
pensylvanica), Sun - Loving Sedge (Carex heliophila), and Canada Goldenrod (Solidago
canadensis).
In accordance with the site plan and wetland mitigation plan, this old field will be excavated to a
depth below the normal water table elevation to facilitate the establishment of an on site
compensatory wetland mitigation area. Although the original wetland mitigation plan calls for
establishment of wetland vegetation within a saturated (to inundated) sterile sandy subsoil
condition, CCES recommends excavating the mitigation wetland 2 to 4 inches deeper, and back
filling to designed elevations with a weed -free native organic wetland soil that would be donated
from wetland areas to be filled elsewhere on the site. A native organic wetland soil medium will
better facilitate the establishment of high quality native wetland seed mixes (and plant material)
to be prescribed for and installed within this wetland mitigation area. To achieve 2 inches of
organic material across 2 acres of wetland mitigation area will require 14,520 cubic feet (or 537
cubic yards) of native wetland soils donated from impacted wetland areas elsewhere on the site.
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan 11
In accordance with the approved residential site plan, 0.69 acres (25,267 square feet) of existing
wetland within the northwest corner of the site will be excavated and filled with sandy subsoil to
facilitate grading for residential lots. As previously estimated, CCES estimates that 537 cubic
yards of organic wetland soil could be excavated and stockpiled from this wetland soil `donor'
site and spread within the planned 1.99 acre wetland mitigation area at a depth of 2 inches, to
better facilitate the successful establishment of a diverse wetland plant community within the
wetland mitigation area. Furthermore, CCES recommends that the surface wetland soils
containing weed species (such as Reed Canary Grass) should be removed and discarded prior to
the excavation of suitable organic wetland subsoils that are free of weed species. In order to
achieve the planned final grade and spot elevations of the mitigation wetland, the sandy
subsurface soils of the wetland mitigation area will need to be graded below final grade to
accommodate the spreading of the native organic wetland soils donated from other areas of the
site. Final grade and spot elevations of the wetland mitigation area will be met with the re-
distribution of the native organic wetland soil during final grading and prior to seeding.
Wildlife Observations
During the spring and summer surveys of the Foxborough site, CCES ecologists observed five
species of mammals, six amphibian species, three reptile species, and eighteen bird species.
Table 1 provides a summary of all animal species observed within, or adjacent to, the
Foxborough property while conducting the 2005 surveys. Additional focused faunal surveys in
future years will likely result in additional wildlife species observations.
Rare Plants and Animals
Two animal species observed during the ecological surveys of Foxborough are listed as Special
Concern in Minnesota by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (Snapping Turtle and
American White Pelican). Special Concern species are not protected under Minnesota's
endangered and threatened species legislation (Minnesota Statutes 84.0895). Furthermore, the
observation of numerous American White Pelicans was a high - altitude migratory fly -over, and
was not directly associated with the natural areas of the Foxborough property.
No state - listed vascular plant species were documented within the Foxborough site during the
2005 surveys. However, several rare plant populations have been recently documented by CCES
ecologists and Marty Asleson (City of Lino Lakes) within close proximity to the Foxborough
property. Such species include: Tubercled Rein Orchid (Platanthera flava var. herbiola; State
Endangered), Lance - Leaved Violet (Viola lanceolata; State Threatened), and Clinton's Bulrush
(Scirpus clintonii; State Special Concern). Marginal suitable habitat exists within Foxborough's
conservation areas for all three of these species. Moreover, future restoration and management
of natural vegetation may result in the voluntary re- establishment of these and other associated
rare species within Foxborough's conservation areas. Future monitoring of restored and
managed natural areas should include rare plant surveys for rare plant species of the Anoka Sand
Plain.
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan 12
Table 1. Wildlife observations during the April - July 2005 surveys:
Mammals
Scientific Name
Common Name
Notes
Odocoileus virginianus
White- tailed deer
Throughout, browsing and trails evident
Peromyscus sp.
Unknown mouse
In old fields
Procyon lotor
Raccoon
Forest/wetland edges
Scurius carolinensis
Gray squirrel
In woodlands and forest
Tamiascurius hudsonicus
Red squirrel
In woodlands and forest
Amphibians
Bufo americanus
American toad
Calling and breeding
Hyla versicolor
Grey tree frog
Calling and breeding
Psuedacris crucifer
Spring peeper
Calling and breeding
Psuedacris triseriata
Western chorus frog
Calling and breeding
Calling and breeding
Rana pipiens
Northern leopard frog
Rana sylvatica
Wood frog
Observed along wetland edges
Reptiles
Chelydra serpentine
Snapping turtle*
In wetlands eastern edge of site
Chrysemys picta
Painted turtle
In open water wetlands
Thamnophis sirtalis
Garter snake
Within old fields, several observed
Birds
Anas discors
Blue winged teal
Pair observed in open water wetlands
Anas platyrhynchos
Mallard ducks
Breeding pair
Ardea alba
Great (white) egret
Fly over
Ardea herodeas
Great blue heron
In large wetland complex to south and east
Botaurus lentiginosus
American bittern
Calling in wetlands to east and north
Bubo virginianus
Great horned owl
Oak forest, northeast edge of site
Buteo jamaicensis
Red tail hawk
Forest and old field edges
Carduelis tristis
American goldfinch
Oak forest, aspen edges, old fields
Corvus brachyrhynchos
American crow
Oak forest
Cyanocitta cristata
Blue jay
Oak forest
Grus canadensis
Sandhill crane
Calling in wetlands to south, fly over
Pelecanus erythrorhynchos
American white pelican*
Numerous, high altitude migratory flyover
Picoides pubescens
Downy woodpecker
Oak forest
Poecile atricapillus
Black- capped chickadee
Oak forest
Porzana carolina
Sora
Calling in wetlands to south
Quiscalus quiscula
Common grackle
Throughout site
Sitta carolinensis
White breasted nuthatch
Oak forest
Turdus migratorius
American robin
Hardwood forest
Asterisks denote species listed as Special Concern in Minnesota by the MN Department of Natural Resources.
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan 13
•
IV. Restoration and Management Needs and Recommendations
Foxborough Restoration and Management Goals
• Restore, manage, and improve pre- existing moderate and low quality natural
communities and natural resources within Foxborough's conservation areas;
• Re- establish and/or restore native vegetation cover within highly disturbed and non-
native landscape areas within the conservation areas that is ecologically appropriate and
suited to the environmental conditions of the site and is suitable to proposed human uses
and desired site aesthetics;
• Establish trails and conservation signage (and other infrastructure) that help facilitate
sustainable natural resource management and other programmed activities. Trails should
offer access and provide opportunities for passive recreational opportunities, such as
walking, jogging, cross - country skiing, wildlife observation, and nature interpretation;
• Provide recreational and educational opportunities for the residents of Foxborough and
trail users that are compatible with sustaining, restoring, and improving the natural
vegetation and ecological functions of Foxborough's conservation areas;
• Implement surface water and public infrastructure planning and development within the
site and adjacent landscape that compliments (and does not further degrade) the natural
resources of the site;
• Identify and capitalize on opportunities to connect Foxborough's restored natural areas
with adjacent natural areas, either through reestablishing and improving
ecological/habitat connections and pedestrian/recreational connections, or through
developing educational programs, volunteer opportunities, and collaborative relationships
with adjacent landowners, future conservation developments, and/or local and state
government agencies.
Prescribed Native Plant Communities
Much of the existing vegetation of Foxborough's conservation areas is currently in a moderate to
low quality natural condition or degraded semi- natural condition. All natural areas within the
designated conservation areas will require considerable resources to restore and/or manage
vegetation as natural plant communities well into the future. Furthermore, areas of very
disturbed semi - natural vegetation and non - native cover (i.e. degraded wet meadows, old- fields,
and buckthorn - infested woodlands and forests), will require restoration tasks such as invasive
and exotic vegetation removal, chemical and manual treatments and/or biological controls of
noxious weed species, and replanting /reseeding with native plant community cover.
To minimize the resources require for restoring and managing native Vegetation within
Foxborough's conservation areas, pre - existing natural communities will not be converted to
other natural community types. Figure 6 illustrates the location and extent of prescribed natural
and semi - natural vegetation types within Foxborough's conservation areas. Rather, existing
natural communities will be managed, improved, and augmented with appropriate native species
seed mixes and plantings when necessary. Non - native landscape types, such as old- fields and
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan 14
Foxborough Conservation Development
Conservation Area Restoration and Management Plan
Legend:
OF
LHF
OS
AW
Oak Forest
Lowland Hardwood Forest
Oak Savanna
Aspen Woodland
DP
WP
WM
Dry Prairie
Wet Prairie
Wet Meadow
Mixed Emergent
Marsh
Wetland
11IUgallon
11
Stormwater Wetland
Wetland Mitiagtion Area
Property Boundary
Figure 6
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan 15
Reed Canary Grass dominated wetland edges, should be actively and aggressively converted and
restored to a more diverse native vegetation type. The following are detailed descriptions of
natural community types that have been prescribed for Foxborough's conservation areas, as
depicted in Figure 6.
Oak Forest
Oak Forest is an upland deciduous forest with >30% oaks, and is common and widespread
throughout much of Minnesota. It is most common on dry to dry-mesic sites in the deciduous
forest - woodland zone but also occurs occasionally in the southern and western parts of the
conifer - hardwood zone, and in stream valleys in the prairie zone.
At least 30% of the tree canopy in an Oak Forest is made up of oak trees. Most often aspen,
paper birch, or black cherry trees make up the remainder of the canopy. The actual composition
of the community, however, varies considerably in response to variation in soil moisture, soil
type, fire history, and climate. The driest stands of Oak Forest are dominated by northern pin
oaks and white oaks, with black oaks, shagbark hickories, and sometimes bur oaks important in
southeastern Minnesota. These stands occur on nutrient -poor, well - drained sandy soils on
outwash plains, river terraces, and beach ridges. They have relatively open canopies, with
between 70% and 80% cover. The canopy height is usually between 13 and 17 meters.
Because of the open canopy, the shrub layer is often very dense. American hazel dominates the
shrub layer, which also often contains gray -bark dogwood, blueberries, and blackberries. Some
of the more common ground layer species are the sedge (Carex pensylvanica), wild geranium
(Geranium maculatum), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus inserta), wild sarsaparilla (Aralia
nudicaulis), and hog -peanut (Amphicarpaea bracteata).
Commonly, at least some of the oak trees in the dry stands have multiple stems and thick,
spreading lower branches, indicating that these trees grew up in a disturbed and more open
setting. Minnesota public land survey records indicate, in fact, that many of these dry stands
were oak savanna or oak woodland before European settlement and with fire suppression have
succeeded to forest. Oak regeneration is rare in these stands now, as the oak species reproduce
poorly under forest canopies. In the absence of fire, relatively mesic or fire - sensitive species
such as bitternut hickory, basswood, and red maple, are increasing in abundance in the
community.
Northern red oaks, white oaks, or bur oaks dominate the more mesic stands of Oak Forest. These
stands occur on sites that had fewer severe fires before European settlement than the sites on
which dry Mixed Oak Forest occurs. These mesic stands most likely were always forest, rather
than woodland or savanna. They have tall (> 20 meters), straight, single - stemmed trees that lack
spreading lower branches. Commonly, mesic fire - sensitive tree species are present with the oaks
in these stands, especially in the understory. These species include basswood, green ash,
bitternut hickory, big- toothed aspen, and butternut.
The shrub layer in mesic stands is sparser than in dry stands and, correspondingly, the forb layer
is denser and more diverse and there are more graminoid species. Like the drier stands,
however, there is little oak regeneration, and most mesic Oak Forests appear to be succeeding to
Maple- Basswood forest. Heavy selective logging of the oaks in mesic stands may accelerate this
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan 16
•
trend, producing young stands of Maple- Basswood Forest. The mesic stands often grade into
drier stands of Maple- Basswood Forest, but differ from them by having a somewhat denser shrub
layer and the herbs woodrush (Luzula acuminata) and pointed - leaved tick- trefoil (Desmodium
glutinosum) in their understory.
