## Richfield City Council Agenda

July 14, 2026 -- 5:15 PM

## Richfield Municipal Center

## Bartholomew Conference Room

## 6700 Portland Avenue South

1. Call to Order

## 2. Item Discussion

## a. Multi-Community Wellhead Protection Plan and Source Water Sustainability Updates

## b. Social Media Comments Discussion

## c. Natural Resources Management Plan

3. Adjournment

Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the

City Clerk at 612-861-9739.

Includes Materials - Materials relating to these agenda items can be found in the Council Chambers Agenda Packet book located by

the entrance. The complete Council Agenda Packet is available electronically on the City of Richfield website.

## City Council Meeting 7/14/2026

## Agenda Section: Item Discussion

Agenda Item: 2.a.

## Report Prepared By:

## Mattias Oddsson, Water Resources Engineer

## Department Director:

## Kristin Asher, Public Works Director

## Item for Consideration:

## Multi-Community Wellhead Protection Plan and Source Water Sustainability

## Updates

## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Staff will present an update on the status of the West Metro Multi-Community Wellhead

Protection Plan (WHPP) and on groundwater quantity trends in the Metro Area. Part 1

of the WHPP has been officially adopted, and is available for review upon request

(approximately 1,000 pages). Part 2 of the WHPP is currently in development. A

consideration of both the WHPP and the City's Water Supply Plan is the sustainability of

groundwater withdrawals and the City's drinking water supply. Staff will present a

summary of aquifer and water usage trends in the Twin Cities.

## RECOMMENDED ACTION

No action is required of the council at this time.

## HISTORICAL CONTEXT

## Since 2024, Richfield has partnered with Bloomington, Chanhassen, Eden Prairie,

Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka, Saint Louis Park, the Metropolitan Council, and the

Minnesota Department of Health on a pilot Multi-Community WHPP. This plan will

delineate a joint drinking water supply management area (DWSMA) for participating

cities and describe actions to be taken to protect water supply groundwater sources

from contamination. This plan, once complete, will replace the City's individual WHPP

adopted in 2017 (part 1) and 2019 (part 2).

## EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS

Development of the Multi-Community WHPP supports the City's strategic goals of

operational excellence and sustainable infrastructure.

## POLICIES (RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, STATUTES, ETC.)

The development and contents of wellhead protection plans are guided by the state

Wellhead Protection Rule (MNR 4720). Public water suppliers are required under this

rule to delineate a wellhead protection area and DWSMA, as well as prepare a WHPP.

State rules also describe the required contents of the plan and standards for data

elements to be included. The Minnesota Department of Health administers the

Wellhead Protection Rule, while the Department of Natural Resources oversees water

appropriations permitting.

## CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES

None at this time. A public hearing will be needed in late fall 2026 to formally adopt part

2 of the WHPP.

## FINANCIAL IMPACT

No immediate financial impact. Staff time is being contributed to support plan

development and implementation.

## LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

None at this time.

## ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)

None at this time.

## ATTACHMENTS

1. 7_14_26_WHPP and Groundwater Work Session

## Multi-Community Wellhead

## Protection Plan Update

## Background

• Wellhead protection planning aims to

protect public water supplies from potential

contaminants

## • Guided by state Wellhead Protection Rule

(Ch. 4720)

## Background

• Historically each public water supplier

(PWS) completed its own plan

• In areas where DWSMAs overlapped, this

created contradiction, confusion, and

inefficiencies

• From 2024, 8 West Metro cities partnered

with the MN Department of Health (MDH)

and Metropolitan Council to pilot a multi-

community approach

## Part 1 Plan

•Analyzed time of travel to 88 existing community supply wells

and one planned supply well

•A new sub-regional groundwater flow model was developed

from the existing Metro Model 3 regional groundwater model

to delineate the WHPA and DWSMA.

–Incorporated the most up-to -date geology and pumping

information

•The DWSMA area was determined using the sub-regional

groundwater model, fracture flow calculations, and overland

flow

•Vulnerability was determined for PLSS quarter-quarter

sections, based on water chemistry data, soils data, and

geology

## DWSMA Changes

• The changes to the DWSMA are due to:

– Reduction of pumping required for fracture

flow calculations,

– Reduced overall pumping, and

– Changes to surface water contribution area

calculations.

• This resulted in smaller extents and

changes to vulnerability classifications

## Current Status

• Part 1 was approved in spring 2025

• MDH is working with consultant to finalize

## Potential Contaminant Source Inventory

• Draft chapters of Part 2 are being developed by

MDH and participating cities

– Currently drafted chapters:

• Goals and Objectives

## • Issues, Problems and Opportunities

## • Implementation Measures

## • Alternative Water Supply Contingency

## • Plan Evaluation, Coordination, and Documentation

– Will cover implementation of actions to protect source

water quality

## Next Steps

## StepTimeframe

## Complete Potential Contaminant Source Inventory (PCSI)JunetoAugust2026

## PreparePart 2Plan Chapters(group review throughout)-Plan Evaluation; Data

## Elements and Assessment; Water Supply Emergency and Contingency

## Juneto August2026

## FullDraftPlan Review by GroupAugustto September2026

## Submit Draft Part2 Plan to LGUsSeptember2026

## Consider Comments Received by LGUs and Incorporate Response to Comments

in Plan

## November to December2026

## Hold Public HearingsNovember 2026

## Submit Final Part2 Plan to MDHDecember2026

## MDHApprovalFebruary/March2027

## Provide Notice to LGUs about Plan Approval

## March2027

## Begin Plan Implementation

## March2027

## Groundwater Supply and

## Sustainability

## The Big Picture

• Freshwater resources are under strain

worldwide

• Groundwater comprises 99% of liquid

freshwater available for human use

• Groundwater depletion is a growing issue,

often occurring in tandem with or following

depletion of surface water resources

• Ensuring a sustainable water supply requires

proactive, thoughtful management.

## Water Usage and Groundwater in

## Minnesota

• Total water use in Minnesota generally increased over

the last decades of the 20th century.

• Water use in the 21st century has been declining.

– In total, Minnesota’s overall water use has decreased over

the past twenty years by about 27%

– However, groundwater use increased sharply during the

drought of 2021-2023

• Agricultural irrigation, primarily from groundwater, has

been increasing

• Groundwater trends are variable and region-specific

– Depends on local aquifer characteristics and pumping

trends

• Over-withdrawal, well interference, surface water

impacts, and contamination are primary concerns

## Water Supply in the Twin Cities

•Public water supply is

roughly 35% surface

water, 65% groundwater

•The Prairie du Chien

/Jordan aquifer accounts

for 41% of groundwater

pumping in Hennepin

County.

•6 of Richfield’s 7

wells are in this

aquifer.

•Seasonal fluctuations in

water levels are

prominent

“Water from the Mississippi is

more easily replenished than

groundwater aquifers;

however, pollution also travels

more quickly to and through

surface waters. Surface waters

also respond more quickly to

changing weather conditions

and drought than deep bedrock

## aquifers. The Mississippi River

and the chain of lakes just

north of Saint Paul provide

water to nearly 20% of all

## Minnesotans” (Water Supply

## Planning Atlas for the Twin

## Cities Metropolitan Area)

## Tradeoffs of Drinking Water Sources

## Summary

• Whether any given water source is sustainable is

a complex and nuanced question

• Groundwater in the Twin Cities can be used

sustainably into the future – with thoughtful,

proactive management

– Modeling of future aquifer conditions suggests

groundwater levels could increase with reduced

pumping, or decline if pumping increases

• Continued conservation measures and

coordinating with regulators and other

groundwater communities are vital

## References

Berg, James. Groundwater Atlas of Hennepin County, Minnesota. n.d.

Berg, Jim. “The Suburban Aquifers, Hennepin County.” Minnesota Ground Water Association,

March 9, 2022.

https://www.mgwa.org/newsletter/the-suburban-aquifers-hennepin-county/.

Dalin, Carole, Makoto Taniguchi, and Timothy R. Green. “Unsustainable Groundwater Use for

Global Food Production and Related International Trade.” Global Sustainability 2 (2019):

11. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2019.7.

Kanwar, Pooja, Ellen Considine, and Jason Moeckel. Water Availability and Assessment

Report 2025. With Vanessa Baratta-Person, Jay Frischman, Jon Hansen, et al. Minnesota

Department of Natural Resources, 2025.

Neuschler, Catherine, Catherine Villa-Watt, Jeff Berg, et al. 2025 Groundwater Policy Report.

Minnesota Environmental Quality Board, 2025.

## Sanocki, Christopher, Susan Langer, and Jason Menard. Potentiometric Surfaces and

Changes in Groundwater Levels in Selected Bedrock Aquifers in the Twin Cities

Metropolitan Area, March–August 2008 and 1988–2008. Scientific Investigations Report.

Scientific Investigations Report. 2009.

Water Supply Planning Atlas for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. n.d.

“West Metro Multi-Community WHPP Pilot - Part 1 - Jan 2025.” n.d.

Zhang, Jiawen, Tanja Liesch, and Nico Goldscheider. “Impacts of Climate Change and Human

Activities on Global Groundwater Storage from 2003 to 2022.” Journal of Hydrology 664

(January 2026): 134298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2025.134298

.

## City Council Meeting 7/14/2026

## Agenda Section: Item Discussion

Agenda Item: 2.b.

## Report Prepared By:

## Kate Aitchison, Communications and Engagement Manager

## Department Director:

## Sack Thongvanh, Assistant City Manager

## Item for Consideration:

## Social Media Comments Discussion

## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On May 12, 2026, Mayor Mary Supple asked staff and council to consider a policy

change which would eliminate the comment sections from the city’s Facebook channel

and other social media platforms. This followed vitriolic comments from a Facebook

post related to the April 29 officer-involved-shooting in Richfield. The city has had

previous Facebook posts go viral which have attracted “trolling” behavior from

audiences outside our typical reach. Richfield’s social media channels include

Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and LinkedIn. If the council were to decide to remove

the ability to comment from a platform, it must be consistently applied across that

platform. The council could choose to allow comments on certain platforms and remove

them from others. To date, a few cities in Minnesota have elected to remove the

comment sections of their social media accounts. Bloomington removed its comments

from its Facebook platform in 2023. Rochester followed suit in 2024, removing

comments from Facebook, Instagram and YouTube. Most recently, Golden Valley has

decided to remove the comment sections from Facebook and Instagram.

## Communications Manager Kate Aitchison and Communications Specialist Brianna

Darling will be in attendance to present staff findings and recommendations.

## RECOMMENDED ACTION

Staff is requesting feedback based on the information presented today.

## HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Richfield last substantially revised its Social Media Policy in November 2024, with minor

updates completed earlier this year. The updated policy was developed per best

practices in government communications, and with input from the city attorney.

## POLICIES (RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, STATUTES, ETC.)

The most recent Social Media Policy is attached.

## FINANCIAL IMPACT

Removing comments would require additional work by staff, as comments must be

manually turned off after a post has been published. This makes it impossible to

schedule future posts. Additionally, it is not possible to turn comments off of Facebook

Ads or Events, making those tools unavailable to the city. The Recreation Services

department heavily uses Facebook Events.

## LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

When the city publishes a social media post and allows comments, the post becomes a

limited public forum subject to various free speech and related considerations. It is

sometimes helpful to think about the comments section like the Open Forum portion of a

City Council meeting. In order to comply with the First Amendment rights of the

audience, moderation of comments (including hiding or deleting comments) is extremely

limited. Any restrictions on content must be applied consistently and in a viewpoint-

neutral manner. The city’s policy outlines the specific scenarios that would justify

removing a comment from view.

Per the policy: City staff will not edit any posted comments or restrict comments based

on commentor’s viewpoints. However, comments posted by members of the public will

be removed if they are obscene, defamatory, in violation of the copyright, trademark

right or other intellectual property right of any third party, or malware.

## ATTACHMENTS

1. Social Media Policy - 2026

2. Removing Social Media Comments presentation v2 7.14.26

1

## RC145\28\982806.v5

## SOCIAL MEDIA USE AND MODERATION

## CITY OF RICHFIELD

## CITY POLICY

DATE: March 30, 2026

## (Supersedes Social Media Comments Policy dated November 30, 2024)

## SUBJECT: Social Media Use and Moderation

## Purpose

Using social networks serves to communicate and deliver messages directly to the community

and to encourage public involvement, interaction, and feedback. The City of Richfield recognizes

the value of social media to provide accurate, consistent and timely information about City

functions, services, and activities to strengthen the City’s relationship with the community through

engagement.

The purpose of this policy is to establish a procedure for monitoring the City’s online discussion

while protecting the free speech rights of its users. The City recognizes that by maintaining a

social media page and allowing users to comment on said page, it has created a limited public

forum. The City of Richfield uses social media applications to present news and information

relating to the City. We encourage people to submit questions, comments, and concerns. The

City reminds users that social media feeds are accessible to the public, and asks users to keep

comments appropriate and civil.

The City of Richfield wishes to establish a positive and informative social media presence. City

representatives have the responsibility to use the City’s social media resources in an efficient,

effective, ethical, and lawful manner pursuant to all existing City policies.

## Scope

The City of Richfield’s social media accounts are considered a City asset and administrator

access to these accounts will be securely administered in accordance with the City’s Social

Media Policy. The City reserves the right to shut down any of its social media sites or accounts

for any reason without notice. The City does not create or maintain social media accounts for

its elected officials.

This policy applies to any existing or proposed social media websites sponsored, established,

registered, or authorized by the City of Richfield. The City does not create, collect, disseminate,

or regulate use of any other social media accounts, including the personal accounts of its elected

officials and staff.

## Rules Of Use and Moderation

City staff will not edit any posted comments or restrict comments based on commentor’s

viewpoints. However, comments posted by members of the public will be removed if they are

obscene, defamatory, in violation of the copyright, trademark right or other intellectual property

right of any third party, or malware. The following are examples of content that may be removed

2

## RC145\28\982806.v5

by City staff before or shortly after being published:

(i) Comments containing defamatory statements against a person, either as

determined by a court or comments that are patently defamatory by easily

discoverable facts;

(ii) Comments containing obscenity, which is defined as sexually explicit and/or

pornographic content that is patently offensive, appeals to prurient interest, and

lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;

(iii) Comments that promote or advocate illegal discrimination based on race, age,

religion, gender, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, veteran status, or

any other legally protected class;

(iv) Comments that encourage or promote illegal activity or compromise public

safety, including comments that contain direct threats to persons or property;

(v) Duplicate comments posted repeatedly within a short period of time;

(vi) Comments that are spam or promotion;

(vii) Comments that are plagiarized, or infringe on copyrights or trademarks;

(viii) Comments that publish statutorily private, confidential, or nonpublic data.

A member of the public whose comment is removed may appeal the removal of the comment and

seek reconsideration of its removal by contacting the City to discuss the decision to remove the

comment with the Communications and Engagement Manager. If necessary, the decision may

be discussed for further review by the City Manager, and as appropriate, the City Attorney.

When possible, comments that are removed for falling into one of the above categories will be

hidden or archived, and not permanently deleted. When a comment is hidden or removed, a copy

or electronic record of the comment will be retained or archived pursuant to applicable law and

the City’s record retention policy, along with a brief description of the reason the content was

deleted. Some comments may be permanently deleted immediately consistent with law.