In general, most existing stands of Oak Forest have been disturbed by grazing or selective
cutting, or have been fragmented by development. Natural stands of mesic Mixed Oak Forest
are rare. Drier stands are more common, in part because relative to the mesic forests they occur
on sites with soils less suitable for cultivation. Additionally, dry Oak Forests may have
increased in extent somewhat following fire suppression, succeeding from oak savanna and
woodland. Disturbed stands of oak forest commonly have dense subcanopies of prickly ash, or
of the exotic species common buckthorn and Tartarian honeysuckle, which have also now
invaded many undisturbed stands. Disturbance through grazing may also be partly responsible
for the lack of regeneration in Oak Forests, especially in stands with heavy soils that compact
readily with trampling. A comprehensive plant species list for Foxborough's Oak Forest
restoration area is provided in Appendix B of this report.
Lowland Hardwood Forest
Lowland Hardwood Forest is a wet -mesic forest that is present throughout Minnesota. It is
transitional between the terrestrial and palustrine systems, occurring on sites with seasonally
high water tables (within the tree - rooting zone) but that do not flood regularly and that have
mineral rather than peat soils. In accord with the poorly drained sites on which the Lowland
Hardwood Forests occur, species tolerant of periodic soil saturation dominate the tree canopy.
American elms and black ashes are common canopy dominants, but most stands are mixed, with
slippery elms, rock elms, basswoods, bur oaks, hackberries, yellow birches, green ashes, black
ashes, quaking aspens, balsam poplars, and paper birches as important species. The tall-shrub
layer is usually discontinuous and is composed of a mixture of upland and lowland shrubs. The
ground layer is composed mostly of upland herbs that do not root to the water - table.
Lowland Hardwood Forest usually occurs in fire - protected areas, although even in unprotected
areas the community burns infrequently because the woody vegetation is usually hydrated,
especially in the spring. Lowland Hardwood Forest soils differ from Hardwood Swamp Forest
soils by being mineral rather than peaty and from the mineral soils of other mesic upland forest
types by being seasonally saturated (at depths greater than 0.5 meters).
Lowland Hardwood Forest is often composed of late - successional species, but few stands in
Minnesota have old canopy trees, presumably because of windthrow and infrequent episodes of
killing floods. Lowland Hardwood Forest is topographically transitional between upland forests
and forested peatlands and is best developed on flat terrain where such transition zones are broad
(e.g., on river terraces above normal flood levels, on loamy ground moraine, and on drumlin
fields).
Currently, there are no recognized subtypes or sections of Lowland Hardwood Forest. Following
further field review, stands of Lowland Hardwood Forest may be reclassified as wet subtypes of
Aspen -Birch or Aspen Forest, or dry subtypes of Hardwood Swamp Forest. A comprehensive
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan 17
plant species list for Foxborough's Lowland Hardwood Forest restoration area is provided in
Appendix B of this report.
Aspen Woodlands
Aspen woodlands are typically mesic upland vegetation with 10 -70% tree cover, of which <25%
is by conifers, with aspens comprising >70% of tree cover and herbaceous species comprising
<30% of non -tree cover. Aspen woodlands occur primarily in the deciduous forest - woodland
zone, with scattered groves in the prairie zone. Quaking aspen is the dominant canopy species in
the community across most of its range. In north - central Minnesota, however, big - toothed
aspens occasionally dominate the canopy, and in the northwest, balsam poplars sometimes
dominate low, moist areas. Bur oaks and green ashes are common associates throughout the
community's range. Stands of Aspen Woodland have either dense canopies of even -aged
immature trees, irregular canopies of young and old trees, or tall, even canopies of mature trees.
The woody understory in the community is well - developed, with 40 -90% cover. The understory
may contain plants, including tree species, of several different height classes or it may have a
well - defined shrub layer. On drier sites, hazelnut, gray -bark dogwood, chokecherry, downy
arrow -wood, Rosa spp., and Rubus spp. are common understory shrubs. On wetter sites, the
common understory shrubs are red -osier dogwood, gray -bark dogwood, pussy willow, Bebb's
willow, bog birch, and meadow sweet. These species are particularly characteristic in Aspen
Woodlands in northwestern Minnesota that originated following the invasion of areas of wet -
mesic Upland Prairie or Wet Meadow by aspen.
Aspen Woodland is a short-lived, early successional community intermediate between Upland
Prairie (including Brush - Prairie) and Aspen or Oak Forests. Before European settlement, the
distribution of Aspen Woodland in the prairie zone was determined by fire, with the community
occurring in areas where fires were less frequent and intense than in open prairie areas. In the
deciduous forest - woodland zone, Aspen Woodland probably was maintained by fire and
occurred in association with Oak Forest, Aspen Forest, and some pine forests. Aspen Woodland
has become more abundant in Minnesota because of fire suppression and perhaps wetland
draining. Communities that originate following logging in the deciduous forest - woodland and
conifer - hardwood forest zones often resemble Aspen Woodland but are not considered true
Aspen Woodlands in this classification. When Aspen Woodland occurs with other related
community types, such as Brush - Prairie and Aspen Openings, it tends to occur as narrow
ecotonal bands between the other types or as small inclusions, and may be ignored in mapping. A
comprehensive plant species list for Foxborough's Aspen Woodland restoration areas is provided
in Appendix B of this report.
Oak Savanna
Oak savannas are upland plant communities with 10 -70% cover by trees (of which <25% is
conifer), where >30% of non -tree cover is herbaceous (prairie - dominated) and where oaks
comprise >30% of the tree cover. The soil is composed of sand or gravel (sometimes with a thin
organic surface layer), or any texture on steep slopes. This dry to dry-mesic community is most
common in the deciduous forest - woodland zone, but also occurs sporadically throughout the
prairie zone. The principal trees are bur oaks and northern pin oaks, but black oaks are also
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan 18
•
•
•
•
common in the southeast. Northwards, quaking aspens become more frequent in the community.
The stature and spacing of trees is somewhat variable, reflecting differences in soils, topography,
and climate, factors that strongly affect local droughtiness and fire frequency. Small, gnarly,
open -grown trees are most common, although in moister spots, or in heavier soils, larger trees
are sometimes more common. Tree spacing ranges from sparsely and evenly distributed to
strongly clumped in moderately dense patches. Shrub cover is variable as well. The species
composition of the shrub layer depends somewhat upon soil characteristics. Oak grubs and
chokecherries are common on all soil types. On sandier soils, prairie willows (Salix humilis),
New Jersey tea (Ceanothus americanus), American hazelnuts (Corylus americana), sand cherries
(Prunus pumila), and juneberries (Amelanchier spp.) are usually present. Wolfberries
(Symphoricarpos occidentalis) are commoner on heavier soils.
Dry Oak Savanna occurs on the same kinds of landforms as Dry Prairie, except for bedrock
bluffs. Correspondingly, substrates range from excessively - drained to well - drained, sand to
loam soils. The presence of savanna rather than prairie indicates a lower fire frequency or
intensity (or both) than in prairie. Dry Oak Savanna requires less frequent fire than Mesic
Savanna for maintenance. However, in the complete absence of fire woodland will eventually
replace Dry Oak Savanna. Grazing and browsing animals may also have had a role in the
maintenance of Dry Oak Savanna. Because Dry Oak Savanna occurs on sites that are not as
suitable for cultivation as Mesic Savanna sites, and because succession in the absence of fire is
not as rapid, more examples remain of Dry Oak Savanna than of Mesic Oak Savanna. A
comprehensive plant species list for Foxborough's Oak Savanna restoration areas is provided in
Appendix B of this report.
Mesic Prairie
Mesic Prairies are upland grassland dominated by prairie species, with <10% tree cover and
<50% shrub cover ( <30% in far northwestern Minnesota), and NOT growing on steep slopes or
on sand- or gravel - dominated soil. Mesic Prairie is a type of Upland Prairie, which occurs
primarily in the prairie zone, with scattered occurrences in the deciduous forest - woodland zone.
Mesic Prairies are dominated by grasses. The tall grasses, big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii)
and Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), are the major dominants on moist sites. Prairie dropseed
(Sporobolus heterolepis) is common on both dry and moist sites. Forbs typically are abundant
(but subdominant to the grasses) and may have high local diversity. Forb species composition
varies with site moisture, although some forb species occur on almost all sites, moist or dry.
Several low shrub or sub -shrub species are common on Upland Prairie; the most characteristic is
leadplant (Amorpha canescens). Taller brush and trees are absent or scattered, however brush or
woodland areas may be interspersed with prairie, usually in association with topographic and
aquatic features that provide protection from fire.
The most important cause of variation in species composition in prairie communities is variation
in soil moisture. The local soil moisture regime is determined by slope, aspect, proximity to the
water table, and soil texture. On a regional scale, variation in species composition is primarily
caused by climatic variation (i.e., the westward decline in precipitation and northward decline in
temperature in Minnesota).
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan 19
Upland Prairies occur on a range of landforms in the prairie zone, from nearly flat glacial
lakeplains to steep morainic slopes. In the deciduous forest - woodland zone, prairies occur on
droughty, level outwash areas and steep south - and west - facing slopes. The pre - European
settlement distribution of prairie was related to the interaction of local fire frequency with growth
rates of woody species: where conditions were favorable for rapid growth, more frequent fires
were necessary to maintain prairie over savanna, woodland, or forest. Fragmentation of Upland
Prairie since European settlement has reduced fire frequency throughout the prairie and
deciduous forest - woodland zones, and most prairie remnants have more brush and trees than
were present in the past.
Mesic Prairie is a dry-mesic to wet -mesic grassland that occurs mainly in the prairie zone in
southern and western Minnesota and sporadically in the deciduous forest - woodland zone. Mesic
Prairie is dominated by grasses. Big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), Indiangrass (Sorghastrum
nutans), and prairie dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepis) are the major native species on most sites,
with little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) and porcupine grass (Stipa spartea) important on
drier sites, and switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) and prairie cordgrass (Spartina pectinata)
common on wetter sites. The introduced grass Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) is present at
most sites; its is a function of the site's disturbance history.
Forbs are abundant (but usually subdominant to grasses) and have high local diversity. Forb
species - composition also varies locally with soil moisture. There is greater regional variation
among forbs than among grasses. Common forb species include purple prairie- clover
(Petalostemon purpureum), white prairie- clover (P. candidum), ground -plum (Astragalus
crassicarpus), prairie - turnip (Psoralea esculenta), rough blazing -star (Liatris aspera), Canada
goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), stiff goldenrod (S. rigida), Missouri goldenrod (S.
missouriensis), prairie thistle (Cirsium flodmani), smooth aster (Aster laevis), stiff sunflower
(Helianthus rigidus), Maximilian sunflower (H. maximiliani), smooth rattlesnake -root
(Prenanthes racemosa), white sage (Artemisia ludoviciana), wood lily (Lilium philadelphicum),
white camas (Zigadenus elegans), heart- leaved alexanders (Zizia aptera), prairie larkspur
(Delphinium virescens), downy phlox (Phlox pilosa), hoary puccoon (Lithospermum canescens),
tall cinquefoil (Potentilla arguta), alum -root (Heuchera richardsonii), wood - betony (Pedicularis
canadensis), northern bedstraw (Galium boreale), prairie bird -foot violet (Viola pedatifida),
oval - leaved milkweed (Asclepias ovalifolia), and showy milkweed (A. speciosa). Purple
coneflower (Echinacea angustzfolia) is common on drier sites in the western part of the
community's range. Leadplant, prairie rose, sand cherry, wolfberry, and prairie willow are
common low -shrub or sub -shrub species. Fragrant false indigo is common on moister sites.
Trees and taller brush often occur along the margins of wetlands adjacent to Mesic Prairies.
Mesic Prairie is a fire- dependent community. In the absence of fire, occurrences of Mesic
Prairie are invaded by brush and trees. In the prairie zone, Mesic Prairie occurs on nearly level
glaciolacustrine and glaciofluvial deposits, and on flat or gently rolling morainic landforms. In
southeastern and, to a lesser extent, southwestern Minnesota, the glacial deposits are overlain by
loess. Bedrock subtypes of Mesic Prairie exist in a few areas where bedrock is within about one-
and- one - quarter meters of the ground surface and there are numerous small patches of exposed
rock. Within the deciduous forest - woodland zone, Mesic Prairie usually occurs on level outwash
areas or on broad, sandy river terraces.
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan 20
•
•
•
The soils in Mesic Prairie are predominantly mollisols with thick, dark mineral surface layers
that have high base saturation and dominantly bivalent cations. They range in texture and
drainage from silty and somewhat poorly drained to sandy and somewhat excessively drained,
with moderately well - drained to well - drained, loamy soils being most common. Mesic Prairie
grades into Wet Prairie on moister sites and into the Hill and Sand- Gravel subtypes of Dry
Prairie on drier sites. Separation of Mesic Prairie from other prairie types is based primarily on
landform or substrate characteristics rather than on species composition, as floristic boundaries
between Mesic Prairie and other prairie types are not well defined. A comprehensive plant
species list for Foxborough's Mesic Prairie restoration areas is provided in Appendix B of this
report.
Dry Prairie
Dry Prairies are upland grasslands dominated by prairie species, with <10% tree cover and <50%
shrub cover, where the substrate is composed of sand or gravel (sometimes with a thin organic
surface layer), or any texture on steep slopes. (Some examples may occur on sandy soils in
temporarily flooded areas). Dry Prairie is a type of Upland Prairie, which occurs primarily in the
prairie zone, with scattered occurrences in the deciduous forest - woodland zone. These
communities are dominated by grasses. The tall grasses, big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii)
and Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), are the major dominants on moist sites. Prairie dropseed
(Sporobolus heterolepis) is common on both dry and moist sites. Forbs typically are abundant
(but subdominant to the grasses) and may have high local diversity. Forb species composition
varies with site moisture, although some forb species occur on almost all sites, moist or dry.
Several low shrub or sub -shrub species are common on Upland Prairie; the most characteristic is
leadplant (Amorpha canescens). Taller brush and trees are absent or scattered, however brush or
woodland areas may be interspersed with prairie, usually in association with topographic and
aquatic features that provide protection from fire.
The most important cause of variation in species composition in prairie communities is variation
in soil moisture. The local soil moisture regime is determined by slope, aspect, proximity to the
water table, and soil texture. On a regional scale, variation in species composition is primarily
caused by climatic variation (i.e., the westward decline in precipitation and northward decline in
temperature in Minnesota).
Upland Prairies occur on a range of landforms in the prairie zone, from nearly flat glacial
lakeplains to steep morainic slopes. In the deciduous forest - woodland zone, prairies occur on
droughty, level outwash areas and steep south - and west - facing slopes. The pre - European
settlement distribution of prairie was related to the interaction of local fire frequency with growth
rates of woody species: where conditions were favorable for rapid growth, more frequent fires
were necessary to maintain prairie over savanna, woodland, or forest. Fragmentation of Upland
Prairie since European settlement has reduced fire frequency throughout the prairie and
deciduous forest - woodland zones, and most prairie remnants have more brush and trees than
were present in the past.
Dry Prairie is a dry to dry-mesic herbaceous community dominated by grasses and sedges. It
occurs throughout the prairie zone and sporadically in the deciduous forest - woodland zone. Dry
Prairie has considerable variation in species composition, reflecting interactions among
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan 21
geography (namely climate), soils, and topography. In general, Dry Prairies have a greater
component of Great Plains species than Mesic Prairies, especially in prairies in the western part
of Minnesota. Big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii) is always present in the community and
usually important, but it does not achieve the dominance it typically has in Mesic Prairie.
Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans) is more limited in occurrence, generally appearing only where
conditions approach mesic. Mid - height and short grasses and sedges are usually dominant in
Dry Prairie. Among the more common are porcupine grass (Stipa spartea), little bluestem
(Schizachyrium scoparium), side -oats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), prairie June -grass
(Koeleria macrantha), and sun - loving sedge (Carex heliophila).
Forb variation within the community is more pronounced. Some widespread, characteristic
species are dotted blazing star (Liatris punctata), pasque flower (Pulsatilla nuttalliana), prairie
golden -aster (Heterotheca villosa), stiff sunflower (Helianthus rigidus), silky aster (Aster
sericeus), green milkweed (Asclepias viridiflora), stiff goldenrod (Solidago rigida), gray
goldenrod (Solidago nemoralis), Missouri goldenrod (Solidago missouriensis), and narrow-
leaved puccoon (Lithospermum incisum). Dry Prairies share many forb species with Mesic
Prairies, including rough blazing star ( Liatris aspera), buffalo -bean (Astragalus crassicarpus),
tooth- leaved evening primrose (Calylophus serrulatus), silverleaf scurfpea (Psoralea
argophylla), thimbleweed (Anemone cylindrica), Louisiana sagewort (Artemisia ludoviciana),
prairie larkspur (Delphinium virescens), heart- leaved alexanders (Zizia aptera), purple prairie -
clover (Petalostemon purpureum), hoary puccoon (Lithospermum canescens), prairie smoke
(Geum triflorum), and wood lily (Lilium philadelphicum).
Three sub- shrubs— leadplant (Amorpha canescens), prairie rose (Rosa arkansana), and wolfberry
(Symphoricarpos occidentalis) -- typical in Mesic Prairies are also generally present in Dry
Prairie. Soil- encrusting lichens and the fem -ally rock- spikemoss (Selaginella rupestris) are often
common in Dry Prairie. Brush, and sometimes trees, may be present in hollows and draws. Bur
oak (Quercus macrocarpa), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), wild plum (Prunus americana),
and smooth sumac (Rhus glabra) are the most widespread woody species. Other woody species
more limited in distribution in the community are northern pin oak (Quercus ellipsoidalis), black
oak (Quercus velutina), and hazel (Corylus americana).
Dry Prairies are maintained by fire but require less frequent fires than mesic and wet prairies
because the droughty conditions within Dry Prairies slow or prevent the growth of woody
species. Dry Prairie occurs on a variety of landforms, including sand dune blankets of mid -
Holocene origin, glacial lake beach ridges, outwash deposits, ice - contact features (kames,
eskers), morainic hills, erosional slopes in glacial drift, and bedrock -cored bluffs. Soils range
from nearly pure sand with little profile development, to mollisols, although the latter have a
much thinner organic -rich surface horizon than the soils of Mesic Prairie. All overlie deep
glacial drift except for those of the bedrock -cored bluffs, which are formed in a thin layer of
loess or residuum. Soils are well drained to excessively drained. Depending upon the degree of
slope, the slope aspect, and the soil composition, Dry Prairie intergrades with Mesic Prairie. A
comprehensive plant species list for Foxborough's Dry Prairie restoration areas is provided in
Appendix B of this report.
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan 22
•
•
Wet Prairie
Wet prairies are prairie- species dominated grassland communities growing on saturated and
temporarily flooded soils with <30% tree cover and <50% shrub cover ( <30% in northwestern
Minnesota).
Wet prairie occurs mainly in the southern and western parts of Minnesota's prairie ecoregion,
with scattered occurrences in the deciduous forest - woodland ecoregion. Typically, grasses
dominate wet prairies, but sedges are also important in the community. The major cover -
forming grasses in wet prairies in eastern Minnesota are prairie cordgrass (Spartina pectinata)
and blue joint (Calamagrostis canadensis). Prairie cordgrass and blue joint are also present in
Wet Prairies in western Minnesota, but the major cover - forming grasses in the west are bog reed -
grass (Calamagrostis inexpansa), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), and the low grass, mat
muhly (Muhlenbergia richardsonis). Other common grasses in the community are switchgrass
(Panicum virgatum), wheatgrass (Agropyron trachycaulum), fowl meadow grass (Poa palustris),
and sweet grass (Hierochloe odorata). The introduced grass redtop (Agrostis stolonifera) is
often present on disturbed sites. Common Wet Prairie sedges are Carex lanuginosa, C.
sartwellii, C. tetanica, and, in the west, C. praegracilis. Stiff rush (Juncus balticus) is frequently
present.
Forbs are abundant in Wet Prairies, but on the whole fewer forb species occur in Wet Prairie than
in Mesic Prairie. Common widespread Wet Prairie forb species are panicled aster (Aster
lanceolatus), New England aster (A. novae - angliae), meadow ragwort (Senecio pseudaureus),
giant goldenrod (Solidago gigantea), Riddell's goldenrod (S. riddellii), giant sunflower
(Helianthus giganteus), sawtooth sunflower (H. grosseserratus), sneezeweed (Helenium
autumnale), gay - feather (Liatris pycnostachya), blazing -star (L. ligulistylis), grass- leaved
goldenrod (Euthamia graminifolia), Indian hemp (Apocynum sibiricum), golden alexanders
(Zizia aurea), closed gentian (Gentiana andrewsii), yellow star -grass (Hypoxis hirsuta), marsh
vetchling (Lathyrus palustris), tall meadow rue (Thalictrum dasycarpum), prairie loosestrife
(Lysimachia quadrora), Virginia mountain -mint (Pycnanthemum virginianum), swamp
lousewort (Pedicularis lanceolata), and northern bog violet (Viola nephrophylla). Small willows
(pussy willow and other willow species) and meadowsweet are common in the community;
willow and aspen trees are also sometimes present, growing either singly or scattered in small
clumps along wetland margins.
Wet Prairie is a fire- dependent community, with shrub and tree cover increasing in the
community in the absence of fire (though regular haying will also prevent increased shrub and
tree cover in the community.) Wet Prairie occurs in low areas (such as depressions and
drainageways) where the water table remains within the plant- rooting zone for several weeks
during the growing season, but where inundation occurs only infrequently and briefly. In some
Wet Prairies groundwater seepage causes soils to be very moist or wet. Wet Prairie is especially
common on broad, poorly drained flats in the Glacial Lake Agassiz Interbeach Area, where there
are many areas of artesian seepage. In the deciduous forest - woodland zone, Wet Prairie exists
on broad, nearly level river terraces or in shallow depressions on outwash.
The soils within the community are mainly mollisols (aquolls). They range in texture from silty
clays to fine sands and are somewhat poorly drained to very poorly drained. Impermeable
subsurface layers impede soil drainage on some sites, and a thin layer of muck may be present at
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan 23
the ground surface on Wet Prairies in seepage areas. Most soils are calcareous. Salt
concentrations (sulfates of calcium and magnesium) high enough to influence the species
composition of the community are present in the soils of Wet Prairies along the western edge of
Minnesota,. primarily in the Agassiz Lacustrine Plain.
On drier sites Wet Prairie often grades into wet -mesic stands of Mesic Prairie; on wet sites it
often grades into Wet Meadow. Mesic Prairie, Wet Prairie, and Wet Meadow do not have well -
defined floristic boundaries, and sometimes are difficult to separate from one - another in the field
when they occur together. Shrub cover increases in Wet Prairie northward, and in the northern
part of the community's range Wet Prairie often grades into Wet Brush - Prairie. Wet Prairie in
southeastern Minnesota is distinctive from that elsewhere in the state, containing several species
with restricted distribution. Floristic diversity is low in Wet Prairies in western Minnesota, but
distinctive species assemblages occur there in association with saline sites. A comprehensive
plant species list for Foxborough's Wet Prairie restoration areas is provided in Appendix B of
this report.