Please note that any public comments expressed on a City site do not reflect the opinions and

position of the City of Richfield. The City does not endorse any product, service, company or

organization advertising on its social media pages. The ads that appear on social media pages

are sold, posted and maintained by those social media companies.

If you have any questions concerning the operation of any Richfield online moderated discussion

site, please contact the Communications and Engagement Manager.

## Approved:

## City Manager

## Social Media Comments

## Legal restrictions, Options & Best Practices

July 14, 2026

The city manages four social media platforms:

~15k followers

Other channels

## include: PD, WLNC,

Farmers Market, etc.

~3,700 followers

Other channels include:

## WLNC, Farmers Market

~1,000 followers~900 followers

## Comment Section as Limited Public Forum

•Government accounts are treated differently than private

accounts.

•When the city publishes a social media post and allows

comments, the post becomes a limited public forum subject to

various free speech and related considerations (similar to Open

Forum at council meeting).

•In order to comply with the First Amendment rights of the

audience, moderation of comments (including hiding or deleting

comments) is extremely limited. Any restrictions on content

must be applied consistently and in a viewpoint-neutral manner.

Existing social media policy (3/30/26):

City staff will not edit any posted comments or restrict comments based on

commentor’s viewpoints. However, comments posted by members of the public will be

removed if they are obscene, defamatory, in violation of the copyright, trademark right or

other intellectual property right of any third party, or malware. The following are examples

of content that may be removed by City staff before or shortly after being published:

(i ) Comments containing defamatory statements against a person, either as determined by a court or

comments that are patently defamatory by easily discoverable facts;

(ii) Comments containing obscenity, which is defined as sexually explicit and/or pornographic content that is

patently offensive, appeals to prurient interest, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;

(iii) Comments that promote or advocate illegal discrimination based on race, age, religion, gender, national

origin, disability, sexual orientation, veteran status, or any other legally protected class;

(iv) Comments that encourage or promote illegal activity or compromise public safety, including comments

that contain direct threats to persons or property;

(v) Duplicate comments posted repeatedly within a short period of time;

(vi) Comments that are spam or promotion;

(vii) Comments that are plagiarized, or infringe on copyrights or trademarks;

(viii) Comments that publish statutorily private, confidential, or nonpublic data.

Current strategy:

## •Facebook Profanity Filter

•When possible, use one-way channels to share

sensitive information that may attract unwanted

online attention (typically DEI topics).

•Work to build audiences on other platforms to

strengthen additional channels for

communicating with residents (Richfield Recap,

Instagram, etc).

•Attempt to work against the Facebook

algorithm with ‘boring’ posts (add links, static

graphics, etc.).

## Analysis

To p i cPros - No comments Cons - No comments

## Decency

and

decorum

Eliminates perceived hate

speech/harmful content

visible to the community on

public channels.

Missed opportunity for

community members to

“self-police” the space,

correct misinformation and

show support.

To p i c

## Pros - No

comments

Cons - No comments

## Communication

& Information

## Sharing

•Reduces perception of local government

transparency / gives impression that local

government isn’t interested in hearing from

the community.

•May breed misinformation as information is

shared and comments occur in other spaces

where the city cannot comment or clarify.

Moves responsibility onto council or other

residents to clarify misinformation.

•Cannot run Ads or use Facebook Events*

to promote events or programs.

* Heavily used by Recreation other depts.

To p i c

## Pros - No

comments

Cons - No comments

## Engagement

•Removes a popular channel for

collecting public input and listening to

community. No other channels have the

same reach & audience.

•Silences "fans" of popular content

## (Farmers Market, Rec, Water, etc.)

•Additional barriers to users getting

clarification on information posted.

Instead of commenting, must send a

direct message (DM), make a call or send

an email. Added barrier will mean many

people do not seek clarification.

TopicPros - No comments Cons - No comments

## Alignment

with Core

## Values:

•Equitable

•Lead the Way

•Community-

centered

•Responsive

•Stewardship

•Equitable: Turning off

comments may

reduce offensive

comments and reflect

an increased

commitment to

equity for people

viewing the posts.

•Equitable: Turning off comments could

lead to in

equity, by removing an

accessible space to ask questions or

raise concerns. Related Accessibility

concerns: Many community members

may have difficulty or lack of

knowledge of more traditional public

participation (attending meetings,

calling council rep, emailing staff, etc.)

•Responsive: Makes it more difficult for

staff to respond to

questions/concerns.

•Community Centered: Could be

perceived as muting voices of the

community.

TopicPros - No comments Cons - No comments

## Staff

## Workload:

•Reduces time needed to

monitor posts.

•Reduces emotional labor

required to manage, review

and respond to comments

on viral posts.

•Eliminates the ability to automate

publishing, requiring staff to manually

publish each post and disable

comments. This increases workload

and complicates coverage during PTO

and absences, given Richfield's small

communications team (1.6 FTE).

•Increases pressure on staff time and

budgets to develop and facilitate

other ways to collect input from

residents.

•Increases staff time spent developing

new strategies for promoting events

and communicating with attendees.

## Staff

feedback

•When asked, city staff across all departments

strongly prefer to keep the ability to comment

on our city channels. Staff acknowledge the

frustration and pain caused by hurtful comments

but see the benefits of two-way communications

as far more beneficial to their work.

## Staff

## Recommendation:

Given the best practice

recommendations from local and

national sources, the need for ongoing

city engagement tools and input from

staff, we recommend allowing

comments on posts for all platforms.

## Discussion:

1.What have you heard from residents on this topic? How many

residents have contacted you with concerns about social media

comments? Do they understand the implications of removing

social media comments?

2.What is the end-goal of removing comments?

3.If social media comments were not available, how would you, as

council members, gather public input on topics?

•Comprehensive Plan

•Strategic Plan

•Policy change related to sidewalks / boulevard trees / etc.

## City Council Meeting 7/14/2026

## Agenda Section: Item Discussion

Agenda Item: 2.c.

## Report Prepared By:

## Karl Huemiller, Recreation Director

## Department Director:

## Karl Huemiller, Recreation Director

## Item for Consideration:

## Natural Resources Management Plan

## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Richfield has more than 300 acres of natural areas in parks, the majority of which are in

four parks: Richfield Lake Park, Taft Park, Veterans Park, and Wood Lake Nature

Center. Each year, the City receives frequent requests related to the maintenance of

these natural areas, as well as inquiries from residents and partner organizations

seeking volunteer opportunities to support ecological stewardship.

Significant county, state, and federal resources, including technical assistance and

grant funding, are available to support the long-term care of natural resources.

However, access to many of these programs requires the City to have a formal Natural

Resources Management Plan. Richfield has not previously had such a plan. This has

limited the City's ability to pursue funding and partnerships or to provide consistent

maintenance across the sites.

To address this need, City staff have contracted with Great River Greening to develop

## Richfield’s first Natural Resources Management Plan. Great River Greening brings

extensive technical experience in ecological planning and restoration, having prepared

## Natural Resources Management Plans for several Minnesota cities, including Crystal,

Saint Louis Park, and Woodbury. They have also been working with staff on grant-

funded natural resources projects at Wood Lake Nature Center.

The purpose of the Natural Resources Management Plan is to establish clear goals,

priorities, and a long-term framework for managing the City’s natural areas in a way that

balances ecological health, recreation, and community expectations. The draft plan

outlines existing conditions, key challenges, and recommended objectives for each of

the City’s major natural areas, along with a phased approach for achieving those

objectives. Cost estimates will be added once the goals and phasing have been further

refined. When a more complete draft is ready, it will be published for public review and

comment.

## RECOMMENDED ACTION

Staff is looking for feedback related to the goals for each site in the Natural

Resources Management Plan.

## EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS

Having a Natural Resources Management Plan will help to manage the City's natural

areas in a sustainable way based on long-term objectives.

## POLICIES (RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, STATUTES, ETC.)

## None

## CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES

## None

## FINANCIAL IMPACT

The Natural Resoucres Managment Plan will provide guidance on the cost and phasing

on natural resources work in the identified parks. The plan will be an important resource

when applying for grants.

## LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

## None

## ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)

## None

## ATTACHMENTS

## 1. Draft Natural Resources Management Plan

## 2. Natural Resources Management Plan Council Work Session Presentation

0

## NATURAL

## RESOURCE

## MANAGEMENT

## PLAN

## CITY OF RICHFIELD

## Richfield Lake Park, Veterans Memorial

## Park , Taft Park, and Wood Lake Nature

## Center

## Karl Huemiller

## Great River Greening

2026

## Natural Resource Management Plan:

## City of Richfield

## Richfield Lake Park, Veterans Memorial Park, Taft Park,

## and Wood Lake Nature Center

## Prepared for: The City of Richfield

## Prepared by: Great River Greening, March 202 6

## Contributing Authors:

## Rebecca Tucker

## Evelyn Moran

Suggested Citation: Great River Greening, 2026. Natural Resource Management Plan: City of Richfield, Richfield

Lake Park, Veterans Memorial Park, Taft Park, and Wood Lake Nature Center.

Front Cover Images taken by Rebecca Tucker: Entrance bridge at Richfield Lake Park, path and prairie at Wood

Lake Nature Center, gray-headed coneflower (Ratibida pinnata) at Veterans Lake Park, swamp milkweed (Asclepias

incarnata) at Taft Lake Park, and ostrich fern (Matteuccia struthiopteris) at Wood Lake Nature Center.

## ©2026 by Great River Greening

## Great River Greening

251 Starkey St #2200

## St Paul, MN 55107

## Rebecca Tucker, Twin Cities Metro Program Manager

(M.S. Plant Ecology and Population Genetics, Purdue University)

Rebecca has been with Great River Greening since fall of 2017, progressing from Ecologist to Program

Manager in that time. She currently manages two staff and over 30 restoration projects throughout

Minnesota, coordinating habitat enhancement contracts, pollinator monitoring projects, and frequent

public engagement opportunities. Rebecca has a Master of Science in Botany from Purdue University

and a Bachelor of Science in Biology from the University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point, during both of

which she engaged the public with a variety of educational talks and worked on numerous farm and

greenhouse research projects. rtucker@greatrivergreening.org

## Evelyn Moran, Project Manager

## (M.S. Water Resources Management, University of Wisconsin Madison)

Evelyn started as an ecologist as a part of Great River Greening’s Conservation Program staff in 2023

and has since transitioned into the metro regional project manager role. She is responsible for

preliminary site assessments, assisting with development and design of restoration management,

conducting vegetation surveys, pollinator habitat assessment, and cultivating long-term relationships

for each project. At UW-Madison, Evelyn studied the suitability of wild rice habitat (Zizania palustris

and Zizania aquatica) which involved water quality monitoring, vegetation surveys, climate modeling,

and invasive species control. His research provides a framework to implement innovative restoration

management strategies that are both technically feasible and scientifically valid.

## GR EAT RIVER GREENING

Great River Greening’s mission is to secure the legacy of Minnesota land and water through

community-based restoration, stewardship, and partnership, striving to improve Minnesota’s natural

resources, protect clean air and water, and increase community access to sustainable open space.

## Contents

1. Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 8

Project description ..................................................................................................................... 8

2. General City Background and Context ....................................................................................... 8

2.a. Location of city in relation to region. .................................................................................... 8

2.b. Location of parks within city ............................................................................................... 9

2.c. Broad summary of resource threats and management goals ................................................ 9

3. RICHFIELD LAKE PARK ............................................................................................................ 11

3.a. Project Site Vegetation and Habitat Assessment ............................................................... 11

3.b. Restoration Objectives ..................................................................................................... 16

3.c. Habitat Complexes and Management Comments .............................................................. 19

3.d. Restoration Management Phasing & Cost Estimate Summary ............................................ 23

3.e. Management Unit Recommendations ............................................................................... 24

3.f. Long Term Maintenance Recommendations ....................................................................... 25

4. VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK ..................................................................................................... 0

4.a. Project Site Vegetation and Habitat Assessment ................................................................. 0

4.b. Restoration Objectives ....................................................................................................... 6

4.c. Habitat Complexes and Management Comments ................................................................ 8

4.d. Restoration Management Phasing & Cost Estimate Summary ............................................ 13

4.e. Management Unit Recommendations ............................................................................... 14

4.f. Long Term Maintenance Recommendations ....................................................................... 16

5. TAFT PARK .............................................................................................................................. 17

5.a. Project Site Vegetation and Habitat Assessment ............................................................... 17

5.b. Restoration Objectives ..................................................................................................... 23

5.c. Habitat Complexes and Management Comments .............................................................. 25

5.d. Restoration Management Phasing & Cost Estimate Summary ............................................ 32

5.e. Management Unit Recommendations ............................................................................... 33

5.f. Long Term Maintenance Recommendations ....................................................................... 35

6. WOOD LAKE NATURE CENTER ................................................................................................ 36

6.a. Project Site Vegetation and Habitat Assessment ............................................................... 36

6.b. Restoration Objectives ..................................................................................................... 43

6.c. Habitat Complexes and Management Comments .............................................................. 46

6.d. Restoration Management Phasing & Cost Estimate Summary ............................................ 52

6.e. Management Unit Recommendations ............................................................................... 53

6.f. Long Term Maintenance Recommendations ....................................................................... 55

Appendix A: Specifications ......................................................................................................... 56

6. Forestry mowing ............................................................................................................. 58

Appendix B: Seed Mixes.............................................................................................................. 65

Appendix C: Target Native Plant Communities of Minnesota Species Lists .................................... 74

Appendix D: Invasive and Noxious Terrestrial Plant Management.................................................. 78

Appendix E: Conservation Planning Report .................................................................................. 81

Appendix F: Tree and shrub species recommendations ............................................................... 82

Appendix G: Summary of Rare Features within Project Areas ....................................................... 83

Appendix H: Water Resources .................................................................................................... 86

Appendix I: Soil Terminology ....................................................................................................... 86

Appendix J: Soil Results .............................................................................................................. 90

Citations – (Will be fully edited prior to final draft) ........................................................................... 93

## 1. Executive Summary

Project description

The City of Richfield seeks to improve the quality of its existing vegetation through ecological restoration

and management efforts. This Natural Resources Management Plan (NRMP) identifies the City’s natural

resource management goals for Richfield Lake Park, Taft Park, Veterans Memorial Park, and Wood Lake

Nature Center, and serves as a guideline and resource for those important tasks. The natural landscapes

in these public parks support a vast range of ecological functions including pollinator and wildlife

habitat, carbon storage, water filtration, flood regulation, and the development and enrichment of soil.

Land use intensification has significantly reduced native plant community habitats. Great River

Greening’s assessment of the project sites provides information on the existing plant community

structure and inform s restoration recommendations. Restoration of these project sites will support

pollinator foraging resources, water quality and streambank erosion, pollutant uptake from urban

surface runoff, climate resiliency, and overall visual enhancement of this public outdoor space.

The focus area for this document includes over 300 acres of publicly accessible woodland, floodplain,

shoreline, and open water. The four sites of interest will be referred to as Richfield Lake Park, Veterans

Memorial Park, Taft Park, and Wood Lake Nature Center for the duration of the management plan.

However, vegetation inventories and management recommendations are specific to the project

boundaries defined in Figure 1. The hydrology of the focus areas and all wetland or lake specific habitat

and restoration is beyond the scope of this document. This management plan is guided by existing

vegetation, soils, and topography and will provide guidance on woody invasive control, debris and

hazard tree removal, understory enhancement, invasive herbaceous control, shoreline enhancements,

and turf to prairie conversion throughout project units. The recommendations of each management unit

should be considered the initial phase of a long-term commitment to land management.

## 2. General City Background and Context

2.a. Location of city in relation to region.

The City of Richfield is located northwest of the Minnesota River between Minneapolis and Bloomington

in Hennepin County, Minnesota. It is bordered by Highways 62 and 77 and Interstate 494 with Interstate

35W passing through the center. As part of the Saint Paul – Minneapolis metropolitan area, Richfield

primarily consists of residential and commercial land use with a population greater than 36,000. Of the

approximately 7 sq miles of city area, the City of Richfield’s park system currently consists of 450 acres of

designated park land throughout 23 park sites

1

.

Much of the current parklands were previously farmed in the early 1900s or were areas adjacent to

bodies of water leading to limited areas unimpacted by land-use or development in the recent century.

The park system began development in the 19 60’s and 70’s after the suburb’s mid-century population

boo m and highway development, with the 150 -acre Wood Lake Nature Center opening in 1971,

establishing one of the earliest public environmental educational facilities in the Twin Cities

2,3

. Continued

expansion of the public spaces in the city now provid e natural spaces throughout this residential city

that serve as corridors for the movement of wildlife and protection of natural resources as well as areas

of outdoor recreation for the community.

2.b. Location of parks within city

Figure 1. Location of project sites Richfield Lake Park, Veterans Memorial, Taft Park, and Wood Lake Nature Center within

the City of Richfield.

The four parks of focus in this NRMP are Richfield Lake Park, Veterans Memorial Park, Taft Park, and

Wood Lake Nature Center. These parks sit directly or adjacent to several of the main roadways and are

under the flight path of the Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport. The prominent lakes in the four

focus parks, Richfield Lake, Legion Lake, Wood Lake, and Taft Lake, respectively, are managed for habitat,

recreation, water retention and stormwater management. Open water areas and wetlands will not be

addressed directly in this NRMP beyond the shorelines and adjacent upland habitats.

2.c. Broad summary of resource threats and management goals

These parks broadly represent a widely visited “mixed-use” urban park system. The native or unmanaged

areas of the parks are heavily impacted by both the park design and activities, turf lawns mowed for

public access or paved parking lots with impermeable surfaces, as well as by the surrounding urban

landscape and share several common themes for conservation concern. The established, mature

vegetation, primarily mature trees, and developed or stewarded “natural” areas ha ve some degree of

resilience against external threats to the resources which city staff, and public volunteers are working to

maintain and steward. However, several potential pressures are worth noting, as they have potential to

affect both the current and restored conditions.

## Invasive Species

Any site in an urban context is prone to an array of invasive species vectors. In Richfield, there are pre-

existing infestations of invasive species that have the potential to spread and migrate around the site. In

addition to these “ internal ” populations, seed s may be introduced to the site via pedestrian traffic

(shoes, dogs, etc.), equipment used to maintain the site and potentially spread by wind or wildlife in the

case of many invasive species. It is recommended that any efforts to manage the site prioritize invasive

removal site-wide, and that early detection and mitigation of invasive species be considered an ongoing

maintenance priority. Long term, the best protection against invasive species is to establish a robust,

competitive native vegetation because this makes the site less prone to colonization by invasive species

that create a monoculture.

The prominent set of problematic plant species that may suppress or negatively impact native habitats

throughout these four parks are common to Minnesota and the Twin Cities, consisting of but not limited

to the e xotic and invasive shrubs (common and glossy buckthorn, multiple honeysuckles), grasses ( reed

canary grass), forbs (garlic mustard, purple loosestrife), and trees (black locust, Siberian elm). More

details on specific populations in each park can be found in their respective sections, and a larger list of

potential species with their management recommendations can be found in Appendix F: Invasive and

Noxious Terrestrial Plant Management.

Climate change and shifting weather patterns

The effects of climate change may be difficult to predict with accuracy, but scientific consensus indicates

warming global temperatures have already and will continue to influence localized conditions here in

## Minnesota

7

. Recent years have seen increased incidents of 100- and 500-year floods, followed by

prolonged significant drought in 2022 and 2023

6

. Increases in average temperatures and degree days

are also projected to increase, which may alter the viability of native species and their ability to survive

and thrive in our environment

5

. Given this threat, future revegetation may favor what is termed

“accelerated migration,” meaning selection of plants that have a demonstrated tolerance of climatic

conditions that resemble what we may experience in our local area. Enhancing landscapes to be more

resilient to drought (prairies and oak savannas) is a recommended strategy

4

. Another potential impact of

climate-driven weather events is the potential for problematic conditions (prolonged drought, flooding,

etc.), that in addition to impacting survival of some species, may make it difficult to execute

management in a conventional way, meet deadlines, and keep activities within cost parameters.

Public disturbance

As a well-utilized public park system, many of these sites see a significant amount of foot traffic. It is

worth noting that there are several natural areas where individuals have altered the site to create

unsanctioned foot trails or adjacent landowners have encroached on city property, as well as some

areas where native plantings have been started but overall management of adjacent areas have

superseded or degraded the establishment of the plants. While some of this activity may have been

done with good intention, it can run counter to the larger habitat management goals of the sites and

should be addressed.

Larger efforts to leverage the interest on the part of park users to engage in the restoration of the site

according to the management objectives set forth by the city, with the goal of providing viable and

appropriate ways for the community to interact with the site, may steward connection to these restored

or enhanced areas. This could take shape as volunteer planting events, construction of city-sanctioned

soft trails using chipped material from restoration activities (woody removals), signage explaining newly

installed plantings, etc. Communication and engagement with the public will be essential for the long-

term success of restoration activities.

## Erosion

Both climate and pedestrian activity may contribute to increased risk of erosive activity in high trafficked

areas with limited native vegetation. Management strategies should include robust understory

vegetation installation and may require erosion control blanketing for successful establishment.

Pedestrian accessible areas should be clearly defined to avoid trampling or encroaching management

efforts ( i.e. mowing) which create more opportunities for runoff. Removal of invasive brush and

subsequent revegetation are also important activities to reduce erosive effects, particularly adjacent to

wetlands or low-lying areas.

## 3. RICHFIELD LAKE PARK

## 3.a. Project Site Vegetation and Habitat Assessment

Figure 1. General location of Richfield Lake Park project boundary within the City of Richfield, MN.

Richfield Lake Park is 24 acres of city parkland dominated by Richfield Lake, with approximately 1 mile of

paved walking trails on a n elevated causeway surrounding the lake and a developed play area with a

basketball half-court. Multiple neighborhood entrance points provide pedestrian access to this park,

which is ringed with both residential and business properties. The manageable upland habitat of

Richfield Lake Park covers only 10.3 acres, with inaccessible islands scattered throughout the lake. This

upland habitat extends on both sides of the narrow walkway as well as on the outer shoreline,

frequently sharing property boundaries with private homes or apartment complexes. Some access exists

to these outer shoreline upland areas, but many areas are steep with no direct connection to public

property.

The following summary of vegetation structure reflects the dominant and notable species identified

throughout the 2025 growing season at Richfield Lake Park and does not reflect a comprehensive survey

of all species within the project site.

Table 1. Terrestrial vegetation observed at Richfield Lake Park throughout fall, 2025.

## Scientific Name Common Name Nativity

## Canopy

## Acer negundo Box Elder Native

## Morus alba White Mulberry Non-native, Invasive

## Populus deltoides Cottonwood Native

## Populus tremuloides Quaking Aspen Native, weedy

## Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Native

## Acer saccharum Sugar Maple Native

## Ulmus americana American Elm Native

## Acer saccharinum Silver Maple Native

## Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak Native

## Ulmus pumila Siberian Elm Non-native, Invasive

## Salix interior Sandbar Willow Native

## Salix petiolaris Slender Willow Native

## Quercus bicolor Swamp White Oak Native

## Sub-canopy

## Rhamnus cathartica Common Buckthorn Non-native, Invasive

## Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry Native

## Salix eriocephala Heart-Leaved Willow Native

## Cornus rugosa Round-Leaved Dogwood Native

## Cornus sericea Red-Osier Dogwood Native

## Apocynum cannabinum American Hemp Native

## Ground

vegetation

## Impatiens capensis Spotted Touch-Me-Not Native

## Sicyos angulatus Bur Cucumber Native

## Ageratina altissima White Snakeroot Native

## Arctium minus Common Burdock Non-native, Invasive

## Leonurus cardiaca Common Motherwort Non-native, Invasive

## Melilotus albus White Sweet Clover Non-native, Invasive

## Solidago canadensis Canada Goldenrod Native

## Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia Creeper Native

## Circaea canadensis Common Enchanter's Nightshade Native

## Maianthemum racemosum Common False Solomon's Seal Native

## Urtica dioica Stinging Nettle Native

## Eutrochium maculatum Spotted Joe Pye Weed Native

## Calystegia sepium Hedge Bindweed Native

## Verbena stricta Hoary Vervain Native

## Fragaria virginiana Common Strawberry Native

## Lythrum salicaria Purple Loosestrife Non-native, Invasive

## Asclepias syriaca Common Milkweed Native

## Vitis riparia Wild Grape Native

## Ambrosia trifida Great ragweed Native

## Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS)

The Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) cover types for Richfield Lake Park are shown

in Table 6 and Figure 3. Although this classification system informs our understanding of site

composition and habitat complexes, technological limitations of MLCCS and land use changes should be

considered to accurately depict current conditions. Due to the rapidly changing nature of urban parks

and redundancies amongst code definitions, the MLCCS cover types were condensed and simplified into

general land use categories and descriptions for Richfield Lake Park.

The MLCCS survey identified fourteen different land cover types representing five general land use types

within the project boundary (Table 6). Most of the site is mapped as altered, non-native deciduous

woodland and palustrine open water, with mixed emergent marsh habitat scattered along the northern

shoreline . The deciduous woodlands at Richfield Lake Park ha ve seen significant disturbance with land

use intensification, resulting in non-native encroachment and poor habitat quality overall. Richfield Lake

surface water flows southbound to Wood Lake, and all water levels are managed. Seasonal flooding is

evident in areas of the site, identified as mixed emergent marsh habitat and intermittently exposed non-

native vegetation in Figure 3. Recreational land use, consisting of a playground, basketball court, turf

grass, and paved trails, occurs in the northwest corner of the project area, classified as short grasses on

upland soils.

Table 2. Minnesota Land Cover Classification System codes throughout Richfield Park, Richfield, MN

## Map ID MLCCS Codes Category MLCCS Code Name/Description

1 52220, 42130,

42210

Woodlands Altered/non-native deciduous woodland and shrubland

with temporary flooding exists throughout 33% of the

project area.

2 23211, 13114 Maintained

short grasses

Short grasses on upland soils with sparse canopy and

impervious cover exists throughout 2% of the project

area.

4 14122, 14113,

14123

Buildings and

## Pavement

Buildings and pavement exist throughout 4% of the

project area.

5 14214 Transitional

## Land

Other exposed/transitional land with minimal impervious

cover exists throughout 1% of the project area.

6 93300 Open Water Palustrine open water exists throughout 37% of the

project area.

7 61730, 61480,

61520, 61620

Wetlands Seasonally flooded mixed emergent marsh with altered/

non-native graminoid vegetation exists throughout 23%

of the project area.

Figure 2. Minnesota Land Cover Classification System codes throughout Richfield Park, Richfield, MN.

## Minnesota DNR Native Plant Community Classification (MNDNR NPC)

Native plant community (NPC) types are defined by dominant canopy

trees, variation in substrate, or fine-scale differences in environmental

factors such as moisture or nutrients, based on vegetation surveys

collected between 1995 and 2003. While these NPCs describe

remnant habitat structures that existed in this region of Minnesota,

significant changes in land use throughout the surrounding metro

have caused disturbance and fragmentation. Therefore, the following

NPCs help to inform the historical, current, and target vegetation

structure rather than define exact conditions. The nature of this site

being within a disturbed metro landscape means it is faced with

varying levels of habitat degradation, invasive species introduction,

hydrologic regime shifts, and the suppressions of natural disturbance

regimes required by native ecosystems, which is evident based on the

vegetation composition (Image 1) .

The current canopy includes flood tolerant species including silver

maple (Acer saccharinum), cottonwood (Populus deltoides), swamp

white oak (Quercus bicolor), willows (Salix spp.), and common elderberry (Sambucus canadensis),

indicating floodplain forest habitat (FFs59). Mesic hardwood indicator species exist throughout the

project area including green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), American elm (Ulmus americana), boxelder

(Acer negundo), and various dogwood species (Cornus spp.) (MHs49 and MHs37). Upland areas of open

canopy contain more mesic to dry tolerant herbaceous species like hoary vervain (Verbena stricta) and

Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), indicative of dryer soil conditions (like a southern mesic prairie

(UPs23). However, due to the fragmented nature of this habitat type and canopy goals of the site, this

NPC will not directly guide restoration. Descriptions of primary native plant community types that are

indicative of the dominant vegetation throughout Richfield Lake Park are provided below. Due to the

density and composition of NPC indicator species, FFs59 Southern Terrace Forrest and MHs49 Southern

Wet-Mesic Hardwood Forest will guide the target restoration plant community for the shoreline and

upland areas at Richfield Lake Park, respectively, and is further outlined in the following sections.

Table 3. Primary MN DNR native plant community types indicative of the dominant vegetation at Richfield Lake Park,

Richfield, MN.

## NPC

## Code

## NPC Code

## Name

## Description

## FFs59 Southern

## Terrace Forest

Wet-mesic deciduous forests on silty or sandy alluvium on level,

occasionally flooded sites along small streams to large rivers in the

southern half of Minnesota. Species composition is variable, but American

elm, green ash, hackberry, basswood, box elder, silver maple, black ash,

and cottonwood are often common. Swamp white oak is important in

some stands in southeastern Minnesota.

## MHs49 Southern Wet-

## Mesic

## Hardwood

## Forest

Rich, wet-mesic lowland hardwood forests on level silty alluvium in stream

valleys and on level glacial till bordering lakes. Sites are protected from

fire, and soils remain moist throughout the growing season.

Image 1. Wooded corridor along

southern shoreline of Richfield Lake,

Richfield, MN.

## 3.b. Restoration Objectives

The overall management goals for Richfield Lake Park are to balance the recreational use of the space

with ecological and environmental needs. Richfield Lake fills an important recreational role in the City,

offering walking paths and lake views. It also provides important water-retention services and contains

valuable habitat for a diverse range of wildlife and shoreline plant species. Narrow pathways and the

largely inaccessible outer shoreline pose restoration challenges that will affect how the stated goals can

be achieved. Ideal canopy structure currently exists on the east side of Richfield Lake and should be

referenced for target canopy density as it allows visibility of the lake (Image X). Proposed management

activities will consider the challenges of restoring a disturbed urban landscape and should continue to be

evaluated as environmental conditions change over time. The priority outcome of all restoration areas is

diverse, resilient, and sustainable plant communities that provide the desired recreational experience.