Wet Meadow
Wet Meadow occurs within wetlands throughout all of Minnesota. The ground layer of the Wet
Meadow community is composed of dense, closed stands of predominately wide - leaved sedges
(e.g., Carex lacustris, C. stricta, C. aquatilis C. rostrata, C. haydenii) or grasses (e.g.,
Calamagrostis canadensis, C. inexpansa). Forb cover and diversity usually are high. Forbs such
as spotted joe -pye weed (Eupatorium maculatum), common mint (Mentha arvensis), turtlehead
(Chelone glabra), and swamp milkweed (Asclepias incarnata) are conspicuous. Shrub cover in
Wet Meadows ranges from 0 to 70% and is composed of Bebb's willows and pussy willows.
Mosses are rare or absent.
Wet Meadow occurs on wet mineral soil, muck, or shallow peat ( <0.5 m). Standing water
(generally stagnant) is present in the spring and after heavy rains, but the water table is generally
below the soil surface for most of the growing season. The drawdown of the water table as the
growing season progresses enables the oxidation of dead organic matter that has accumulated on
the ground surface from previous years. This process makes available nutrients for some of the
nutrient - demanding species present in the community. Occurrences of Wet Meadow along
stream courses or adjacent to lakes often have fairly constant water levels relative to Wet
Meadows in depressions or basins. On these sites siltation may be important in maintaining high
nutrient levels.
Wet Meadow tends to succeed to Shrub Swamp communities in the absence of fire, and
therefore, there is a Shrub Subtype of the Wet Meadow community. Water -table lowering
caused by drought or by ditching promotes succession of Wet Meadow to Shrub Swamps. Wet
Meadows on organic soils, like other communities that occur on organic soils, recover very
slowly, if at all, once altered by artificial flooding or draining A comprehensive plant species
list for Foxborough's Wet Meadow restoration areas is provided in Appendix B of this report.
Shallow/Mixed Emergent Marsh
Mixed emergent marsh is dominated by wetland species other than cattails. Bulrushes are the
most common dominants, especially hard - stemmed bulrush (Scirpus acutus), river bulrush
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan 24
•
•
•
(Scirpus fluviatilis), softstem bulrush ( Scirpus validus), Scirpus americanus, and Scirpus
heterochaetus. Common reed grass ( Phragmites australis), spike rushes (Eleocharis spp.), and
(in some river backwaters) prairie cordgrass (Spartina pectinata) are less common dominants. In
general, Mixed Emergent Marsh tends to occur on harder pond, lake, or river bottoms than
Cattail Marsh and is less likely to contain the forbs that grow on the floating peat mats present in
many cattail marshes. Broad - leaved arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia) and aquatic macrophytes
are the most common non - graminoid associates. Many Mixed Emergent Marsh species are
sensitive to fertilizer run-off and other artificial disturbances, and disturbed Mixed Emergent
Marshes (especially in the Prairie Zone) tend to convert to Cattail Marshes or become strongly
dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) or common reed grass (Phragmites
australis), species that increase in abundance with disturbance.
Mixed Emergent Marsh is a broad community type, encompassing all marshes dominated by
species other than cattails. Therefore, sub - typing or recognition of new marsh types is likely
following more thorough inventories of these marshes. New divisions most likely will be made
according to dominant species or basin types (e.g., lacustrine versus riverine), or both. There are
two geographic sections, a Forest Section and a Prairie Section. The dominant species in the
Prairie Section tend to have a Great Plains distribution while those in the Forest Section tend to
have a Great Lakes distribution. A comprehensive plant species list for Foxborough's Mixed
Emergent Marsh restoration areas is provided in Appendix B of this report.
V. Restoration and Management Tasks and Timeline
The natural resource restoration and management recommendations contained within this section
are divided into three sections: Pre - Construction Management Activities, Phase 1 Restoration
and Site Recovery, and Phase 2 Maintenance and Adaptive Management. Pre - construction tasks
were completed prior to or during site grading in spring 2005, to capitalize on time- sensitive
natural resource conservation opportunities that would have otherwise been lost during site
construction. Phase 1 includes natural resource restoration and management tasks designed to
address the major ecological problems on the site, restore native vegetation to non - native
landscapes, and improve the ecological structure and function of pre - existing natural community
remnants. Phase 2 includes management and maintenance tasks that maintain the ecological
structure and function of the site through time, and that adapt restoration and management
prescriptions based on the ecological response of restoration areas following initial restoration
treatments.
Pre - Construction Restoration and Management Activities (Spring 2005)
Forest and Woodland Native Plant Salvage
Prior to initial site grading in April and May 2005, Royal Oaks Reality authorized Critical
Connections Ecological Services to salvage local - ecotype native forest wildflowers, ferns, and
sedges from former oak forest areas that would be graded for residential homes. CCES
restoration crews salvaged 2,347 native woodland plants, and transplanted them into forested
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan 25
areas within Foxborough's conservation areas that lacked a diverse forest herbaceous layer.
Plant species that were successfully salvaged and transplanted included: Interrupted Fern
(Osmunda claytoniana), Pennsylvania Sedge (Carex pensylvanica, Trillium (Trillium cernuum),
Woodland Sedge (Carex blanda), Peduncle Sedge (Carex pedunculata), Rosy sedge (Carex
rosea), (Large Leaved Aster (Aster macrophyllus), Strawberry (Fragaria virginiana), Bedstraw
(Galium triphyllum), Wild Geranium (Geranium maculata), Canada Mayflower (Maianthemum
canadense), Sweet Cicely (Osmorhiza claytonii), Nightshade (Circaea lutetiana var.
canadensis), Coltsfoot (Prenanthes alba), Wood Anemone (Anemone quinquefolia), Columbine
(Aquilegia canadensis), Jack -in- the - Pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), Starflower (Trientalis
borealis), Small Bellflower (Uvularia sessifolia), White Avens (Geum canadensis), Early
Meadow Rue (Thalictrum dioicum), and Rue Anemone (Thalictrum thalictroides).
Common Buckthorn Removal within Forest Transplant Areas
Prior to transplanting salvaged woodland plants, CCES restoration crews manually removed
Common Buckthorn seedlings, saplings, and trees from species -poor forest areas within
Foxborough's conservation areas. Buckthorn removal and soil preparation were necessary to
help ensure successful transplanting of native woodland wildflowers, ferns, and sedges into
forest restoration areas. Approximately 2.8 acres of forest were manually cleared of Common
Buckthorn, and subsequently prepped and planted with native forest species salvaged from
designated construction areas and fill areas. Additional cutting, removal, and herbicide
treatments of these and other forest areas are planned for the late fall months in Phase 1 and
Phase 2 of the restoration plan.
Phase 1- Restoration and Site Recovery: Years 1— 5
The activities listed in Phase 1 are particularly critical to the first five years of site management.
Changes in resource management prescriptions and implemented tasks during this time period
should be reviewed by professional ecologists and project stakeholders to ensure that they are
integrated and in agreement with other ongoing and proposed management tasks, and contribute
to the overall quality of the site.
Phase 1 Restoration and Management Priorities:
1) Control, remove, and manage invasive species - Common and Glossy Buckthorn,
Tartarian Honeysuckle, Reed Canary Grass, and Spotted Knapweed. Reed Canary Grass
within wetlands (and upland margins) and Common Buckthorn within forests and
woodlands are the most problematic species present on the site, and their management
should be of the utmost priority;
2) Restore native prairie vegetation to upland and transitional upland/wetland old- fields;
3) Conduct prescribed burning of Reed Canary Grass dominated wetland edges and
Brome/Bluegrass dominated upland old fields;
4) Establish native species cover within wetland mitigation area and stormwater ponds,
Monitor establishment of vegetation and hydrology within wetland mitigation area;
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan 26
•
•
•
•
5) Selectively thin Aspen dominated wetland edges and woodlands to promote diverse
native herbaceous plant communities, seed these areas as needed;
6) Monitor the site's response to initial restoration and management treatments, and refine
management approach and methods as needed;
7) Install conservation area (outlot) boundary markers and interpretive signage that clearly
defines the boundaries of the conservation area;
8) Install bituminous trail and boardwalks (at wetland crossings), re -seed trail edges with
appropriate native species along trail edges and monitor weed species along trail corridor.
Invasive Species Management
Invasive species are clearly the most urgent management priority at Foxborough. Although
invasive species have established on the site, there is ample time to manage the relatively
concentrated populations of these species before they are able to spread further. However, if
invasive exotic species are left unchecked and untreated, they will continue to invade, establish,
and further degrade the remaining moderate quality natural vegetation within five to ten years
time. Once established as reproductive populations, natural community restoration and
management will be significantly more difficult and expensive within Foxborough's
conservation areas.
Common and Glossy Buckthorn
Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) and Glossy Buckthorn (R. frangula) are European
shrubs that invade and establish within native forest and woodland understories in Minnesota.
Once Buckthorn establishes within natural communities, it can out - compete most native species.
Common Buckthorn was observed in various densities throughout the forest and woodlands of
the Foxborough. Glossy Buckthorn prefers wetland habitats, and was observed in very limited
numbers along wetland edges within the site.
Removal and management of Buckthorn can be a labor intensive and costly undertaking. A
long -term plan will likely be necessary to perpetually monitor and manage these species. The
first phase of managing Buckthorn includes locating and removing all mature, fruit producing
individuals, as to minimize seed dispersal and invasion. Seed producing plants are most
commonly found along sunny woodland edges, rather than in woodland or forest interiors. The
next phase of removal should include the removal of saplings and seedlings. When samplings
and seedlings are removed, native shrub and herbaceous specious should be planted to reduce the
risk of erosion, soil loss, and reinvasion of buckthorn and other undesirable species. CCES also
recommends coordination with landowners adjacent to the Foxborough development, to secure
permission to remove and treat buckthorn along adjacent property boundaries, where feasible.
Replanting of native species on adjacent residential lands may be a necessary expense.
Reed Canary Grass
Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea) is an invasive wetland grass that is very common to
degraded wetlands within the Minneapolis /Saint Paul metropolitan area and throughout
Minnesota. Reed Canary Grass is considered native to North America, but this species has been
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan 27
hybridized and cultivated as an aggressive and naturalizing forage grass that is also used erosion
control in agricultural landscapes.
Reed Canary Grass is pervasive in all wetlands and in upland edges of Foxborough's
conservation areas. CCES recommends prompt management and treatment of Reed Canary
Grass beginning in fall of 2005. Reed Canary Grass can be effectively managed with a grass -
specific herbicide (Vantage) or non- specific herbicides (Rodeo and Round -Up), prescribed
burning, and manual removal (where feasible).
Spotted Knapweed
Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea maculata) is an invasive weed from Eurasia, often colonizing in
degraded sunny uplands, fallow agricultural fields, and remnant prairies. Spotted Knapweed was
observed as scattered individuals throughout the old fields of Foxborough. This relatively sparse
distribution suggests that immediate removal and treatment of this species would be very cost
effective. In time, this species will become much more problematic within open grasslands, and
will be much more difficult and expensive to remove and manage. Spotted Knapweed is best
removed with a standard pitchfork, or spot treated with a Glyphosate -based herbicide (such as
Round -Up). When manually removing these plants, it is very important to remove the entire root
system and basal rosette of leaves. Herbicide treatments of Spotted Knapweed often require
several repeated applications to completely eradicate an established population.
Surface Runoff Management and Erosion Control
Stormwater runoff and erosion control systems should remain in place and in working order
throughout the development of residential lots and construction of homes at Foxborough.
Regular scheduled monitoring and repair of these systems will significantly contribute to the
overall success of the restoration of Foxborough's conservation areas, especially within
wetlands. Erosion control structures and silt fences should be maintained along the conservation
area boundaries until perennial vegetation is established within the adjacent residential lots.
Once perennial vegetation has established, silt fences should be completely removed from the
site and discarded.