Within this context of urbanized natural habitats, there are several areas that group into the following

management complexes defined in the unit descriptions in section 3.b.c. The restoration objectives

below, and the following proposed activities and timelines for management and maintenance, may

overlap between units where the targeted Native Plant Communities are similar.

## Recreation Management Area Objectives

 Maintain a diversity of views of the lake for recreational users at benches and lake access points.

Provide other views where feasible (Figure 3).

 Stabilize shoreline to reduce trail maintenance and shoreline erosion.

 Develop canopy to shade walking trail.

 Maintain a healthy natural space by removing invasive species and encouraging the growth of

native plants at all forest levels.

 Protect Stormwater infrastructure

 Manage impacts of geese

## Ecological Restoration Objectives

1. Restore and enhance upland woody habitat (MHs 49 – Southern Wet-Mesic Hardwood Forest)

a. Strategies

i. Initial removal and continued control of invasive, hazard, and non-suitable trees and

shrubs.

ii. Re-establish a native tree canopy cover of 50- 100 % after undesirable canopy removal.

iii. Maintain a representative age class to allow for regeneration.

iv. Prevent shoreline erosion through vegetation establishment.

v. Enhance understory diversity with deep rooted mesic-woodland grass, forbs, and shrub

species native to Minnesota. See Appendix B for recommended species.

vi. Historical and existing native vegetation structure should be considered for future

habitat enhancement species selection.

2. Restore and enhance shoreline habitat (FFs59 – Southern Terrace Forrest)

a. Strategies

i. Initial removal and continued control of invasive, hazard, and non-suitable trees and

shrubs.

ii. Re-canopy areas targeted for invasive, hazard, and undesirable woody removal to filter

pollutants carried by runoff from the landscape into nearby surface water.

iii. Improve shoreline stabilization and soil health by planting deep rooted native floodplain

species.

3. Reduction/mitigation of non-native and invasive species introduction

a. Strategies

i. Management of invasive vegetation prior to seed production is a priority to limit

encroachment to areas with active control.

ii. Document location, density, and area of invasive populations with GIS.

iii. When feasible, use biological control.

iv. Where biological control is not available, use chemical and mechanical means to control.

v. Monitor infested areas for effectiveness of control.

vi. Provide education to community members and adjacent landowners regarding

prevention and management.

4. Consider impacts to wildlife, habitat management, and visitor use of Richfield Lake Park

a. Strategies

i. Install signage of restoration and management activities at entry points that explain

restoration activities and their importance to ecosystem health.

ii. When possible, remove or stack felled or dead trees away from trails.

iii. Provide access that is sensitive to surrounding landscape and minimizes impact on

natural resources.

Image 2. Eastern shoreline with oaks at Richfield Lake Park in June 2026,

representing ideal viewscapes from trail and target restoration ecosystem

canopy density for shoreline work unit.

Figure 2. Target restoration ecosystems, by work unit, defined by MN DNR Native Plant Communities recommended for

Richfield Lake Park, Richfield, MN.

## 3.c. Habitat Complexes and Management Comments

These habitat complexes are guided by the Native Plant Communities (NPC), defined by the MNDNR,

and have been simplified to streamline the recommended management activities. Following the

description of each habitat type, observations and commentary on the specifics of each identified

management unit at Richfield Lake Park are discussed.

The following section also contains specific recommendations for the execution of management

objectives at each work unit (Fig. 5). In each unit, observations are detailed based on observed

conditions as of Fall of 2025. The recommended activities are proposed here generally as a sequential

timeline, with high-disturbance activities such as woody debris and major invasive control being first

priority, followed by subsequent follow-up measures and vegetation enhancement. Management

comments should continue to be evaluated as environmental conditions change over time. A more

structured presentation of the proposed activity timeline across the site is detailed in the cost summary

table in section 3.d. , with the per-unit tasks broken down in the table found in 3.e.. Recommended

activities could be phased across a wider time frame, or by specific units per phase, as funding and

capacity require, although it should be recognized that alignment of similar management activities

chronologically across the entire site will likely provide increased efficiency and lower cost-per-acre, due

to efficiency of scale. Long-term maintenance recommendations are broken down into 5-10- and 10-20-

year recommendations in section 3.e., however, inflation changes should be considered. Section 3.f. lists

recommended specifications related to the associated management actions. Refinement of exact

specifications will still be required when any management guidance is translated into a request for

proposals or implementation by city staff.

## Target Ecosystem MHs49 – Southern Wet-Mesic Hardwood Forest

Work Unit 1: Upland Woodland __________________________

Description: The canopy in this unit is indicative of upland

dry-mesic woodland, dominant with American elm,

cottonwood, maples, green ash, and occasional bur oaks. The

inner lowland boundary of this unit transitions into

stormwater ponds with minimally fluctuating water levels.

Occasional dead down woody debris is distributed

throughout this unit resulting from historical stormwater

restoration efforts. Avoid removing debris that is providing

topsoil stabilization to prevent unnecessary erosion. Invasive

species like Siberian elm and common buckthorn occur at

variable densities and should be priority for removal. The

canopy is also dense with native but aggressive species like

boxelder and white mulberry. There is almost no understory

vegetation in these dense areas, therefore, thinning of

overabundant boxelders and mulberries will create

opportunities for more diversity in the understory vegetation

(see Image 1). A stormwater drain is located at the

southernmost point of the unit containing native forbs, which

Image 3. Unit 1 woodland understory

surrounding eastern access point at Richfield

Lake Park.

could be a great opportunity for pocket prairie planting. The recreational turf area located on the

northwest west edge of unit 1 will remain in its existing condition, but proximal work should consider

the presence of park-users.

Management comments:

1. Disposal of existing woody debris is suggested to be

conducted prior to woody invasive removal to maximize

accessibility.

2. Cutting, treating, and removing woody herbaceous species

like buckthorn, white mulberry, and Siberian elm is

recommended in winter under frozen ground conditions.

3. Proactive and hazard tree removal should be conducted to

prevent trail obstructions and could be done simultaneously

with woody invasive control and disposal.

4. Continued thinning of weedy native trees like boxelder, silver

maple, green ash, and American elm should be considered

for this unit to maintain opportunity for successful native

understory establishment and views. Based on current

(2026) densities and high abundance of small saplings, the

woodland unit could benefit from ~20% removal of each

species without compromising shoreline stabilization.

5. Woody debris within a 6-foot buffer of wetland could be

slashed and bucked up for erosion control and habitat structure purposes. If equipment can be

used on frozen soils to minimize disturbance, this is preferred, but if growing season removal

occurs, disturbed areas should be stabilized. This should be completed prior to any habitat

enhancement.

6. Following woody removal and control of non-native herbaceous cover, the area should be

seeded with native graminoids. Following satisfactory follow-up control of invasive species,

native forbs could be added.

7. After the ground layer has received supplemental vegetation, the shrub layer could be enhanced

8. Continued spot maintenance of woody and herbaceous invasive species is required several

years following initial removal to improve establishment of seeded areas.

9. Stinging Nettle (Urtica dioica) indicates that surplus nutrients may emerge and require multiple

activities to prepare the site for reseeding.

## Target Ecosystem FFs59 – Southern Terrace Forrest

## Work Unit 2: Shoreline ___________________________________________________

Description: Surface water exists on both sides of the paved walking trail throughout most of this work

unit except for the southwest wooded shoreline, making erosion control a general priority for all

restoration efforts. The southwest wooded shoreline has been minimally managed due to limited access

Image 4. Hazard dead standing tree

adjacent to path on eastern shoreline

of Richfield Lake Park.

and wet soil conditions. Thinning of weedy trees

like boxelder and mulberry is also recommended

in this unit, however, indicator species like swamp

white oak and bur oak mak es the overstory a

candidate for preservation. Dense monocultures

of willows exist throughout much of the site, and

replacement with native shrubs and trees is

recommended to enhance diversity and reconnect

the canopy after initial woody removals. The

wooded shoreline surrounding the western access

point becomes denser with silver maples and is

like unit 1 in that understory is very shaded and

bare. The north west shoreline transitions into

mixed emergent marsh habitat, containing

herbaceous species like purple loosestrife that

will require follow up treatment (see Image 2). Silver maple continues to be dominant in the canopy

throughout the north and east side of the shoreline unit . Willows become very dense along the eastern

shoreline where upland habitat narrows (see Image X).

1. Several standing dead trees adjacent to the walking trail in the northern and eastern part of th is

unit should be considered for priority hazard removal (Image X) . Dead down debris removal and

disposal , especially along the southwest shoreline, should be kept to a minimum throughout this

unit to maintain shoreline stabilization. Consider biochar

production if onsite disposal when necessary.

2. There are several large trees overhanging the stormwater

ponds, which should be removed to prevent stormwater

infrastructure obstruction. Debris along the southwest

shoreline should be bucked up and dispersed to provide

shoreline stabilization or habitat piles.

3. Following hazard tree removal, the next target should be

invasive trees and shrubs, especially common buckthorn,

Siberian elm, and white mulberry.

4. This unit contains numerous mature cottonwoods and

oaks . Although dense, removal of boxelders and silver

maple should be less extensive compared to unit 1 to

minimize non-target damage to these high-quality native

trees and maintain erosion control.

5. Willows are highly dense throughout much of this unit,

especially on the north side of the shoreline (Image X) .

They are providing a critical source of shoreline

stabilization, therefore it is recommended to only remove small, isolated populations of willow,

rather than large clonal stands. More aggressive willow removal will be conducted in the Open

Canopy subunit of the shoreline, explained below.

Image 5 Emergent marsh habitat in northwest shoreline of

Richfield Lake Park.

Image 6. Dense willow suckers along

narrow northeastern shoreline at

Richfield Lake Park.

6. Following woody removal and control of non-native herbaceous cover, the area should be

seeded with native graminoids. This would be an excellent time frame to have community

shrub/tree planting effort to restore target canopy cove.

7. Following satisfactory follow-up control of invasive species, native forbs could be added.

8. After the ground layer receives supplemental vegetation, the shrub layer could be enhanced

with native woody plantings.

9. Winter seeding in compact soil areas is recommended because foot traffic will be reduced, and

freeze-thaw cycles tend to loosen soils and allow seed to migrate to establish good soil contact

especially given the compacted soils where disturbance has occurred.

## 10. Maintain Bench Views & Open Canopy Area

a. The stretch of shoreline indicated as open canopy on Figure X contains existing pockets

of open canopy. H owever, density increases by the westernmost access point,

obstructing visibility of bikes turning the corner (Image 7 ). This segment of the shoreline

is dense with white mulberry and boxelder. Removal of 60% of the canopy around the

trail curve is recommended to improve visibility.

b. All woody species will be cut, treated, and removed within a 50-foot linear stretch in

front (facing the lake) of all benches throughout unit 1 to maintain viewscapes.

c. Interior sandbar willow should be cut and stump treated with an aquatic grade herbicide.

d. The southern stretch of this subunit has two stormwater filtration infrastructure areas

where the canopy must always remain open (50-ft diameter) for city access.

e. Continued

management of

emerging herbaceous

and woody invasive

species will be

necessary for

understory

establishment.

f. Overseeding this area

every fall with the

recommended seed

mix defined in

## Appendix B to

encourage lakeshore

edge diversity.

g. Image X depicts the

long-term target canopy

cover around the

shoreline to maintain views of the lake.

Image 7. Area indicated as 'Maintain Open Canopy' on the Richfield Lake

Work Unit Map.

## 3.d. Restoration Management Phasing & Cost Estimate Summary

Total management costs* were based on 5-year management plans. Total 5-year costs for all vegetation management are $XXX,XXX . Cost

estimation is based on current 2025 market rates, subcontracting all implementation and necessary oversight, and the assumption that all

management units are implemented concurrently. Management unit nuances may influence cost totals and should be considered.

*All prices are estimates based on current market rates at the time of writing. Estimates do not factor in any state dollars being used to perform activities. Due

to new language change in statute as of August 1, 2024, any natural resource related projects need to follow state prevailing wage requirements. This change

in state statute language will have an increase in actual costs.

Activity Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

## Applicable

## Management Units

Dead down woody disposal $XX,XXX 1, 2

Hazard tree removal $XX,XXX 1, 2

Woody invasive control $XX,XXX $X,XXX $X,XXX $X,XXX 1, 2

Establishment maintenance $XX,XXX $X,XXX $X,XXX $X,XXX $3,900 1, 2

Herbaceous invasive control $X,XXX 1, 2

Non-native grass removal $X,XXX 1, 2

Woody follow up maintenance $X,XXX $X,XXX 1, 2

Reed canary grass control $X,XXX $X,XXX $X,XXX 1, 2

Plant native savanna trees $X,XXX $X,XXX $X,XXX $600 1, 2

Understory seeding $X,XXX $X,XXX $X,XXX $1,800 1, 2

Plant native pollinator shrubs $X,XXX 1, 2

Reseeding $X,XXX 1, 2

Shoreline buffer plantings $X,XXX $X,XXX $X,XXX 1, 2

Planting of native trees and shrubs $X,XXX $X,XXX 1, 2

Total $XXX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $X,XXX $XXX,XXX

## 3.e. Management Unit Recommendations

Note: Priority index is on a scale from 1 to 5 (1=high priority, 5=low priority).

## Existing Land Cover

## Types

## Acres Target Land Cover Recommended Actions Priority

## Index

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Assumptions and Notes

## Management Unit 1

## Altered/non-native

mesic hardwood

4.3 Upland woody

habitat (MHs49 –

## Southern Wet-Mesic

## Hardwood Forest)

Woody invasive control 1 $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX Cut, treat, pile, burn on site or chip

Hazard tree removal 2 $XX,XXX Haul off or chip for trails

Dead down woody

disposal

## 1 $XX,XXX

Reed canary grass

control

3 $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX Two treatments year 2, Rx burn year

3, final spray and seeding year 4

Understory seeding 3 $XX,XXX $XX,XXX Seed understory after BT removal,

seed grasslands after RCG removal

Planting of native trees

and shrubs

4 $XX,XXX $XX,XXX Plant year 4, maintenance year 5

## Management Unit 2

## Altered/non-native

mesic hardwood

6 Shoreline habitat

(FFs59 – Southern

## Terrace Forrest)

Dead down woody

disposal

1 $XX,XXX SWWD is conducting management in

this area. Chip into walking trail

Hazard tree removal 1 $XX,XXX

## Seed, Blanket, Cover

## Crop

2 $XX,XXX Seeding should be accompanied by

some form of erosion control

Woody invasive control 1 $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

## 3.f. Long Term Maintenance Recommendations

While it can be difficult to accurately forecast longer term maintenance needs once the initial restoration phase is complete, provided here are

estimates of likely activities that may be necessary to maintain the sites and continue to enhance the diversity and floristic quality of the

management units.

## Management Units Activity Year 5-10 Cost

## Estimate*

## Year 10-20 Cost

## Estimate*

## All Invasive control

## $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

All Enhancement plantings and maintenance

## $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

All Prescribed burn or burn alternative

## $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

## All Invasive control

## $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

## All Booster seedings

## $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

All Tree maintenance and replacement

## $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

## Totals

## $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

*Cost estimates here do not reflect inflation, changes to market rates for services, etc., but are intended to provide a relative reference

point for longer-term maintenance needs.

0

## 4. VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK

## 4.a. Project Site Vegetation and Habitat Assessment

Figure 6. General location of Richfield Lake Park project boundary within the City of Richfield, MN.

Veterans Memorial Park is 106 acres of city parkland located directly south of highway 62, dominated by

Legion Lake, with over three miles of paved walking trails meandering through various degrees of

developed land use. The western portion of Veterans Memorial Park consists of approximately 30 acres

of recreational amenities including mini golf, playgrounds, and athletic facilities. Multiple neighborhood

entrance points provide pedestrian access to this park which is ringed with both residential and business

properties. The following management recommendations focus on the eastern portion of Veterans

Memorial Park, dominated by a mosaic of woodland, turf grass, prairie, wetland, and aquatic habitat.

The primary objectives for the 57 acre project area include removal of invasive woody and herbaceous

species and enhancement of native plant diversity to improve overall habitat quality for wildlife. The

eastern edge of the project area frequently shares property boundaries directly adjacent to private

1

homes or apartment complexes, however, access roads into the project area exist on all sides of the

park.

The following summary of vegetation structure reflects the dominant and notable species identified

throughout the 2025 growing season at Veterans Memorial Park and does not reflect a comprehensive

survey of all species within the project site.

Image 8. View of woodland turf interface on east side of Legion Lake, Veterans Memorial Park, Richfield, MN.

Table 8. Terrestrial vegetation observed at Veterans Memorial Park throughout Fall 2025.

## Scientific Name Common Name Nativity

## Canopy

## Juglans nigra Black Walnut Native

## Acer negundo Box Elder Native

## Morus alba White Mulberry Non-native, Invasive

## Acer saccharinum Silver Maple Native

## Celtis occidentalis Hackberry Native

## Ulmus americana American Elm Native

## Populus tremuloides Quaking Aspen Native, weedy

## Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Native

## Salix alba White Willow Non-native, Invasive

## Ulmus pumila Siberian Elm Non-native, Invasive

## Catalpa speciosa Catalpa Native to SE US

## Tilia americana Basswood Native

## Salix nigra Black Willow Native

## Salix amygdaloides Peach-Leaved Willow Native

## Gleditsia triacanthos Honey Locust Native

## Acer ginnala Amur Maple Non-native, Invasive

## Populus deltoides Cottonwood Native

2

## Sub-Canopy

## Sambucus canadensis Common Elder Native

## Rhamnus cathartica Common Buckthorn Non-native, Invasive

## Lonicera tatarica Tartarian Honeysuckle Non-native, Invasive

## Salix interior Sandbar Willow Native

## Sambucus racemosa Red-Berried Elder Native

## Prunus americana Wild Plum Native

## Ribes americanum Wild Black Currant Native

## Cornus sericea Red-Osier Dogwood Native

## Lonicera morrowii Morrow's Honeysuckle Non-native, Invasive

## Ground

vegetation

## Impatiens capensis Spotted Touch-Me-Not Native

## Viola sororia Common Blue Violet Native

## Ageratina altissima White Snakeroot Native

## Solidago canadensis Canada Goldenrod Native

## Urtica dioica Stinging Nettle Native

## Arctium minus Common Burdock Non-native, Invasive

## Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia Creeper Native

## Hackelia virginiana Virginia Stickseed Native

## Alliaria petiolata Garlic Mustard Non-native, Invasive

## Solanum ptychanthum Black Nightshade Native, weedy

## Cirsium arvense Canada Thistle Non-native, Invasive

## Leonurus cardiaca Common Motherwort Non-native, Invasive

## Asclepias syriaca Common Milkweed Native

## Asclepias incarnata Swamp Milkweed Native

## Ratibida pinnata Gray-Headed Coneflower Native

## Nepeta cataria Catnip Non-native, weedy

## Lythrum salicaria Purple Loosestrife Non-native, Invasive

## Verbena urticifolia White Vervain Native

## Heliopsis helianthoides Ox-Eye Native

## Polygonatum biflorum Giant Solomon's Seal Native

## Verbena stricta Hoary Vervain Native

## Sarracenia purpurea Pitcher Plant Native

## Circaea canadensis Common Enchanter's Nightshade Native

## Rudbeckia hirta Black-Eyed Susan Native

## Veronicastrum virginicum Culver's Root Native

## Rudbeckia triloba Three-Leaved Coneflower Native

## Symphyotrichum lateriflorum Side-Flowering Aster Native

## Securigera varia Crown Vetch Non-native, Invasive

## Acalypha rhomboidea Three-Seeded Mercury Native

## Utricularia vulgaris Common Bladderwort Native

## Verbascum thapsus Common Mullein Non-native, Invasive

## Solanum dulcamara Bittersweet Nightshade Non-native, Invasive

## Cirsium vulgare Bull Thistle Non-native, Invasive

## Agastache foeniculum Blue Giant Hyssop Native

3

## Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS)

The Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) cover types for Veterans Memorial Park are

shown in Table 6 and Figure 3. Although this classification system informs our understanding of site

composition and habitat complexes, technological limitations of MLCCS and land use changes should be

considered to accurately depict current conditions. Due to the rapidly changing nature of urban parks

and redundancies amongst code definitions, the MLCCS cover types were condensed and simplified into

general land use categories and descriptions for Veterans memorial Park.

The MLCCS survey identified fifteen different land cover types representing six general land use types

within the project boundary (Table 9). All terrestrial land use types are classified as altered including

recreational turf throughout the western portion of the site, deciduous woodlands, and seasonally

flooded wetland vegetation with urban soils and varying degrees of non-native vegetation

encroachment. Woodlands with areas of significant hazard trees and dead down debris border most of

the trails and wetlands. A network of paved trails exists throughout upland areas of the park. Areas with

turf grass and buffers around trails are currently mowed by the City of Richfield. Seasonal flooding is

evident surrounding the retention ponds on the northwest and southeast edges of Legion Lake that

were previously natural wetland, identified as mixed emergent marsh habitat and intermittently exposed

non-native vegetation in Figure 3.

Table 9. Minnesota Land Cover Classification System codes throughout Veterans Memorial Park, Richfield, MN.

## Map ID MLCCS Codes Category MLCCS Code Name/Description

1 52540, 42310,

42210

Woodlands Altered/non-native deciduous woodland and shrubland

with temporary to semi-permanent flooding exists

throughout 14% of the project area.

2 23211, 13221,

13241

## Maintained

short grasses

Mowed turf grass on upland soils with sparse canopy and

impervious cover exists throughout 39% of the project

area.

3 23112 Prairie Long grasses with sparse tree cover on upland soils exist

throughout 0.2% of the project area.

4 14122, 14113,

14123

Buildings and

## Pavement

Buildings and pavement exist throughout 10% of the

project area.

5 - Transitional

## Land

-

6 93300 Open Water Palustrine open water exists throughout 15% of the

project area.

7 61630, 61530,

61630, 61730,

61480

Wetlands Seasonally flooded mixed emergent marsh with

altered/non-native vegetation exists throughout 22% of

the project area.

4

Figure 7. Minnesota Land Cover Classification System codes throughout Veterans Park, Richfield, MN.

5

## Minnesota DNR Native Plant Community Classification (MNDNR NPC)

Native plant community (NPC) types are defined by dominant canopy trees, variation in substrate, or

fine-scale differences in environmental factors such as moisture or nutrients, based on vegetation

surveys collected between 1995 and 2003. While these NPCs describe remnant habitat structures that

existed in this region of Minnesota, significant changes in land use throughout the surrounding metro

have caused disturbance and fragmentation. Therefore, the following NPCs help to inform the historical,

current, and target vegetation structure rather than define exact conditions. The nature of this site being

within a disturbed metro landscape means it is faced with varying levels of habitat degradation, invasive

species introduction, hydrologic regime shifts, and the suppressions of natural disturbance regimes

required by native ecosystems, which is evident based on the vegetation composition.

Current vegetation throughout unmanaged areas of Veterans Park indicates a mosaic of habitats with

variable degrees of disturbance including mesic woodland, seasonally flooded marsh habitat, and wet

prairie in areas of open canopy. The existing canopy consists of flood tolerant species including silver

maple (Acer saccharinum), cottonwood (Populus deltoides), black walnut (Juglans nigra), and hackberry

(Celtis occidentalis), indicating floodplain forest habitat (FFs59 and FFs68). Mesic hardwood indicator

species exist throughout the project area including green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), American elm

(Ulmus americana), boxelder (Acer negundo), common elder (Sambucus canadensis), and dogwood

(Cornus spp.) (MHs49). The variety of willows and flood tolerant herbaceous species like swamp

milkweed (Asclepias incarnata), Culver’s root (Veronicastrum virginicum), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica),

red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), and gray-headed coneflower (Ratibida pinnata) indicate saturated

soils (WPs54). Upland soils with mowed turf exist along the southern edge of the project area, which will

be restored to upland prairie pollinator habitat (UPs23) further defined in the following sections.

Descriptions of native plant community types that are indicative of the dominant vegetation throughout

Veterans Park are provided below.

Due to the density and composition of NPC indicator species, FFs59 /68 Southern Floodplain Forres t and

UPs23 Southern Mesic Prairie will guide the target restoration plant communities for the woodland,

wetland, and prairie units, respectively.

Table 10. Minnesota DNR Native Plant Communities identified throughout Veterans Park, Richfield, MN.

## NPC Code NPC Code Name Description

## FFs59/FFs68 Southern Terrace/

## Floodplain Forest

Wet-mesic deciduous forests on silty or sandy alluvium on level,

occasionally flooded sites along small streams to large rivers in the

southern half of Minnesota. Species composition is variable, but

American elm, green ash, hackberry, basswood, box elder, silver

maple, black ash, and cottonwood are often common. Swamp

white oak is important in some stands in southeastern Minnesota.

## UPs23 Southern Mesic Prairie

Grass-dominated but forb-rich herbaceous communities on

somewhat poorly drained to well-drained loam soils mainly

formed in unsorted glacial till, sometimes in a thin loess layer over

till, and locally in lacustrine sediments and outwash deposits.

Drought stress is irregular in occurrence and usually not severe.

6

## 4.b. Restoration Objectives

The overall management goals for Veterans Memorial Park are to balance the recreational use of the

space with ecological and environmental needs. A reas with recreational land use along the park’s

western border will be excluded from the scope of natural resources management. Veterans Memorial

Park natural area fills an important recreational role in the City, offering wooded walking paths and views

of the marsh and lake. The park’s natural area also provides important water-retention services and

contains valuable habitat for a diverse range of wildlife and shoreline plant species. The proposed

management recommendations will focus on restoring the eastern portion of Veterans Park to diverse,

resilient, sustainable plant communities, while considering the challenges of restoring a disturbed urban

landscape. This should continue to be evaluated as environmental conditions change over time. The

priority outcome of all restoration areas is diverse, resilient, and sustainable plant communities that

provide the desired recreational experience.

Within this context of urbanized natural habitats, there are several areas that group into the following

management complexes defined in the unit descriptions in section 3.b.c. The restoration objectives

below, and the following proposed activities and timelines for management and maintenance, may

overlap between units where the targeted Native Plant Communities are similar.

## Recreation Management Area Objectives

 Transition underutilized areas currently maintained for active use to diverse, resilient,

sustainable plant and wildlife communities.

 Maintain a diversity of views for recreational users.

 Maintain a shade canopy along the trail in wooded areas.

 Consider target ecosystem restoration in areas impacted by 2027 trail construction.

 Remove hazard trees and dead down debris for safety and accessibility of recreational users.

 Maintain a healthy natural space by removing invasive and encouraging the growth of native

plants , particularly in areas of trail removal.

 Protect stormwater infrastructure.

 Manage impacts of geese.

## Ecological Restoration Objectives

1. Restore and enhance floodplain forest habitat ( FFs59/FFs68 Southern Floodplain Forrest)

a. Strategies

i. Initial removal and continued control of invasive, hazard, and non-suitable trees and

shrubs.

ii. Maintain a representative age class to allow for regeneration.

iii. Establish 50-100% woodland canopy in floodplain restoration units.

iv. Enhance understory diversity with deep rooted mesic-woodland grass, forbs, and shrub

species native to Minnesota to filter pollutants carried by runoff from the landscape into

nearby surface water. See Appendix B for recommended species.

v. Historical and existing native vegetation structure should be considered for future

habitat enhancement species selection.

2. Convert mowed turf areas to pollinator habitat (UPs23 Southern Mesic Prairie)

a. Strategies

7

i. Habitat around Veterans memorial will be a short, showy prairie to maintain visibility

while southern turf conversion will be tall height.

ii. Remove turf grass and restore to functional pollinator habitat to enhance diversity and

reduce goose herbivory.

iii. Conduct continued mechanical and chemical removal of invasive herbaceous species

i. Continue ground layer vegetation restoration with continued establishment

maintenance of deep-rooted native prairie grasses, forb, and flowering shrub species to

enhance pollinator habitat connectivity.

3. Reduction/mitigation of non-native and invasive species introduction

a. Strategies

i. Management of invasive vegetation prior to seed production is a priority to limit

encroachment to areas with active control.

ii. Document location, density, and area of invasive populations with GIS.

iii. When feasible, use biological control.

iv. Where biological control is not available, use chemical and mechanical means to control.

v. Monitor infested areas for effectiveness of control.

vi. Provide education to community members and adjacent landowners regarding

prevention and management.

4. Consider impacts to wildlife, habitat management, and visitor use of Veterans Memorial Park

a. Strategies

i. Install signage of restoration and management activities at entry points that explain

restoration activities and their importance to ecosystem health.

ii. When possible, remove or stack felled or dead trees away from trails.

iii. Provide access that is sensitive to surrounding landscape and minimizes impact on

natural resources.

8

## 4.c. Habitat Complexes and Management Comments

These habitat complexes are guided by the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) and

Native Plant Communities (NPC), defined by the MNDNR, and have been simplified to streamline the

recommended management activities. Following the description of each habitat type per MLCCS,

observations and commentary on the specifics of each identified management unit at Veterans Park are

discussed.

The following section also contains specific recommendations for the execution of management

objectives at each work unit (Fig. 8). In each unit, observations are detailed based on observed

conditions as of Fall, 2025 . The recommended activities are proposed here generally as a sequential

timeline, with high-disturbance activities such as woody debris and major invasive control being first

priority, followed by subsequent follow-up measures and vegetation enhancement. Management

comments should continue to be evaluated as environmental conditions change over time. A more

structured presentation of the proposed activity timeline across the site is detailed in the cost summary

table in section 4.d., with the per-unit tasks broken down in the table found in 4.e.. Recommended

activities could be phased across a wider time frame, or by specific units per phase, as funding and

capacity require, although it should be recognized that alignment of similar management activities

chronologically across the entire site will likely provide increased efficiency and lower cost-per-acre, due

to efficiency of scale. Long-term maintenance recommendations are broken down into 5-10- and 10-20-

year recommendations in section 3.e., however, inflation changes should be considered. Section 4.f. lists

recommended specifications related to the associated management actions. Refinement of exact

specifications will still be required when any management guidance is translated into a request for

proposals or implementation by city staff.