Restoration of Prairie Vegetation to Non Native Upland Old Fields
Restoring the upland old fields to dry, mesic, and wet prairie vegetation is probably the largest
task of the proposed management activities included in Phase 1. Appropriate communities have
been prescribed (in Figure 6) based on soil texture, drainage, slope (steepness of grade), aspect
(direction of slope - face), and landscape position. The dry-mesic -wet prairie continuum is
dependant on variability in all of these abiotic landscape variables.
Dry prairies tend to prefer dry, well - drained sandy soils on steep to moderate slopes that face
east to southwest. Mesic prairies are tall -grass dominated communities that tend to prefer
moderately drained to moist loamy soils on moderate and minor slopes. Wet prairies tend to
prefer loamy soils that are perpetually saturated or seasonally flooded, and usually occur between
wetland edges and native mesic prairies.
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan 28
•
•
•
•
•
Appropriate seed mixes should be designed and purchased from native landscape nurseries to
restore these three distinct community types. Wet prairie communities are less commonly
restored within the Minneapolis/Saint Paul metropolitan area tan dry and mesic prairie types, due
to limitations of suitable soil and hydrologic conditions. Native seed suppliers and nurseries may
need to custom design a native wet prairie seed mix with the assistance of a professional and
knowledgeable ecologist. However, mesic and dry prairies are commonly restored within the
region, and quality seed mixes should be readily available from native plant suppliers. However,
all seed mixes should be adjusted for the very sandy and relatively nutrient -poor soils typical of
the Anoka Sand Plain and the Foxborough site. Seed mixes should be dormant seeded in
September /October, or sown in the spring when the ground has thawed. To reduce costs and loss
of plant material, seeds should be instead of plugs (potted plants); as plugs require more watering
and protection from herbivory, and are generally more expensive to achieve a similar long -term
result.
Thinning and Management of Quaking Aspen along Wetland Edges
The woodland edges that are prevalent along wetland edges in Foxborough's conservation areas
are generally low - quality, species poor stands dominated by Quaking Aspen (Populus
tremuloides). Such areas have likely established as a result of past land use practices, landscape -
scale fire suppression, and partial drainage of wetlands. Furthermore, these woodland areas
likely historically supported more diverse wet prairie and wet meadow natural communities.
CCES has successfully restored similar aspen - dominated wetland edges to diverse prairie and
wet meadow communities through selective thinning, removal, herbicide treatments, and
prescribed burning of aspen. These management approaches often promote the re- establishment
of diverse assemblages of herbaceous prairie and wetland species that require full to partial sun
to germinate, reproduce, and persist along saturated wetland edges. Furthermore, in the absence
of management, dense monotypic Aspen stands tend to promote the establishment of Buckthorn
and Reed Canary Grass within the understory, and are prohibitive to prescribed burning due to
fine fuel suppression. CCES recommends that selected areas of aspen woodland be carefully
thinned and restored to more diverse and more easily managed natural community types such as
wet prairie and wet meadow. However, selective thinning of aspen should first consider desired
screening of adjacent land uses or other aesthetic considerations, and should balance restoration
and management objectives with aesthetics.
Maintain and Restore Soil Porosity in Developed Uplands
Site grading and development of the residential lots at Foxborough will likely result in the
pronounced compaction of surficial soil layers and reduced soil porosity within residential yards
and conservation areas edges. CCES and the City of Lino Lakes recommend that prior to final
landscaping of residential yards and installation of turf grass, sod, and other landscape plantings,
compacted soil surfaces (upper 6 to 12 inches) of residential yards and edges of conservation
areas should be roto -tilled and mixed with subsurface and topsoil layers to restore overall soil
porosity and deep root establishment. Preparation of soils in this manner will increase overall
soil porosity and stormwater infiltration, help to stabilize post - construction site hydrology,
improve turf grass establishment, and reduce stormwater runoff and chemical runoff into the
adjacent conservation areas. The City of Lino Lakes, Royal Oaks Reality, and the consulting
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan 29
ecologist should work with individual home builders, landscape contractors, and homeowners to
ensure that this important site preparation step is accomplished on a lot by lot basis.
Vegetation Establishment in Stormwater Ponds
Stormwater treatment ponds within Foxborough's conservation areas have been excavated and
rough graded during the initial site grading process in spring and summer of 2005. Water control
structures, such as inlet and outlet pipes and weirs where installed prior to the initial grading of
each stormwater basin. As required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, silt fences have
been installed along all edges of stormwater basins to minimize sedimentation of these basins or
erosion of sediment into the surrounding conservation areas or off site wetlands. Stormwater
treatment ponds will be fmal graded during the final phases of the overall site grading.
Stormwater treatment ponds within the conservation area should be seeded and maintained as
natural or semi - natural wetlands that compliment the surrounding natural communities within the
conservation area. Therefore, only native, non - invasive plant species should be seeded into
stormwater ponds. Native plant species that can tolerate fluctuating water levels and increased
sediments, salt, and nutrients should be selected for each basin, and native seed mixes should be
tailored to the design hydrology, soils, side slop e profiles, and topographic configurations of
each stormwater treatment pond.
Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Area
A 1.99 -acre wetland mitigation area is under construction within the conservation area to
mitigate for wetland impacts associated with the creation of residential lots and associated
infrastructure within the Foxborough conservation development. This mitigation area has been
excavated from a sandy upland knoll in the southeastern comer of the site during the site grading
process in the summer of 2005.
As required under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act rules, monitoring of the vegetation
and hydrology of the mitigation area is required for a minimum of 5 years following completion
of the wetland mitigation construction and planting. A mitigation monitoring plan will need to
be developed in 2005 -2006, and will need to be implemented each year from 2006 through 2011.
The Rice Creek Watershed District requires an annual wetland mitigation monitoring report at
the end of each growing season during this 5 -year period following the initial construction of the
compensatory wetland mitigation area. The mitigation monitoring report should include all data
required under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act rules, such as monitoring of vegetation
establishment, wetland hydrology, soils, and representative photographs from fixed photo -
reference points, and any problems associated with the establishment of vegetation and
hydrology as specified in the wetland mitigation plan.
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan 30
•
•
•
•
Table 2. Phase 1 Restoration and Management Needs and Tasks (Years 1— 5).
Timeline
Activity
Description
Fall 2005, Repeat
Annually.
Invasive Tree and Shrub
Removal and Herbicide
Treatments
Remove and chemically treat Common and Glossy
Buckthorn and Tartarian Honeysuckle from forests,
woodlands, and edges. Repeat annually.
Late Summer and Fall
2005, Repeat Annually
Manage Reed Canary Grass
with Grass - Specific
Herbicide
Chemically treat Reed Canary Grass dominated
wetlands, transitional areas, and uplands with a grass -
specific herbicide. Repeat annually.
Fall 2005 / Spring 2006
Prescribed Burning of
Wetlands and Non -Native
Dominated Upland Old
Fields and Woodlands
Develop prescribed burning plan, obtain burn permits,
create burn breaks, and implement prescribed burning
of wetlands, upland old fields and woodland edges.
Repeat as necessary.
Fall 2005 and Spring 2006
Site Preparation of Non-
Native Dominated Upland
Old- Fields
Repeated herbicide treatments of non -native dominated
old - fields, seeding and establishment of native non-
aggressive annual cover crop.
Spring and Fall 2006
Seeding and/or Planting of
Native Prairie Species within
Upland Old Fields and
Transitional Areas
Upon completion of site preparation, seed native
prairie species into dry prairie, mesic prairie, wet
prairie, and oak savanna restoration areas.
Fall 2005 through Fall
2010
Selective Thinning and
Management of Aspen
Woodlands
Selectively thin aspen from aspen dominated wetland
edges and woodlands to increase herbaceous species
diversity and minimize establishment and persistence
of Common Buckthorn, Glossy Buckthorn, and Reed
Canary Grass.
Fall 2005 / Spring 2006
Stormwater Wetland Final
Grading and Native Seeding
Finish final grading of stormwater wetlands, seed with
native annual cover crop, and native species
Augment with designed soils.
material hydrologic (plsr in Sprang and
Summer of 2006, and monitor establishment.
Fall 2005
Wetland Mitigation Final
Grading, Seeding and
Planting
Finish final grading of mitigation area, augment soil
surface with native organic wetland soil, seed with
native annual cover crop, and native species
appropriate to designed hydrologic regime and soils.
Augment with plant material (plugs) in Spring and
Summer of 2006, and monitor establishment.
Fall 2005 through
Fall 2010
Wetland Mitigation Area
Monitoring
Monitor the establishment of wetland vegetation and
hydrology within wetland mitigation area. Submit
required mitigation monitoring reports to the Rice
Creek Watershed District in the Fall of each year.
Augment and manage wetland mitigation area as
needed based on monitoring results.
Fall 2005
Trail and Boardwalk
Construction, and Native
Seeding
Construct bituminous trails and boardwalks within
designated trail easement. Reseed trail edges with non-
aggressive annual cover crop and appropriate native
seed mixes suitable to the various habitats the trail
transects. Monitor weed establishment in Spring 2006
and treat as necessary.
Annually
Monitoring and Refinement
of Restoration Approaches
Inspect the site for success of restoration and
management treatments, monitor the control and/or
spread of invasive species, and impacts of human use
to restored and natural areas.
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan
31
Phase 2 - Maintenance and Adaptive Management: Years 5 -10+
Phase 2 of this restoration and management plan focuses on actions, which build on ecological
improvements that were accomplished during the first five years of site management. Phase 2
also includes implementation of regular maintenance and monitoring, and augmentation of
species diversity within establishing native communities and restoration areas.
Phase 2 Management Priorities:
1) Monitoring and spot treatment of invasive species populations and effectiveness of
management practices;
2) Prescribed burning of prairies, wetlands, savannas, and woodland edges;
3) Native seed collection and dispersal within restored natural areas;
4) Monitoring of restoration successes and failures, vegetation diversity, and wildlife use;
5) Monitoring and resolution of residential encroachment into conservation areas,
unauthorized uses of conservation areas, and negative impacts associated with trail use
and maintenance;
6) Coordination among the Foxborough Homeowners Association, the City of Lino Lakes,
the project ecologist, and other project stakeholders to update management plan and
priorities, and allocated restoration and management resources.
Table 3. Phase 2 Restoration and Management Needs and Tasks (Years 5 — 10+).
Timeline
Activity
Description
Fall 2010 through
Fall 2015
Monitor Invasive Species in
Conservation Areas. Spot Treat as
Necessary.
Monitor invasive species presence /absence, abundance
in prairies, forests, woodlands, and wetlands. Spot treat
as necessary. Modify management approach based on
monitoring results.
Fall or Spring.
Every 3 to 4 Years.
Prescribed Burning of Prairies,
Savannas, and Woodland and
Wetland Edges
Develop prescribed burning plan, obtain burn permits,
create burn breaks, and implement prescribed burning of
wetlands, prairies, savannas, and woodland edges.
Repeat as necessary.
Spring through Fall
2010 through 2015
Native Seed Collection and
Dispersal
Collect native seed from established native restoration
areas and disperse, as needed to similar suitable habitats
within the conservation area.
Annually
2010 through 2015
Coordination Among Stakeholders
Coordinate among Foxborough's Homeowners
Association, the City of Lino Lakes, consulting
ecologists, and other stakeholders. Prioritize the use of
limited management resources within the conservation
areas.
Annually
2010 through 2015
Monitor Conservation Area
Boundaries and Trail Easement
Monitor conservation area / residential lot common
boundary, as well as trail easement for signage integrity
and encroachment of non-conforming uses into
conservation area. Resolve issues of non - conforming
uses and boundaries.
Annually
2010 through 2015
Monitoring and Adaptive
Management
Monitor restoration areas and identify problem areas.
Adapt and refine management approaches to address
these issues.