Note : Hazardous and invasive tree removal recommendations are outlined on a high level within the

following management comments by unit. Further explanation and detailed mapping for all tree

removal can be found in Appendix A.

9

Figure 3.Target restoration ecosystems, by work unit, defined by MN DNR Native Plant Communities recommended for

Veterans Park, Richfield, MN.

10

## Target Ecosystem - FFs59/FFs68 Southern Floodplain Forest

## Work Unit 1: Floodplain Forest Enhancement __________________________

Description: The Veterans Park woodland stretch es around the

upland perimeter of the project area and contains the majority

of the park’s paved trail network. Native canopy such as walnut,

hackberry, cottonwood, and dogwoods should be referenced as

target indicator species for future planting. The woodland edges

and trail buffers are extremely dense in canopy with common

buckthorn, boxelder, and white mulberry, which should be

targe ted for invasive removal and thinning of weedy natives.

This dense canopy has prevented understory vegetation from

being established, resulting in bare, compact soils. In addition to

invasive species removal, the north and eastern woodlands

contain higher densities of hazard trees and dead

standing/ down debris than other areas of the park. Maintaining

lake visibility from bench views is important.

Management comments:

1. Disposal of existing dead and standing woody debris is

suggested to be conducted prior to woody invasive

removal to maximize accessibility.

2. Proactive and hazard tree removal should be conducted to prevent trail obstructions and could

be done simultaneously with woody invasive control and disposal. Woody debris within a 6-foot

buffer of wetland could be slashed and bucked up for

erosion control and habitat structure.

3. Woody invasive removal is considered a top priority

throughout the woodland unit(s), especially along trails

and edges, primarily shrub canopy consisting of

common buckthorn, white mulberry, Siberian elm, and

invasive honeysuckles.

4. In addition to the recommended tree removal in

Appendix A, continued boxelder thinning should be

considered for this unit to maintain opportunity for

successful native understory establishment. Based on

current (2025) densities and high abundance of small

saplings, the site could benefit from ~30% removal of

boxelders without compromising shoreline stabilization.

5. Understory enhancement with shade tolerant native

vegetation is recommended. Snow seeding is

recommended to promote effective germination,

especially given the compacted soils where disturbance has occurred.

Image 8. Dense woodland adjacent to

paved trail in northeast corner of Veterans

Park in Fall 2025, Richfield, MN.

Image 9. Compact soils in understory of

center woodland of Veterans Park in Fall

2025, Richfield, MN.

11

6. Where there are natural breaks in the subcanopy and canopy, herbaceous weeds like garlic

mustard and purple loosestrife should be treated and replaced with a wet shady seed mix.

7. Trails on the eastern edge of the woodland will be removed in 2027. Bare ground should receive

a prep rake, broadcast seed with cover crop and woodland understory mix specified in Appendix

B, and erosion control measures such as straw to prevent washout.

8. Avoid seeding within 4 ft buffer of trails, which are mowed for visibility.

## Work Unit 1a: Floodplain Forest Restoration __________________________

Description: Units 1a will have the same timeline of

restoration as the floodplain forest enhancement areas. The

western unit 1a is dense with herbaceous native and invasive

vegetation and flanked with dense weedy and invasive trees

(Image X) . Removal and continued control of mulberry and

buckthorn is recommended as seedlings will continue to

establish as the unit is restored. Once invasive species have

been managed, these units would be excellent candidates for

volunteer shrub and tree planting to enhance canopy cover.

The eastern unit 1a contains turf grass, mowed by the city,

and should be considered for woodland restoration to reduce

maintenance. Residential properties border the easternmost

edge of this unit.

1. Initial woody invasive removal of common buckthorn

and white mulberry is recommended as a priority to

promote accessibility of further restoration tasks.

2. Thinning of native trees like boxelder is recommended

to encourage diverse establishment.

3. Following woody removal and control of non-native herbaceous cover, the area should be

seeded with native graminoids. Following satisfactory follow-up control of invasive species,

native woodland forbs could be added.

4. After the ground layer has received supplemental vegetation, the shrub layer could be

enhanced.

5. Continued spot maintenance of woody and herbaceous invasive species is required several

years following initial removal to improve establishment of seeded areas.

## Target Ecosystem - UPs23 Southern Mesic Prairie

Image 11. Canopy surrounding wet prairie

unit at Veterans Memorial Park, Richfield, MN.

12

Work Unit 2a & 2b: Turf to Prairie _ _________________________

Description: Both turf conversion units currently

dominated by turf grass, transected by paved trails,

and mowed by the City of Richfield with the

objective of restoring to pollinator habitat. Unit 2a

surrounds Veterans Memorial and will be restored

to a low height, showy prairie to maintain visibility.

Unit 2b will be a tall height pollinator habitat. To

maintain space for passive recreation and prevent

invasive establishment, diversity should be

improved through drill seeding with pollinator

species.

## Management Comments:

1. Turf removal via herbicide and/or scalping will be necessary to complete prior to enhancement,

for successful native establishment in the southeastern unit.

2. Turf conversion to target restored ecosystem buffer is recommended to minimize mow

maintenance, connect habitat for wildlife and pollinators, improve soil structure, increase water

infiltration, and improve water quality by filtering runoff.

3. The use of cover crops after turf removal is recommended.

4. Drill seeding of respective prairie species is recommended in this area to achieve successful seed

to soil contact.

5. Avoid seeding within 4 feet of trails for mowing maintenance.

6. Continued spot maintenance of herbaceous invasive species is required several years following

initial removal to improve establishment of seeded areas.

Image 10. Turf area surrounding Veterans Memorial to be

restored to low height pollinator habitat.

13

## 4.d. Restoration Management Phasing & Cost Estimate Summary

Total management costs* were based on 5-year management plans. Total 5-year costs for all vegetation management are $XXX,XXX . Cost

estimation is based on current 2025 market rates, subcontracting all implementation and necessary oversight, and the assumption that all

management units are implemented concurrently. Management unit nuances may influence cost totals and should be considered.

*All prices are estimates based on current market rates at the time of writing. Estimates do not factor in any state dollars being used to perform activities. Due

to new language change in statute as of August 1, 2024, any natural resource related projects need to follow state prevailing wage requirements. This change

in state statute language will have an increase in actual costs.

Activity Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

## Applicable

## Management Units

Woody debris disposal $XX,XXX 8

Chip and install on defined trails $XX,XXX 8

Dead down woody disposal $XX,XXX 1, 2

Hazard tree removal $XX,XXX 1,2,3,4,8,10

Dethatch turf $XX,XXX 6,7,11,12

Remove turf (spray/till/spray) $XX,XXX 6,7,12

Interseed bee lawn forbs $XX,XXX 6,7,11,12

Undesirable tree removal $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX 3,8,10

Seed, Blanket, Cover Crop $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX 2,6,7,10,12

Woody invasive control $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX 1,2,3,4,8,9,10

Establishment maintenance $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX 4,6,7,8,11,12

Herbaceous invasive control $XX,XXX 8

Non-native grass removal $XX,XXX 4

Woody follow up maintenance $XX,XXX $XX,XXX 8

Reed canary grass control $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX 1

Plant native savanna trees $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX 4

Understory seeding $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX 1,3,4,8,9

Plant native pollinator shrubs $XX,XXX 4

Reseeding $XX,XXX 6,7

Shoreline buffer plantings $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX 9

Planting of native trees and shrubs $XX,XXX $XX,XXX 1,8

Total $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

14

## 4.e. Management Unit Recommendations

Note: Priority index is on a scale from 1 to 5 (1=high priority, 5=low priority).

## Existing Land Cover

## Types

## Acres Target Land Cover Recommended Actions Priority

## Index

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Assumptions and Notes

## Management Unit 1

## Altered/non-native

mesic hardwood

## X Enhanced mesic

hardwood

Woody invasive control 1 $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX Cut, treat, pile, burn on site or chip

Hazard tree removal 2 $XX,XXX Haul off or chip for trails

Dead down woody

disposal

## 1 $XX,XXX

Reed canary grass

control

3 $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX Two treatments year 2, Rx burn year

3, final spray and seeding year 4

Understory seeding 3 $XX,XXX $XX,XXX Seed understory after BT removal,

seed grasslands after RCG removal

Planting of native trees

and shrubs

4 $XX,XXX $XX,XXX Plant year 4, maintenance year 5

## Management Unit 2

## Altered/non-native

mesic hardwood

## X Enhanced mesic

hardwood

Dead down woody

disposal

1 $XX,XXX SWWD is conducting management in

this area. Chip into walking trail

Hazard tree removal 1 $XX,XXX

## Seed, Blanket, Cover

## Crop

2 $XX,XXX Seeding should be accompanied by

some form of erosion control

Woody invasive control 1 $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

## Management Unit 3

Existing X Target Task Priority $X,XXX $XXX Notes

## Management Unit 4

Existing X Target Task Priority $X,XXX $XXX Notes

15

## Management Unit 6

Existing X Target Task Priority $X,XXX $XXX Notes

## Management Unit 7

Existing X Target Task Priority $X,XXX $XXX Notes

## Seed, Blanket, Cover

## Crop

## 3 $XX,XXX

## Establishment

maintenance

## 3 $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

Reseeding 3 $XX,XXX

16

## 4.f. Long Term Maintenance Recommendations

While it can be difficult to accurately forecast longer term maintenance needs once the initial restoration phase is complete, provided here are

estimates of likely activities that may be necessary to maintain the sites and continue to enhance the diversity and floristic quality of the

management units. Other details as needed.

## Management Units Activity Year 5-10 Cost

## Estimate*

## Year 10-20 Cost

## Estimate*

1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10 Invasive control

## $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10 Enhancement plantings and maintenance

## $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

6,7,11 Prescribed burn or burn alternative

## $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

6,7,11 Invasive control

## $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

6,7,11 Booster seedings

## $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

All Tree maintenance and replacement

## $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

## Totals

## $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

*Cost estimates here do not reflect inflation, changes to market rates for services, etc., but are intended to provide a relative reference

point for longer-term maintenance needs.

17

## 5. TAFT PARK

## 5.a. Project Site Vegetation and Habitat Assessment

Figure 5. General location of Taft Park project boundary within the City of Richfield, MN.

Taft Park is a popular 42-acre community park located in the northeast corner of Richfield, directly

adjacent to the MSP International airport. The southern half of the park is within city limits and features

a soccer/football field, softball fields, a park building, playground, and sports courts, while the northern

half is leased from M etro Airports Commission. While partially overlapping Metro Airports Commission

property, the City of Richfield manages all areas within the Taft Park boundary. The Nakomis-Minnesota

River Regional Trail follows the western edge of the park. Legion Lake, located in Veterans Memorial

Park, feeds surface water to Taft Lake , which is directly west of Mother Lake and directly south of

Solomon Pak, transected by Highway 77 and 62, respectively. Prior to highway construction, these lakes

were once connected and flowed northbound into Lake Nakomis then the Minnehaha Creek. Now

culverts and stormwater infrastructure drains connect these waterways under the highway, creating

mor e upland corridors with significant exposures to invasive species pressures.

18

The northern portion contains a walking trail surrounding Taft Lake , which is part of the DNR’s Fishing in

the Neighborhood program. The park provides visitors with a variety of lake views from the f ishing pier.

This section has varying habitat along the shoreline with some understory and ground vegetation

established in the wider portions, much of it invasive or non-native. Like Richfield Lake Park, the

constructed embankment and paved trail around the lake is raised above the natural water level and

provides limited habitat for vegetation. The larger forested area south of the lake is mixed to low tree

diversity and quality with a dense understory of buckthorn.

Vegetation maintenance at Taft Park has been challenging for the city due to historical infrastructure

issues. The site was once a landfill used for construction disposal and this material is often pushed to the

surface from the freeze thaw cycle. The soil structure of the surrounding athletic fields is naturally

saturated causing poor drainage, especially after heavy rain events. The wetland habitat on the

southeas tern shoreline of Taft Lake is 12 feet lower than the highest point on the northwestern edge of

the site. The woodland complex surrounding Taft Lake is dominated by native trees like cottonwood,

black walnut, ash, basswood, and hackberry, however, urban pressures like invasive species

encroachment have significantly degraded the habitat quality. The southern woodland is flanked by

approximately 2 acres of turf grass , which has brought undesirable Canada goose herbivory. The City of

Richfield aims to restore these areas to functional woodland habitat to encourage diverse wildlife and

reduce long-term maintenance.

The following summary of vegetation structure reflects the dominant and notable species identified

throughout the 2025 growing season at Taft Park and does not reflect a comprehensive survey of all

species within the project site.

Table 11. Terrestrial vegetation observed at Taft5 Lake Park throughout fall, 2025.

## Scientific Name Common Name Nativity

## Canopy

## Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Native

## Ulmus pumila Siberian Elm

## Non-native, Invasive

## Morus alba White Mulberry

## Non-native, Invasive

## Juglans nigra Black Walnut Native

## Salix interior Sandbar Willow Native

## Acer negundo Box Elder Native

## Populus deltoides Cottonwood Native

## Populus tremuloides Quaking Aspen Native

## Tilia americana Basswood Native

## Salix amygdaloides Peach-Leaved Willow Native

## Celtis occidentalis Hackberry Native

## Acer ginnala Amur Maple

## Non-native, Invasive

## Sub-Canopy

## Rhamnus cathartica Common Buckthorn

## Non-native, Invasive

## Rhus glabra Smooth Sumac Native

## Sambucus canadensis Common Elder Native

## Ground

vegetation

## Lythrum salicaria Purple Loosestrife

## Non-native, Invasive

## Asclepias syriaca Common Milkweed Native

## Nepeta cataria Catnip

## Non-native, Invasive

## Asclepias incarnata Swamp Milkweed Native

## Hesperis matronalis Dame's Rocket

## Non-native, Invasive

19

## Leonurus cardiaca Common Motherwort

## Non-native, Invasive

## Phragmites australis Common Reedgrass Native

## Impatiens capensis Spotted Touch-Me-Not Native

## Ambrosia trifida Great Ragweed Native

## Monarda fistulosa Wild Bergamot Native

## Ageratina altissima White Snakeroot Native

## Scirpus atrocinctus Black-Girdled Woolgrass Native

## Cirsium vulgare Bull Thistle

## Non-native, Invasive

## Rumex crispus Curly Dock

## Non-native, Invasive

## Brassica rapa Field Mustard

## Non-native, Invasive

## Ambrosia artemisiifolia Common Ragweed Native

## Alliaria petiolata Garlic Mustard

## Non-native, Invasive

## Melilotus officinalis Yellow Sweet Clover

## Non-native, Invasive

## Arctium minus Common Burdock

## Non-native, Invasive

## Cirsium arvense Canada Thistle

## Non-native, Invasive

## Verbena hastata Blue Vervain Native

## Oenothera biennis Common Evening Primrose Native

## Carex vulpinoidea Fox Sedge Native

## Euphorbia virgata Leafy Spurge

## Non-native, Invasive

## Sanicula canadensis Canadian Black Snakeroot Native

## Zizia aurea Golden Alexanders Native

## Eupatorium perfoliatum Common Boneset Native

## Helianthus tuberosus Jerusalem Artichoke Native

## Ribes americanum Wild Black Currant Native

## Securigera varia Crownvetch

## Non-native, Invasive

## Urtica dioica Stinging Nettle Native

Eupatorium maculatum

Spotted Joe pye weed

## Native

Solidago canadensis

Canada goldenrod

## Native

Lycopus americanus

Cut-leaved bugleweed

## Native

## Typha x glauca Hybridized Cattails

## Invasive

## Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS)

The Minnesota land cover classification system (MLCCS) is a mapping system that categorizes areas by

land cover composition based on historical inventories of native plant communities and aerial photo

interpretation gathered in the mid to late 1990’s.