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan
32
•
•
•
•
VI. Socio - Cultural Considerations and Recommendations
Signage Along Conservation Area /Residential Lot Boundaries
Royal Oaks Realty will install and the Foxborough Homeowner Association will maintain, repair
and, if necessary, replace the signage, which is placed within the conservation area. Wherever
possible and reasonable, conservation area signage will be installed during the initial land
development phase of the Foxborough Conservation Development (Fall 2005/ Spring 2006).
Royal Oaks Realty will post up to four (4) signs along any residential lot line that adjoins the
conservation areas / outlots. Signage will also be placed in other locations within the
conservation area, as determined as necessary by the Royal Oaks Reality and the City of Lino
Lakes. The residential owner of each lot adjacent to the conservation area may not remove, alter
or damage the signs. Conservation area signage should be designed to be easily recognizable,
durable, and resistant damage by prescribed burning and other stresses associated with
restoration and management of the conservation areas. Signage should be tall enough (at least 3
to 4 feet) to stand above native perennial prairie grasses and low shrubs, taking into account the
height of mature restored native vegetation within each restoration and management area.
Trails
A public pedestrian trail has been planned within outermost conservation area outlot (Outlot A)
that will transect the conservation area and provide access from adjacent neighborhoods to future
city and regional trail corridors. The trail easement and infrastructure will be owned and
maintained by the City of Lino Lakes. Figure 7 illustrates the final alignment of this trail. As of
August 2005, the trail alignment has been field - located and surveyed, and initial brush clearing
and grading has been completed. Trail construction will occur in the fall of 2005 and is planned
for completion by early summer 2006.
The trail will be constructed of bituminous asphalt over a Class 5 gravel subsurface. Boardwalks
will be installed to cross wetlands and low -lying areas. Raised boardwalks (on piers or footings)
are typically more ecologically sensitive than floating boardwalks, in that raised structures allow
emergent and aquatic vegetation to persist below the walking surface. Furthermore, elevated
boardwalks are less likely to create barriers to most plant and animal dispersal. However, raised
boardwalks are generally more costly than floating boardwalks.
Native and non - invasive plant species should be seeded and established along the trail corridor
following trail construction, consistent with the natural communities the trail transects.
Monitoring and management of problematic weed establishment along the trail corridor should
be conducted on an annual basis, as weed seeds are likely to be introduced by trail users along
the trail corridor. Although the trail may be cleared of snow by plowing or shoveling, road salt
and sand should not be used to manage snow or ice within the conservation areas.
Additional narrow footpaths and unpaved trails may be planned or deemed necessary by the
Foxborough Homeowners Association within the conservation areas. Trail and path alignment
should be sensitive to maintaining the integrity of the natural communities they transect.
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan 33
Figure 7. Final Trail Alignment within the Foxborough Conservation Development (August 2006)
Trail Easement and Alignment Highlighted in Yellow
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan 34
•
•
•
Appropriate Uses
Foxborough's conservation areas will be managed as a natural open space with a passive
recreational trail corridor. Therefore, appropriate uses are limited to passive recreational
activities, such as: walking, running, nature and wildlife observation, ecological studies and such
other activities approved by the Foxborough Homeowners Association that will not disrupt or
degrade the ecological integrity of the site's natural resources and restoration areas. Biking and
dog walking may be considered as appropriate uses, should the site serve as a connection to a
regional bike path or wallcing path. However, such activities may disrupt natural areas,
especially when trail users stray from the designated trail corridor.
Yard debris or commercial landscape refuse should not be composted or disposed of within the
conservation areas. Furthermore, residential homeowners with yards adjoining the conservation
areas should avoid encroachment into designated outlots. Active recreational facilities, such as
athletic fields and playgrounds, are not considered appropriate uses for the conservation area.
Artificial lighting should be carefully sighted close to trail entrances and roads, and trail use may
be limited to daylight hours.
VII. Recommendations for Monitoring & Adaptive Management
Ecological restoration and management is a process that involves adaptive decision making by
natural resource and planning professionals. Implementation of management activities are
designed to change natural community structure and functions, and these changes will likely
influence established management plans and strategies. For this reason, it is important to
monitor the results of implemented management activities and assess if changes to management
plans need to be made based on these observations. To maximize the effectiveness of restoration
and management actions and the likelihood of achieving desired natural resource management
goals, it is important to monitor chosen aspects of restoration and management projects on a
regular basis. Monitoring can be an expensive and labor - intensive process, or it may be done
through simple observations of environmental changes over time. Deciding what to monitor and
how extensive this monitoring should be are always difficult tasks. The level of effort in
monitoring will vary depending on available resources, staff, and/or qualified volunteers that
may carry out monitoring tasks.
At a minimum, the environmental characteristics that should be monitored within Foxborough's
conservation areas include:
1) The abundance and extent of invasive species, and the effect of management approaches
in reducing and limiting invasive species abundance over time;
2) The effects and relative success and failure of restoration and management actions to
achieve desired management goals over time;
3) The success of native restoration planting establishment, including species diversity,
seedling germination success, secondary weed species infestations, and opportunities for
natural community improvement over time;
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan 35
4) Establishment of vegetation and design hydrology within wetland mitigation areas and
stormwater wetlands, as well as sedimentation and/or erosion and integrity of hydrologic
infrastructure;
5) Changes in plant and wildlife diversity and wildlife habitat use within the restoration
areas;
6) Impacts of human use to the conservation areas' natural and cultural amenities, such as
trampling of restored vegetation, soil compaction, integrity of trails and signage, erosion,
weed introductions, dog walking and fecal matter, yard refuse and garbage, unauthorized
pesticide and fertilizer use.
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan 36
•
•
•
•
VIII. References
Aaseng, N.E., 1993. Minnesota's Native Vegetation. A Key to the Natural Communities, Version 3.1.
MN Department of Natural Resources Biological Report Number 20. Saint Paul, Minnesota
Bell Museum of Natural History, 2002. Minnesota Vascular Plant Database. www.wildflowers.umn.edu.
University of Minnesota. Saint Paul, Minnesota
Coffin, B., and L. Pfannmuller, 1998. Minnesota's Endangered Flora and Fauna. University of
Minnesota Press. Minneapolis, Minnesota
Dunevitz - Texler, H., and C. Lane, 2004. Species Lists for Terrestrial and Palustrine Native Plant
Communities in East - central Minnesota. Great River Greening and the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources. St. Paul, Minnesota
Gleason, H.A., and A Cronquist, 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern Unites States and
Adjacent Canada. Second Edition. New York Botanical Garden. Bronx, New York
Hazard, Evan B., 1982. The Mammals of Minnesota. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis,
Minnesota
Holmgren, Noel H., 1998. The Illustrated Companion to Gleason and Cronquist's Manual. Illustrations
of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. New York Botanical
Garden. Bronx, New York
Marschner, F.J. 1974. The Original Vegetation of Minnesota, a map compiled in 1930 by F.J. Marschner
under the direction of M.L. Heinselman of the U.S. Forest Service. St. Paul, MN: Cartography
Laboratory of the Department of Geography, University of Minnesota.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1996. Minnesota's List of Endangered, Threatened, and
Special Concern Species. Minnesota Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program. Saint
Paul, Minnesota
Ownbey, G., and T. Morley, 1991. Vascular Plants of Minnesota. A Checklist and Atlas. University of
Minnesota Press. Minneapolis, Minnesota
USDA NRCS, 2005. Official Soil Series Descriptions. Natural Resources Conservation Service,
United States Department of Agriculture. Available online at
http: // soils. usda. gov / technical /classification/osd/index.htm1
USDA SCS, 1977. Soil Survey of Anoka County, Minnesota. United States Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service and the University of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station.
Saint Paul, Minnesota
Wovcha, D., B. Delaney, and G. Nordquist, 1995. Minnesota's St. Croix River Valley and Anoka
Sandplain. A Guide to Native Habitats. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis, Minnesota
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan 37
Appendix A
Foxborough Soil Types
Official Soil Series Descriptions
Natural Resources Conservation Service,
United States Department of Agriculture (2005)
Available online at:
http: / /soils.usda.gov/ technical /classification/osd/index.html
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan A -1
•
•
•
ISANTI SERIES
Official Soil Series Description
The Isanti series consists of very deep, poorly and very poorly drained soils that formed in sandy glacial
outwash or eolian sediments on outwash plains and valley trains. These soils have moderately rapid or
rapid permeability in the upper part and rapid permeability in the lower part. Slopes range from 0 to 2
percent. Mean annual precipitation is about 26 inches. Mean annual air temperature is about 44 degrees F.
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Sandy, mixed, frigid Typic Endoaquolls
TYPICAL PEDON: Isanti fine sandy loam on a slightly concave slope of less than 1 percent in native
vegetation. (Colors described are for moist conditions unless otherwise stated.)
A1-0 to 4 inches; black (10YR 2/1) fine sandy loam; weak medium platy structure; very friable; common
roots; strongly acid; abrupt smooth boundary.
A2-4 to 10 inches; black (N 2/0) fine sandy loam; weak thin platy structure; very friable; common roots;
strongly acid; abrupt wavy boundary. (Combined thickness of A horizons is 7 to 18 inches.)
Bgl -10 to 14 inches; gray (N 5/0) fine sand; single grain; loose; few roots; common very dark gray
(10YR 3/1) 1 to 3 cm thick discontinuous horizontal streaks and a few small black inclusions; moderately
acid; clear wavy boundary.
Bg2 - -14 to 26 inches; gray (10YR 5/1) fine sand; single grain; loose; few roots; strongly acid; abrupt
smooth boundary.
Bg3 - -26 to 31 inches; dark gray (10YR 4/1) fine sand; single grain; loose; moderately acid; abrupt wavy
boundary. (Combined thickness of Bg horizons is 13 to 36 inches.)
Cg -31 to 60 inches; light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) fine sand; single grain; loose; moderately acid;
gradual smooth boundary.
TYPE LOCATION: Anoka County, Minnesota; about 7 miles east of Anoka; 1,345 feet east and 960
feet north of the southwest corner of sec. 5, T. 31 N., R. 23 W.; USGS Circle Pines quadrangle; lat. 45
degrees 12 minutes 0 seconds N. and long. 93 degrees 14 minutes 20 seconds W., NAD27.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: The series control section is dominated by fine sand and has 85
percent or more passing the No. 40 sieve. It also has no rock fragments. Some pedons have an 0 horizon
as much as 6 inches thick. The mollic epipedon ranges from 10 to 18 inches in thickness where texture is
loamy fine sand or coarser and 7 to 18 inches in thickness for those soils with finer textures.
The A horizon has hue of 10YR, 2.5Y, 5Y or is neutral. Some pedons have an AB or BA horizon as much
as 6 inches thick. The A horizon is loamy fine sand, fine sand, sand, loamy sand, fine sandy loam, or
sandy loam. It ranges from slightly acid to strongly acid.
The Bg horizons have hue of 10YR, 2.5Y or 5Y, value of 4 or 5, and chroma of 1 or 2, or is neutral with
value of 4 or 5. In some pedons it has discontinuous nearly horizontal remnants as well as involutions of
the A horizon 0.5 to 10 cm thick that presumably resulted from frost action. It is fine sand, sand, loamy
fine sand or loamy sand. It ranges from slightly acid to strongly acid.
Some pedons have a BC horizon.
The Cg horizon has hue of 10YR to 5Y, value of 5 or 6, and chroma of 1 or 2. It is sand, fine sand, loamy
sand, or loamy fine sand. Reaction is moderately acid to mildly alkaline.
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan A -2
COMPETING SERIES: These ar e the Hamar, Hangaard, Isan, Medano, and Venlo soils. Hamar,
Hangaard, Medano, and Venlo soils have neutral or higher pH in the series control section. Isan soils have
less than 85 percent sand passing the No. 40 sieve.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: These soils have plane or concave slopes in depressions, drainageways, and
low flats on outwash plains and valley trains. Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent. The Isanti soils formed in
gravel free, noncalcareous sandy glacial outwash or eolian sediments of Late Wisconsinan Age. Mean
annual air temperature ranges from about 37 to 45 degrees F. Mean annual precipitation ranges from
about 22 to 33 inches. Frost -free days range from 90 to 150. Elevation above sea level ranges from 700 to
1600 feet.
GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: These are principally the Anoka, Lino, Sartell, and
Zimmerman soils. The Lino soils are on slightly higher elevations and are somewhat poorly drained. The
Anoka, Sartell, and Zimmerman soils are better drained.
DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Poorly and very poorly drained. Surface runoff is very low to
ponded. Permeability is moderately rapid in the upper part and rapid in the lower part. An apparent water
table is at plus 1 foot to 0.5 feet for the very poorly drained, depressional phase, and 0.5 to 1.5 feet for
poorly drained phase at some time Oct -June in most years.
USE AND VEGETATION: Mostly idle or in pasture, but some areas are drained and cropped to corn,
soybeans, potatoes, or sod. Native vegetation was primarily grasses, sedges, and willow.
DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: East central Minnesota and possibly northwestern Wisconsin.
Moderately extensive.
MLRA OFFICE RESPONSIBLE: St. Paul, Minnesota
SERIES ESTABLISHED: Mille Lacs County, Minnesota, 1927.
REMARKS: Diagnostic horizons and feature recognized in this pedon are: mollic epipedon - the zone
from the surface to 10 inches (A horizon); aquic subgroup - low chroma matrix immediately below the
mollic epipedon (Bgl horizon).
Classification only was changed 5/94. Competing series and other updates will be made later.
ADDITIONAL DATA: Refer Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station Central File Code No. 1071
for results of some laboratory analyses of the typical pedon. SIR # MN0196; MN0651, depressional
phase.
National Cooperative Soil Survey
U.S.A.
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan A -3
•
•
•
SODERVILLE SERIES
Official Soil Series Description
The Soderville series consists of very deep, moderately well drained soils formed in sandy eolian or
glacial outwash on outwash plains. Permeability is rapid in upper part and moderately rapid in the lower
part. Slopes range from 0 to 3 percent. Mean annual precipitation is about 28 inches. Mean annual air
temperature is about 41 degrees F.
TAXONOMIC CLASS: Sandy, mixed, frigid Oxyaquic Hapludalfs
TYPICAL PEDON: Soderville loamy fine sand on a 1 percent concave slope in a cultivated field at an
elevation of about 980 feet. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise noted.)
Ap - -0 to 9 inches; very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) loamy fine sand, grayish brown (10YR 5/2) dry;
weak fine subangular blocky structure; very friable; strongly acid; abrupt smooth boundary. (6 to 9 inches
thick)
E1 - -9 to 21 inches; brown (10YR 4/3) fine sand, pale brown (10YR 6/3) dry; single grain; loose; strongly
acid; clear wavy boundary.
E2 - -21 to 30 inches; brown (10YR 5/3) fine sand, pale brown (10YR 6/3) dry; few fme distinct brown
(7.5YR 4/4) Fe concentrations; single grain; loose; strongly acid; abrupt wavy boundary. (9 to 32 inches
thick).
Btl - -30 to 41 inches; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) loamy fme sand; few fine distinct strong brown
(7.5YR 4/6) Fe concentrations and common fme distinct grayish brown (10YR 5/2) Fe depletions; weak
medium subangular blocky structure; friable; faint discontinuous brown (10YR 4/3) clay films on faces of
peds; strongly acid; clear smooth boundary.
Bt2 - -41 to 45 inches; yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) loamy fine sand; common medium distinct strong
brown (7.5YR 4/6) Fe concentrations and few fine distinct light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) Fe depletions;
weak medium subangular blocky structure; friable; faint discontinuous dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4)
clay films on faces of peds; strongly acid; clear smooth boundary. (6 to 19 inches thick).
E &Bt - -45 to 80 inches; light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) fine sand (E); single grain; loose; few dark
yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) loamy fine sand (Bt) lamellae 1/4 to 2 inches thick; weak fine subangular
blocky structure; very friable; distinct discontinuous brown (7.5YR 4/4) clay bridging between sand
grains; few fine distinct strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) Fe concentrations; moderately acid.
TYPE LOCATION: Mille Lacs County, Minnesota; about 1.5 miles east of Princeton; 500 feet south
and 2,500 feet east of the northwest corner of sec. 35, T. 36 N., R. 26 W.; USGS Princeton topographic
quadrangle; lat. 45 degrees 34 minutes 19 seconds N. and long. 93 degrees 32 minutes and 31 seconds
W.; NAD27.
RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Depth to the argillic horizon ranges from 24 to 60 inches below the
soil surface. These soils typically do not have rock fragments, but some horizons may have as much as 5
percent. Free carbonates are absent to 80 inches or more. Redox features are typically above a depth of 40
inches. Reaction ranges from strongly acid to moderately acid in the upper part of the solum. In areas
where lime has been added, the reaction range includes neutral. Reaction ranges from strongly acid to
neutral in the lower part of the solum and in the substratum.
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan A-4
The Ap horizon has hue of 10YR, value of 3 or 4, and chroma of 1 or 2. Undisturbed pedons have black
(10YR 2/1) or very dark gray (10YR 3/1) A horizons ranging from 2 to 6 inches thick. It is fine sand or
loamy fine sand.
The E horizon has hue of 10YR, value of 4 to 7, and chroma of 1 to 4. It is fine sand or loamy fine sand.
The Bt horizon has hue of 10YR or 7.5YR, value of 4 to 7, and chroma of 3 or 4. It is typically loamy fine
sand or loamy sand, but the range includes fine sand or sand with increase of content of clay. Fine sandy
loam and sandy loam are included as lamellae and total less than 3 inches in thickness.
The E &Bt horizon has colors and textures similar to the E and Bt horizons. This horizon consists of
multiple lamellae bands with intervening E horizons.
Some pedons have a C horizon with hue of 10YR, value of 4 to 6, and chroma of 2 or 3. It is fine sand or
sand.
COMPETING SERIES: There are no other series in this family.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: These soils have plane to slightly concave slopes. Slope gradients range
from 0 to 3 percent. The Soderville soils formed in deep sandy eolian or outwash sediments on outwash
plains. These sediments are of Wisconsin in age. Mean annual air temperature ranges from 38 to 45
degrees F. Mean annual precipitation ranges from 24 to 30 inches. Frost free days range from 90 to 145.
The elevation above sea level ranges from 670 to 1450 feet.
GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: These are the Cantlin and Zimmerman soils. The
moderately well drained Cantlin soils occupy similar landscape positions, but do not have lamellae. The
excessively drained Zimmerman soils occupy higher landscape positions.
DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Moderately well drained. Runoff is negligible. Permeability is
rapid in the upper part and moderately rapid in the lower part. Soderville soils have a perched seasonal
high water table at a depth of 2.0 to 3.5 feet at some time from April to June in most years.
USE AND VEGETATION: Most areas of this soil are used for cropland. Common crops are corn, small
grain, and hay. Some areas are used as woodland. Common trees are jack pine, eastern white pine, red
pine, and northern red oak.
DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: East - central Minnesota. This soil is of small extent.
MLRA OFFICE RESPONSIBLE: St. Paul, Minnesota.
SERIES ESTABLISHED: Anoka County, Minnesota, 1972.
REMARKS: Diagnostic horizons and other features recognized are: ochric epipedon - the zone from the
surface to 30 inches (Ap, El, and E2 horizons); argillic horizon - the zone from 30 to 45 inches (Btl and
Bt2 horizons);
This soil was formerly classified as Aquic Glossoboralfs; however, lab data indicated a high base
saturation. Also, this soil was previously considered somewhat poorly drained with an apparent seasonal
high water table. Type location moved from Anoka County, MN. to Mille Lacs County, MN., 4/98 to
better exemplify the series concept within the MLRA.
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan A -5
•
•
•
•
ADDITIONAL DATA: Soil Interpretation Record number is MN0206. Refer to MAES Central File
Code No. 1077 and 1547 for results of some laboratory analysis for a Soderville pedon.
National Cooperative Soil Survey
U.S.A.
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan A-6
Appendix B
Species Lists for Natural Community Restoration and Management
Sources: Dunevitz - Texler, H. and C. Lane, 2004.
Critical Connections Ecological Services, 1997 -2005
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan B -1
•
•
•
•
•
7
Dry Prairie Species List
Page l of 3
Understory Trees
Quercus ellipsoidalis Northern pin oak
Quercus macrocarpa Bur oak
Juniperus virginiana Red cedar
Shrubs
Salix humilis Prairie willow
Amelanchier spp. Juneberry
Rosa arkansana Prairie rose
Rhus glabra Smooth sumac
Prunus pumila
Prunus americana
Sand cherry
Wild plum
Low Shrubs
Amorpha
Toxicodendron
canescens
rydbergii
Lead -plant
Poison ivy
Forbs
Dalea villosa var. villosa Sil .rairie- clover
Ambrosia psilostachya
Chrysopsis villosa
Helianthemum bicknellii
Helianthus pauciflorus var. pauciflorus
Lithospermum caroliniense ssp. croceum
Tradescantia occidentalis
Solidago nemoralis
Chenopodium desiccatum
Achillea millefolium
Euphorbia geyeri
Hedeoma hispida
Lespedeza capitata
Physalis virginiana
Lepidium dens florum
Penstemon grand florus
Physalis heterophylla
Liatris aspera
Euphorbia glyptosperma
Anemone cylindrica
Solidago missouriensis
Artemisia campestris
Lygodesmia juncea Skeleton -weed
Viola peda1fida Prairie bird -foot violet
Polygonella articulata Coast jointweed
Asclepias viridiflora Green milkweed
Smilacina stellata Starry false Solomon's -seal
Anemone patens var. multifida Pasque -flower
Solidago rigida Stiff goldenrod
Cycloloma atriplicifolium Winged pigweed
var. villosa
Western ragweed
Prairie golden aster
Hoary frostweed
Stiff sunflower
Hairy puccoon
Western spiderwort
Gray goldenrod
Narrow - leaved lamb's quarters
Yarrow
Geyer's spurge
Mock pennyroyal
Round- headed bush- clover
Ground -cherry
Green - flowered pepper -grass
Large- flowered beard- tongue
Clanuny ground -cherry
Rough blazing star
Ridge - seeded spurge
Long - headed thimbleweed
Missouri goldenrod
Tall wormwood
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan B -2
Dry Prairie Species List
Page 2 of 3
Ambrosia artemisiifolia
Liatris punctata
Froelichia floridana
Artemisia ludoviciana
Conyza canadensis
Delphinium carolinianum
Gnaphalium obtusifolium
Geum triflorum
Common ragweed
Dotted blazing star
var. campestris Prairie cottonweed
Western mugwort
Horseweed
Prairie larkspur
Sweet everlasting
Prairie smoke
Campanula rotundifolia Harebell
Oenothera clelandii Cleland's evening- primrose
Erigeron philadelphicus Philadelphia fleabane
Penstemon gracilis Slender beard - tongue
Polygala polygama var. obtusata Racemed milkwort
Dalea purpurea var. purpurea Purple prairie - clover
Oenothera biennis Common evening - primrose
Lepidium virginicum Virginia pepper -grass
Apocynum cannabinum American hemp
Antennaria spp. Pussytoes
Aster ericoides Heath aster
Scutellaria leonardi Leonard's skullcap
Apocynum androsaemifolium Spreading dogbane
Aster oolentangiensis Sky -blue aster
Agastache foeniculum Blue giant- hyssop
Sisyrinchium campestre Field blue -eyed grass
Silene antirrhina Sleepy catchfly
Asclepias tuberosa Butterfly -weed
Polygonum tenue Slender knotweed
Lithospermum incisum Narrow - leaved puccoon
Hieracium longipilum Long - bearded hawkweed
Grasses, Rushes and Sedges
Andropogon gerardii Big bluestem
Aristida basiramea Base - branched three -awn
Bouteloua hirsuta Hairy grama
Bouteloua curtipendula Side -oats grama
Calamovilfa longifolia Sand reed -grass
Carex muhlenbergii Muhlenberg's sedge
Carex siccata Hay sedge
Carex umbellata Umbel sedge
Cenchrus longispinus Sandbur
Cyperus schweinitzii Schweinitz's cyperus
Cyperus lupulinus Hop -like cyperus
Cyperus spp. Cyperus
Eragrostis spectabilis Purple lovegrass
Koeleria pyramidata June -grass
Panicum commonsianum White- haired panic grass
Panicum perlongum Long - leaved panic grass
Panicum wilcoxianum Wilcox's panic grass
Panicum linearifolium Linear - leaved panic grass
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan B -3
•
•
•
•
•
Dry Prairie Species List
Page 3 of 3
Panicum virgatum
Panicum oligosanthes
Panicum lanuginosum
Panicum capillare
Paspalum setaceum
Schizachyrium scoparium
Setaria viridis
Sorghastrum nutans
Sporobolus cryptandrus
Stipa spartea
Switchgrass
Few - flowered panic grass
Hairy panic grass
Witch grass
var. ciliatifolium Fringe -leaf paspalum
Little bluestem
Green foxtail
Indian grass
Sand dropseed
Porcupine -grass
Ferns and Fern Allies
Selaginella rupestris
Rock spikemoss
Exotic Invasive Species - Do Not Plant
Asparagus officinalis
Chenopodium album
Crepis tectorum
Digitaria ischaemum
Mollugo verticillata
Plantago patagonica
Poa pratensis
Poa compressa
Polygonum convolvulus
Salsola tragus
Taraxacum
Tragopogon
spp.
dubius
Asparagus
White Iamb's quarters
Yellow hawk's -beard
Smooth crabgrass
Carpet -weed
Pursh's plantain
Kentucky bluegrass
Canada bluegrass
Black bindweed
Russian thistle
Common dandelion
Yellow goat's -beard
State Listed Rare Species - Do Not Plant Without a Permit
Aristida tuberculosa
Hudsonia tomentosa
Oenothera rhombipelala
Triplasis purpurea
Sea -beach needle -grass
False heather
Rhombic evening - primrose
Sand -grass
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan B -4
Oak Forest Species List
Page 1 of 3
Canopy Trees ( >10m)
Acer rubrum Red maple
Acer negundo Box elder
Betula papyrifera Paper -birch
Carya cordiformis Bittemut hickory
Celtis occidentalis Hackberry
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash
Ostrya virginiana Ironwood
Prunus serotina Black cherry
Quercus rubra Northern red oak
Quercus alba White oak
Tilia americana Basswood
Ulmus americana American elm
Understory Trees
Acer negundo Box elder
Acer saccharum Sugar maple
Acer rubrum Red maple
Betula papyrifera Paper -birch
Carpinus caroliniana ssp. virginiana Blue beech
Carya cordiformis Bittemut hickory
Celtis occidentalis Hackberry
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash
Fraxinus nigra Black ash
Ostrya virginiana Ironwood
Prunus serotina Black cherry
Quercus rubra Northern red oak
Quercus alba White oak
Tilia americana Basswood
Ulmus rubra Slippery elm
Ulmus americana American elm
Shrubs
Cornus alternifolia Pagoda dogwood
Cornus
Corylus
Corylus
Prunus
Ribes
Ribes
Rosa
Sambucus
Symphoricarpos
Viburnum
Viburnum
Zanthoxylum
racemosa
americana
cornuta
virginiana
cynosbati
missouriense
blanda
racemosa
spp.
rafrnesquianum
lenlago
americanum
Gray dogwood
American hazelnut
Beaked hazelnut
Chokecherry
Prickly gooseberry
Missouri gooseberry
Smooth wild rose
Red - berried elder
Snowberry
Downy arrow -wood
Nannyberry
Prickly ash
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan B -5
•
•
•
•
Oak Forest Species List
Page 2 of 3
Low Shrubs
Toxicodendron rydbergii Poison ivy
Rubus spp. Blackberry
Rubus idaeus var. strigosus Red raspberry
Vines
Parthenocissus
Vitis
Smilax
sPP•
Virginia creeper
riparia
Wild grape
hispida
Green -briar
Forbs
Actaea rubra
Amphicarpaea bracteata
Anemone americana
Apocynum androsaemifolium
Aguilegia canadensis
Aralia nudicaulis
Aralia racemosa
Arisaema triphyllum
Aster sagittifolius
Caulophyllum thalictroides
Circaea lutetiana
Cryptotaenia canadensis
Desmodium glutinosum
Dioscorea villosa
Erigeron philadelphicus
Eupatorium rugosum
Fragaria vesca
Fragaria virginiana
Galium aparine
Callum triflorum
Callum concinnum
Geranium maculatum
Geum canadense
Hackelia virginiana
Hydrophyllum virginianum
Impatiens spp.
Laportea canadensis
Lathyrus ochroleucus
Maianthemum canadense
Mitella diphylla
Monotropa unora
Osmorhiza claytonii
Osmorhiza longistylis
Phryma leptostachya
Red baneberry
Hog - peanut
Round -lobed hepatica
Spreading dogbane
Columbine
Wild sarsaparilla
American spikenard
Jack -in -the- pulpit
Tail- leaved aster
Blue cohosh
ssp. canadensis Canada enchanter's nightshade
Honewort
Pointed - leaved tick- trefoil
Wild yam
Philadelphia fleabane
Common snakeroot
ssp. americana Wood strawberry
Common strawberry
Cleavers
Three- flowered bedstraw
Elegant bedstraw
Wild geranium
White avens
Stickseed
Virginia waterleaf
Touch -me -not
Wood - nettle
Pale vetchling
Canada mayflower
Two-leaved miterwort
Indian pipe
Clayton's sweet cicely
Anise -root
Lopseed
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan B -6
Oak Forest Species List
Page 2 of 4
Pilea spp. Clearweed
Polygonatum biflorum Giant Solomon's -seal
Polygonatum pubescens Hairy Solomon's -seal
Ranunculus abortivus Kidney -leaf buttercup
Ranunculus recurvatus Hooked crowfoot
Sanguinaria canadensis Bloodroot
Sanicula marilandica Mariland black snakeroot
Sanicula gregaria Gregarious black snakeroot
Smilacina racemosa Racemose false Solomon's -seal
Smilax herbacea Carrion -flower
Stellaria longifolia Long- leaved chickweed
Thalictrum dioicum Early meadow -rue
Urtica dioica ssp. gracilis Stinging nettle
Uvularia grand flora Yellow bellwort
Uvularia sessilifolia Pale bellwort
Veronicastrum virgnnacum Culver's root
Viola spp. Violet
Grasses, Rushes and Sedges
Carex pensylvanica Pennsylvania sedge
Carex radiata Stellate sedge
Carex blanda Charming sedge
Festuca subverticillata Nodding fescue
Ferns and Fern Allies
Athyrium filix femina var. angustum Lady -fern
Osmunda claytoniana Interrupted fern
Adiantum pedatum Maidenhair fern
Pteridium aquilinum var. latiusculum Bracken fern
Botrychium virginianum Rattlesnake fern
Exotic Invasive Species - Do Not Plant
Arcctium minus Common burdock
Lonicera tatarica Tartarian Honeysuckle
Prunella vulgaris Heal -all
Rhamnus cathartica Common buckthorn
Taraxacum spp. Common dandelion
State Listed Rare Species - Do Not Plant Without a Permit
Juglans cinerea Butternut
SC
Foxborough Conservation Development Restoration and Management Plan B -7
•
•
•
•
Agenda Item 5B
Environmental Board Meeting Date: February 27, 2008
Topic: Approval of Environmental Board Goals for 2008
Background: Each year the Environmental Board drafts goals for the year.
Attached are last year's goals with my comments and additional considerations.
Analysis: Please review the attached goals and comments, as well as bring
your own thoughts in concerning goals for 2008. We need to try to finalize goals
for 2008 and present them to our City Council.
Recommendation: Finish drafting Goals for 2008
Attachments
1. Goals and comments
•
•
Council Member introduced the following resolution and moved
its adoption:
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 07 - 37
RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD GOALS FOR 2007
WHEREAS, The City of Lino Lakes has an established Environmental Board,
AND WHEREAS, ; The purpose of the Environmental Board is to provide aid and advice
to the council in its efforts to encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between
people and their environment ; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage
to the environment and stimulate the health and welfare of people; to enrich the
understanding of ecological systems and natural resources important to the city; to
advise the City in the use and management of its natural resources in order to preserve
and enhance the environmental amenities for present and future residents, and to
ensure a lasting quality of life within the city,
1111 AND WHEREAS: The Environmental Board approved the following 2007 goals at their
•
December 20, 2006 meeting:
• Promote environmental stewardship with the citizens of Lino Lakes by:
A. Communicating environmental initiatives in the city using various means of
communication, i.e., City WebPages, newsletter, homeowner's association
meetings, the information kiosk, and press coverage. Pursue providing
articles and information to the local media.
B Promote individual Backyard Wildlife Habitat through the National Wildlife
Federation. Inventory current participants and work to expand program.
This one has not gone anywhere We do promote wildlife habitat in
conservation development types of projects, and in the use of water and
native materials in non - conservation development projects We should talk
more about this,
• Participate in Blue Heron Days, providing educational material to the public.
• Participate in Earth Day activities in the community, promoting environmental
awareness and collaboration with other environmental focused organizations.
• Monitor all activity in the 35W corridor as well as other proposed development areas,
focusing on the values Lino Lakes citizens have expressed in the vision for our city
and the unique ecological aspects of our wetlands, lakes and streams and
subsurface waters. Apply mitigation plan as defined for that area. We also have a
lot of planning going on in the AUAR 35E Corridor
• Perform an evaluation of past Environmental Board recommendations for
development projects. Review a sampling of a variety of projects by site visits,
discussion with city staff, and landowners, neighbors, on the outcomes of the Boards
recommendations. Submit a summary of significant findings resulting from the
review in writing to the Community Development Director and then forward report to
city council I think this is an ongoing goal that does not necessarily resolve itself for
any one project after one inspection and discussion particularly if Environmental
Board recommendations involve restoration work
• Promote conservation development within the City incorporating the Open
Space/Trail Plan and Handbook for Environmental Planning and Conservation
Development. Maybe in the new Comp Plan and Resource Management Plan as
well We should have some kind of a statement on the Comp Plan /RMP I think as a
basis for improving the way we develop to encourage the saving and restoration of
unique resources
• To meet or exceed our City recycling goal of 50 percent or greater of our Municipal
solid waste. Find innovative ways to promote and encourage recycling as a city.
Add recycling materials to kiosk.
• Continue to monitor the Heron rookery and water quality in the northern one third of
Peltier Lake and to support the protection of resources in that area.
• Participate in comp plan and process
• Review and comment on the RMP planning process for the City of Lino Lakes, JD4
and TMDL study for the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes. Maybe this statement should
include something about the RMP as an underpinning or layer to be used to model
the development of the new Comprehensive Plan. Support the adoption and
implementation of the Lino Lakes Resource Management Plan
•
• Participate in school nature project at Centennial Middle School. We have this one
going and will hopefully include some major restoration /education projects this
spring
• Review Conservation Developments for conformance to yearly Conservation
Easement work. There is approximately $17, 000 available for 2008 in Foxburough
• Continue to support the Stream Health Evaluation Program (SHEP)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA:
1. That the 2008 goals of the Lino Lakes Environmental Board be adopted.
John Bergeson, Mayor
•
•
•
• Julianne Bartell, City Clerk
Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this _th day of 2008.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council
Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof:
The following voted against same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
•
•