## Cite

MLCCS cover types for Taft Park are shown in Table X

and Figure X. Although this classification system informs our understanding of site composition and

habitat complexes, technological limitations of MLCCS and land use changes should be considered to

accurately depict current conditions. Due to the rapidly changing nature of urban parks and

redundancies amongst code definitions, the MLCCS cover types were condensed and simplified into

general land use categories and descriptions for Taft Park.

The MLCCS survey identified eleven different land cover types representing six general land use types

within the project boundary (Table X). All terrestrial land use types are classified as altered including the

20

recreational turf lawns on the southern portion of the park, deciduous woodlands, and seasonally

flooded wetland vegetation with urban soils and varying degrees of non-native vegetation

encroachment. The decline in topography is evident in the area defined as wetland in Figure X on the

eastern side of Taft Lake, dominant with flood tolerant native and non-native vegetation and a relatively

open canopy. The t ransitional land directly south of the wetland complex (Map ID 5 in Fig. X) was

previously a construction dump and is currently unmanaged degraded mesic woodland that will be

within the scope of restoration. The woodland complexes border most of the trails and wetlands and

contain significant hazard trees, high density of woody invasive species, and dead down debris. Aquatic

management of Taft Lake is beyond the scope of this report.

Table 12. Minnesota Land Cover Classification System codes throughout Taft Park, Richfield, MN.

## Map ID MLCCS Codes Category MLCCS Code Name/Description

1 11249, 42130 Woodlands Altered/ non-native deciduous woodland exists

throughout 14% of the project area.

2 23211 Maintained

short grasses

Short grasses on upland soils with various recreational

purposes exists throughout 49% of the project area.

4 14122, 14123 Buildings and

## Pavement

Buildings and pavement exist throughout 3% of the

project area.

5 14214 Transitional

## Land

Other exposed/transitional land with minimal impervious

cover exists throughout 3% of the project area.

6 93300 Open Water Palustrine open water exists throughout 28% of the

project area.

7 61730, 61480,

61520, 61620

Wetlands Seasonally flooded altered/ non-native dominated

vegetation exists throughout 3% of the project area.

21

Figure 6. Minnesota Land Cover Classification System codes throughout Taft Park, Richfield, MN.

22

## Minnesota DNR Native Plant Community Classification (MNDNR NPC)

Native plant community (NPC) types are defined by dominant canopy trees, variation in substrate, or

fine-scale differences in environmental factors such as moisture or nutrients, based on vegetation

surveys collected between 1995 and 2003. While these NPCs describe remnant habitat structures that

existed in this region of Minnesota, significant changes in land use throughout the surrounding metro

have caused disturbance and fragmentation. Therefore, the following NPCs help to inform the historical,

current, and target vegetation structure rather than define exact conditions. The nature of this site being

within a disturbed metro landscape means it is faced with varying levels of habitat degradation, invasive

species introduction, hydrologic regime shifts, and the suppressions of natural disturbance regimes

required by native ecosystems, which is evident based on the vegetation composition.

Current vegetation throughout the restoration area at Taft Park indicates a mosaic of disturbed mesic

woodland and seasonally flooded wetland habitat , scattered with pockets of recreational and

transitional land use. Higher topography areas within existing woodlands are dominant with green ash

(Fraxinus pennsylvanica), American elm (Ulmus americana), boxelder (Acer negundo), resembling that of

an altered Southern Wet-Mesic Hardwood Forest (MHs49). Lower topographies of these woodlands are

dominant with flood tolerant species including silver maple (Acer saccharinum), cottonwood (Populus

deltoides), black walnut (Juglans nigra), and hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), indicating remnant floodplain

forest habitat (FFs59). Considering that Taft Lake was once part of Mother Lake, its proximity to the

Mississippi – Minnesota river confluence, and current indicator species, it is likely that the park was

historically described by MHs49 and FFs59 native plant communities. However, invasive species like

buckthorn, white mulberry, and Siberian elm have since degraded the habitat.

As the topography declines along the eastern stretch of the site, the canopy opens and becomes

dominant with willows and herbaceous species like purple loosestrife, spotted Joe pye weed, Common

boneset, Swamp milkweed, Canada goldenrod, cut-leaved bugleweed, blue vervain, cattails, touch-me-

not, and red-osier dogwood. T his shift in hydrology and indicator species points toward a wetland

ecosystem, specifically resembling that of an altered southern seepage meadow/carr (WMs83). While

invasive hybrid cattails and purple loosestrife have encroached this habitat significantly, WMs83 will be a

suitable target native plant community for restoration. The mowed turf areas and transitional land along

the southern edge of the project area have been utilized for recreational and storage purposes and

therefore are not considered as native plant communities currently. They will be restored to the same

target NPC as the existing woodlands.

Due to the density and composition of NPC indicator species, FFs59 Southern Floodplain Forrest and

Southern Wet-Mesic Hardwood Forest (MHs49) will guide the target restoration plant communities for

the woodland, turf and transitional land areas while Southern Seepage Meadow/Carr (WMs83) will

guide the wetland area. Descriptions of native plant community types that are indicative of the

dominant vegetation throughout Taft Park are provided below.

Table 13. Minnesota DNR Native Plant Communities identified throughout Taft Park, Richfield, MN.

## NPC Code NPC Code Name Description

## FFs59

## Southern Terrace

## Forest

Wet-mesic deciduous forests on silty or sandy alluvium on level,

occasionally flooded sites along small streams to large rivers in the

23

southern half of Minnesota. Species composition is variable, but

American elm, green ash, hackberry, basswood, box elder, silver

maple, black ash, and cottonwood are often common. Swamp

white oak is important in some stands in southeastern Minnesota.

Indicator species present include black walnut, hackberry,

common elder, cottonwood.

## MHs49 Southern Wet-Mesic

## Hardwood Forest

Rich, wet-mesic lowland hardwood forests on level silty alluvium in

stream valleys and on level glacial till bordering lakes. Sites are

protected from fire, and soils remain moist throughout the

growing season. Indicator species present include stinging nettle,

hackberry, box elder.

## WMs83

## Southern Seepage

## Meadow/Carr

Open wetlands dominated by a dense cover of hummock-forming

broadleaved sedges or tall shrubs. Present in areas of groundwater

seepage along streams and drainage ways, on sloping terraces,

and at bases of slopes. Indicator species present include spotted

Joe pye weed, Common boneset, Swamp milkweed, Canada

goldenrod, cut-leaved bugleweed, blue vervain, cattails , touch-me-

not, red-osier dogwood, and various willows.

## 5.b. Restoration Objectives

The overall management goals for Taft Park are to balance the recreational use of the space with

ecological and environmental needs. Taft Park fills an important recreational role in the City as the only

fishable and boatable lake in the City. It also provides important water-retention services and contains

valuable habitat for a diverse range of wildlife and shoreline plant species. The recreational land use

along the southern half of the site will be excluded from the scope of natural resources management.

The proposed management recommendations will focus on restoring the northern half of Taft Park to

diverse, resilient, sustainable plant communities, while considering the challenges of restoring a

disturbed urban landscape. This should continue to be evaluated as environmental conditions change

over time.

Within this context of urbanized natural habitats, there are several areas that group into the following

management complexes defined in the unit descriptions in section 5.b.c. The restoration objectives

below, and the following proposed activities and timelines for management and maintenance, may

overlap between units where the targeted Native Plant Communities are similar.

 Stabilize shoreline to reduce trail maintenance and shoreline erosion.

 Maintain a healthy natural space by removing invasive and encouraging the growth of native

plants at all forest levels

 Protect stormwater infrastructure

 Manage impacts of geese

 Maintain accessibility of fishing dock and boat access

 Maintain shoreline fishing opportunities

24

## Ecological Restoration Objectives

2. Enhance existing woodland habitat - Southern Terrace Forest (FFs59) & Southern Wet-Mesic

## Hardwood Forest (MHs49)

a. Strategies

i. Maintain and enhance woodland remnants in applicable units.

ii. Mechanical and chemical removal of invasive, hazard, and non-suitable species. This will

include thinning of native MN species such as buckthorn, mulberry, box elder, willow or

other species that have expanded beyond management.

iii. Re-establish a tree canopy cover of 50-80% after initial undesirable canopy removal.

iv. Maintain a representative age class to allow for regeneration.

v. Historical and existing native vegetation structure should be considered for future

habitat enhancement species selection.

vi. Enhance understory diversity with deep rooted native savanna grasses, forb, and shrub

species. Where possible, use local ecotype seed following the Minnesota Board of

Water & Soil Resources (BWSR) “Native Vegetation establishment and enhancement

guidelines.” See Appendix D and G for species lists.

3. Reconstruct turf areas and transitional lands to woodland habitat - Southern Terrace Forest

## (FFs59) & Southern Wet-Mesic Hardwood Forest (MHs49)

i. Remove existing turf grass in units south of Taft Lake.

ii. Reconstruct recreational and transitional areas to woodland ecosystem to reduce goose

herbivory and enhance wildlife diversity.

iii. Remediate soil and remove any hydrology or root altering urban detritus (concrete slab)

as required to establish native plant populations.

iv. Restore ground layer vegetation with deep rooted native woodland grasses, forb, and

flowering shrub species to enhance pollinator habitat connectivity.

4. Restore and enhance wetland habitat and reduce shoreline erosion– Southern Seepage

Meadow/Carr (WMs83)

a. Strategies

i. Remove, mitigate, and monitor populations of woodland and wetland invasive species

ii. Encourage native establishment of deep rooted native species to improve water quality,

protect storm water infrastructure, and reduce erosion

iii. Deep root plant selections to filter pollutants carried by rainfall, improve soil health, and

reduce soil erosion into nearby surface water.

iv. Re-canopy areas targeted for invasive, hazard, and undesirable woody removal to

reduce runoff that carries pollutants from the landscape into nearby surface water.

5. Reduction/mitigation of non-native and invasive species

a. Rationale: Due to vectors likely to persist on the site due to its urban setting and relatively

small size, non-native species will persist on the site, if left unmanaged. As per

recommendations outlined in section 5.c, many management units include an initial

removal of the most dominant invasive species, followed by a revegetation plan that can

provide competition against re-colonization by invasives.

b. Strategies

25

i. Document location, density, and area of invasive populations with GIS.

ii. When feasible, use biological control.

iii. Where biological control is not available, use chemical and mechanical means to control.

iv. Monitor infested areas for effectiveness of control.

v. Provide education to community members and adjacent landowners regarding

prevention and management.

6. Consider impacts to wildlife, habitat management, and visitor use of Taft Park

a. Strategies

i. Install signage of restoration and management activities at entry points that explain

restoration activities and their importance to ecosystem health.

ii. Maintain and enhance fishing pier access and surrounding shoreline.

iii. When possible, remove or stack felled or dead trees away from trails.

iv. Provide access that is sensitive to surrounding landscape and minimizes impact on

natural resources.

v. Review and prioritize tree removal of invasive and potentially hazardous trees

throughout the corridor (See Appendix A).

## 5.c. Habitat Complexes and Management Comments

These habitat complexes are guided by the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) and

Native Plant Communities (NPC), defined by the MNDNR, and have been simplified to streamline the

recommended management activities. Following the description of each habitat type per MLCCS,

observations and commentary on the specifics of each identified management unit at Taft Park are

discussed.

The following section also contains specific recommendations for the execution of management

objectives at each work unit (Fig. 11). In each unit, observations are detailed based on observed

conditions as of fall 2025 and spring 2026. The recommended activities are proposed here generally as a

sequential timeline, with high-disturbance activities such as woody debris and major invasive control

being priority , followed by subsequent follow-up measures and vegetation enhancement. Management

comments should continue to be evaluated as environmental conditions change over time. A more

structured presentation of the proposed activity timeline across the site is detailed in the cost summary

table in section 5.c., with the per-unit tasks broken down in the table found in 5.d. Recommended

activities could be phased across a wider time frame, or by specific units per phase, as funding and

capacity require, although it should be recognized that alignment of similar management activities

chronologically across the entire site will likely provide increased efficiency and lower cost-per-acre, due

to efficiency of scale. Long-term maintenance recommendations are broken down into 5-10- and 10-20-

year recommendations in section 5.e., however, inflation changes should be considered. Section 5.f. lists

recommended specifications related to the associated management actions. Refinement of exact

specifications will still be required when any management guidance is translated into a request for

proposals or implementation by city staff.

26

Figure 7. Target restoration ecosystems, by work unit, defined by MN DNR Native Plant Communities recommended for Taft Park, Richfield, MN.

27

Target Ecosystem Southern Terrace Forest (FFs59) / MHs49 – Southern Wet-

## Mesic Hardwood Forest

Work Unit 1a & 1b Woodland Enhancement _____________

Description: The native species dominant in

these c anopies are green ash , American elm,

boxelder , silver maple, cottonwood, black

walnut, and hackberry. However, dense stands

of common buckthorn, Siberian elm, white

mulberry, and Amur maple have formed

especially along woodland edges. Removal and

continue d control is recommended as priority

for successful restoration. While native, thinning

and treatment of boxelder throughout the

woodland and interior sandbar along the

shoreline is recommended to improve views of

the lake and establishment of understory

species. There is almost no understory

vegetation in these dense areas, therefore,

thinning overabundant boxelders and mulberries

will create opportunities for more diversity in

the understory vegetation. Hazard trees are scattered throughout the woodland, especially in the

eastern half of 1a, and all snags overhanging the trail should be removed. The inner shorelines of this

unit transition into the lake with minimally fluctuating water levels with o ccasional down debris from

dead ash and cottonwood. Debris may be scattered in some areas of the shoreline with erosion

potentials for stabilization. Avoid removing debris that is providing topsoil stabilization to prevent

unnecessary erosion. The recreational turf area located on the northwest west edge of unit 1 will remain

in its existing condition (Image X) , but proximal work should consider the presence of park-users.

Management comments:

1. Disposal of existing woody debris is suggested to be conducted prior to woody invasive removal

to maximize accessibility.

2. Proactive and hazard tree removal should be conducted to prevent trail obstructions and could

be done simultaneously with woody invasive control and disposal. Woody debris within a 6-foot

buffer of wetland could be slashed and bucked up for erosion control and habitat structure.

3. Woody invasive removal is considered a top priority throughout the woodland units, primarily

shrub canopy consisting of common buckthorn, white mulberry, Siberian elm, and Amur maple.

4. Continued boxelder and interior sandbar willow thinning should be considered to maintain

views and encourage native understory establishment. Based on current (2026) densities and

high abundance of small saplings, the site could benefit from ~30% removal of both without

compromising shoreline stabilization.

5. If equipment can be used on frozen soils to minimize disturbance, this is preferred, but if

growing season removal occurs, disturbed areas

Image 9. View of Unit 1b woodland from Unit 2a turf

conversion, facing east. June 2026 Taft Park, Richfield, MN.

28

should be stabilized. This should be completed prior to any habitat enhancement.

6. Following woody removal and control of non-native herbaceous cover, the area should be

seeded with native graminoids. Following satisfactory follow-up control of invasive species,

native forbs could be added.

7. After the ground layer has received supplemental vegetation, the shrub layer could be enhanced

8. Continued spot maintenance of woody and herbaceous invasive species is required several

years following initial removal to improve establishment of seeded areas.

9. Stinging Nettle (Urtica dioica) indicates that surplus nutrients may be present and may require

multiple activities to prepare the site for reseeding.

10. Where there are natural breaks in the subcanopy and canopy, herbaceous weeds like garlic

mustard and purple loosestrife should be treated and replaced with a wet shady seed mix.

Work Unit 2a & 2b Turf to Woodland Conversion ___________________

Description: This unit is currently mowed turf grass

on upland soils aimed at being restored to a similar

woodland habitat to unit 1. A cluster of pin oaks,

honey locust, and hackberry were planted along the

trail several decades ago in unit 2a. All the oaks are

dying (Image 10), and removal is recommended to

prevent potential disease transmission. Turf

conversion to target restored ecosystem buffer is

recommended to minimize mow maintenance,

connect habitat for wildlife and pollinators, improve

soil structure, increase water infiltration, and

improve water quality by filtering runoff.

## Management Comments:

1. Turf removal via herbicide and/or scalping

will be necessary to complete prior to

enhancement, for successful native

establishment.

2. Following turf removal, the area should be

seeded with a native graminoid mix.

Following satisfactory follow-up control of

invasive species, native forbs could be

added.

3. Drill seeding of competitive shade-tolerant species is recommended in this area to achieve

successful seed to soil contact.

4. The use of cover crops after turf removal is recommended.

5. Herbaceous invasive control paired with interseeding is critical during this transitional period.

6. After the ground layer has received supplemental vegetation, the shrub layer could be

enhanced . This would be an excellent community opportunity.

Image 10. View of hazard pin oaks and turf grass along

trail of unit 2a, facing westbound. Taft Park, Richfield, MN.

29

7. Continued spot maintenance of woody and herbaceous invasive species is required several

years following initial removal to improve establishment of seeded areas.

8. Borders baseball fields.

Work Unit 3 Woodland Reconstruction ______

Description: The condition of the woodland

that lines the perimeter of unit 3 is like unit 1

in terms of canopy and restoration needs

(Image11). The interior has been used for

storage and lacks any vegetation or soil

structure as seen in Figure 5, which could

pose challenges with establishment. Topsoil

will need to be supplemented and soil

amendments like compost or biochar may be

helpful to improve nutrients, especially along

the eastern access road.

## Management Comments:

1. Restoration of the perimeter

woodland will follow the same

recommendations as unit 1.

2. The ground condition of the interior is bare and disturbed and will require topsoil amendment

for seed establishment. To progress toward the target ecosystem and prevent invasive

establishment, the initial seeding approach defined for unit 2 is recommended.

3. Woodland understory diversity should be improved through broadcast seeding with shade

tolerant native species.

Image 11. East facing view of the woodland and transitional land

use in unit 3. Taft Park, Richfield, MN.

30

Figure 4. Unit 3 taft park aerial imagery 2025

31

## Target Ecosystem Southern Seepage Meadow/Carr (WMs83)

Work Unit 4 Wetland Enhancement ______

Description: As the topography declines along

the eastern stretch of the site, the canopy opens

and becomes dominant with herbaceous species

like purple loosestrife, spotted Joe pye weed,

## Common boneset, Swamp milkweed, Canada

goldenrod, cut-leaved bugleweed, blue vervain,

cattails, touch-me-not, and red-osier dogwood.

Interior sandbar willow dominate s the canopy

(Image X). Reed canary grass, thistles, and hybrid

cattails along habitat edges will require continued

monitoring and removal. There are fewer invasive

woody species that require management in this

unit and the willows are providing significant

shoreline stabilization.

## Management Comments:

1. The established populations of Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and Canada thistle

(Cirsium arvense) will require an aggressive initial roster of activities to effectively remove.

2. Herbicide treatment with Imazapyr as the active ingredient will provide more effective initial

and prolonged control over glyphosate. Following the initial Imazapyr treatment, mowing to

prevent seed production and repeat applications with glyphosate should bring the populations

under control prior to seeding, but careful monitoring should be undertaken to ensure they are

effectively eradicated before proceeding with revegetation.

Due to the presence of desirable plants and proximity of surface water, aquatic approved

herbicides and surfactants are required for all applications.

3. Seed mix should include species known to be competitive with reed canary grass, such as

prairie cordgrass (Spartina pectinata) and swamp milkweed (Asclepias incarnata).

4. Continue overseeding and planting of native plugs to diversify wetland areas. Native dogwood

shrubs or hackberries could be planted if canopy is desired.

32

## 5.d. Restoration Management Phasing & Cost Estimate Summary

Total management costs* were based on 5-year management plans. Total 5-year costs for all vegetation management are $XXX,XXX . Cost

estimation is based on current 2025 market rates, subcontracting all implementation and necessary oversight, and the assumption that all

management units are implemented concurrently. Management unit nuances may influence cost totals and should be considered.

*All prices are estimates based on current market rates at the time of writing. Estimates do not factor in any state dollars being used to perform activities. Due

to new language change in statute as of August 1, 2024, any natural resource related projects need to follow state prevailing wage requirements. This change

in state statute language will have an increase in actual costs.

Activity Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

## Applicable

## Management Units

Woody debris disposal $XX,XXX 8

Chip and install on defined trails $XX,XXX 8

Dead down woody disposal $XX,XXX 1, 2

Hazard tree removal $XX,XXX 1,2,3,4,8,10

Dethatch turf $XX,XXX 6,7,11,12

Remove turf (spray/till/spray) $XX,XXX 6,7,12

Interseed bee lawn forbs $XX,XXX 6,7,11,12

Undesirable tree removal $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX 3,8,10

Seed, Blanket, Cover Crop $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX 2,6,7,10,12

Woody invasive control $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX 1,2,3,4,8,9,10

Establishment maintenance $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX 4,6,7,8,11,12

Herbaceous invasive control $XX,XXX 8

Non-native grass removal $XX,XXX 4

Woody follow up maintenance $XX,XXX $XX,XXX 8

Reed canary grass control $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX 1

Plant native savanna trees $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX 4

Understory seeding $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX 1,3,4,8,9

Plant native pollinator shrubs $XX,XXX 4

Reseeding $XX,XXX 6,7

Shoreline buffer plantings $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX 9

Planting of native trees and shrubs $XX,XXX $XX,XXX 1,8

Total $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

33

## 5.e. Management Unit Recommendations

Note: Priority index is on a scale from 1 to 5 (1=high priority, 5=low priority).

## Existing Land Cover

## Types

## Acres Target Land Cover Recommended Actions Priority

## Index

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Assumptions and Notes

## Management Unit 1

## Altered/non-native

mesic hardwood

## X Enhanced mesic

hardwood

Woody invasive control 1 $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX Cut, treat, pile, burn on site or chip

Hazard tree removal 2 $XX,XXX Haul off or chip for trails

Dead down woody

disposal

## 1 $XX,XXX

Reed canary grass

control

3 $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX Two treatments year 2, Rx burn year

3, final spray and seeding year 4

Understory seeding 3 $XX,XXX $XX,XXX Seed understory after BT removal,

seed grasslands after RCG removal

Planting of native trees

and shrubs

4 $XX,XXX $XX,XXX Plant year 4, maintenance year 5

## Management Unit 2

## Altered/non-native

mesic hardwood

## X Enhanced mesic

hardwood

Dead down woody

disposal

1 $XX,XXX SWWD is conducting management in

this area. Chip into walking trail

Hazard tree removal 1 $XX,XXX

## Seed, Blanket, Cover

## Crop

2 $XX,XXX Seeding should be accompanied by

some form of erosion control

Woody invasive control 1 $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

## Management Unit 3

Existing X Target Task Priority $X,XXX $XXX Notes

## Management Unit 4

Existing X Target Task Priority $X,XXX $XXX Notes

34

## Management Unit 5

Existing X Target Task Priority $X,XXX $XXX Notes

## Seed, Blanket, Cover

## Crop

## 3 $XX,XXX

## Establishment

maintenance

## 3 $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

Reseeding 3 $XX,XXX

35

## 5.f. Long Term Maintenance Recommendations

While it can be difficult to accurately forecast longer term maintenance needs once the initial restoration phase is complete, provided here are

estimates of likely activities that may be necessary to maintain the sites and continue to enhance the diversity and floristic quality of the

management units.

## Management Units Activity Year 5-10 Cost

## Estimate*

## Year 10-20 Cost

## Estimate*

1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10 Invasive control

## $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10 Enhancement plantings and maintenance

## $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

6,7,11 Prescribed burn or burn alternative

## $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

6,7,11 Invasive control

## $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

6,7,11 Booster seedings

## $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

All Tree maintenance and replacement

## $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

## Totals

## $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

*Cost estimates here do not reflect inflation, changes to market rates for services, etc., but are intended to provide a relative reference

point for longer-term maintenance needs.

36

## 6. WOOD LAKE NATURE CENTER

## 6.a. Project Site Vegetation and Habitat Assessment

Figure 12. General location of Richfield Lake Park project boundary within the City of Richfield, MN.

Wood Lake Nature Center (WLNC) is a 150-acre public natural area situated between suburban

neighborhoods and the major I-35W highway corridor. This park has over three miles of trails and

boardwalks, over two miles of which are accessible, and groomed cross-country ski trails in winters with

natural snowfall. The main nature center is being redeveloped in 2026, with complete facilities expected

to be open early 2027. Multiple entrances within the surrounding neighborhoods provide local access

for foot traffic in the community. Environmental education programs and naturalist-led seasonal

activities make this park a destination for tens of thousands of visitors year-round.

Prior to the development of the nature center, Wood Lake was significantly impacted by the

construction of I-35W corridor in the late 1950s. Lower ed water levels from altered stormwater and

37

surface water management exposed the lake bottom, creat ing the shoreline, wetlands, and eventually

forested lowland habitat that comprises the accessible habitats today (Figure x). These shallow and

poorly drained soils are mainly comprised of Forada sandy loam (D10A) and Duelm loamy sand (D17A)

with 0 to 2 percent slopes (Appendix C) sit at or just above the water tabl e. Although the property has

some remaining edge habitat that dates before this land use change, the current vegetation is relatively

young, developing from pioneer species that colonized or were planted into the expanded land.

Figure 13. Aerial images of Wood Lake in 1956, 1960, and 1971 showing water level reduction and increase in exposed

shoreline and vegetated shallow wetlands (CITE MHAPO).

Current vegetation in the non-wetland or open-water portions of the site can loosely be classified into

woodland and prairie areas which will be broken into units and discussed further in the following

sections. All habitat areas have been and will continue to be impacted by adjacent land use and by the

high traffic of public visitors . However, city staff, volunteers and community groups, such as Friends of

Wood Lake, manage the non-native plant species encroachment in many areas through invasive species

removal and native species establishment, r eflected in the more than typical habitat diversity for an

urban park. The following description and tables (Tables 14 and 15) represent the dominant and notable

species identified throughout the 2025 growing season at Wood Lake Nature and do not reflect a

comprehensive survey of all species within the site.

38

Table 14. Terrestrial vegetation observed in the woodlands at Wood Lake Nature Center throughout summer and fal l,

2025.

## Scientific Name Common Name Nativity

## Canopy

## Celtis occidentalis Hackberry Native

## Morus alba White Mulberry Non-native, Invasive

## Populus deltoides Cottonwood Native

## Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Native

## Acer negundo Box Elder Native

## Ulmus pumila Siberian Elm Non-native, Invasive

## Prunus virginiana Chokecherry Native

## Acer saccharinum Silver Maple Native

## Ulmus americana American Elm Native

## Robinia pseudoacacia Black Locust Non-native, Invasive

## Catalpa speciosa Cigar Tree Non-native, Invasive

## Juglans nigra Black Walnut Native

## Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak Native

## Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red Cedar Native

## Acer saccharum Sugar Maple Native

## Populus tremuloides Quaking Aspen Native, Weedy

## Tilia americana Basswood Native

## Populus alba White Poplar Non-native, Invasive

## Salix spp. Willows Non-native, Invasive

## Acer ginnala Amur Maple Non-native, Invasive

## Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak Native

## Sub-canopy

## Prunus virginiana Cokecherry Native

## Amelanchier spp. Juneberries Native

## Ribes cynosbati Prickly Gooseberry Native

## Ribes missouriense Missouri Gooseberry Native

## Morus alba White Mulberry Non-native, Invasive

## Frangula alnus Glossy Buckthorn Non-native, Invasive

## Rhamnus cathartica Common Buckthorn Non-native, Invasive

## Sambucus racemosa Red-Berried Elder Native

## Prunus serotina Black Cherry Native

## Lonicera tatarica Tartarian Honeysuckle Non-native, Invasive

## Cornus alternifolia Pagoda Dogwood Native

## Ground

vegetation

## Ageratina altissima White Snakeroot Native

## Leonurus cardiaca Common Motherwort Non-native, Invasive

## Vitis riparia Wild Grape Native

## Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia Creeper Native

## Hackelia virginiana Virginia Stickseed Native

## Solidago canadensis Canada Goldenrod Native

## Nepeta cataria Catnip Non-native, Invasive

## Maianthemum racemosum Common False Solomon's Seal Native

## Circaea canadensis Common Enchanter's Nightshade Native

## Pilea pumila Dwarf Clearweed Native

## Sicyos angulatus Bur Cucumber Native

39

Table 15. Terrestrial vegetation observed in the prairies at Wood Lake Nature Center throughout summer and fall, 2025.

## Scientific Name Common Name Nativity

## Canopy

## Populus deltoides Cottonwood Native

## Populus tremuloides Quaking Aspen Native

## Quercus ellipsoidalis Northern Pin Oak Native

## Sub-canopy

## Frangula alnus Glossy Buckthorn Non-native, Invasive

## Rubus spp. Blackberries Native

## Lonicera tatarica Tartarian Honeysuckle Non-native, Invasive

## Prunus virginiana Chokecherry Native

## Ground

vegetation

## Apocynum cannabinum American Hemp Native

## Elymus spp. Wild Ryes and Cheatgrasses Native

## Calamagrostis canadensis Bluejoint Native

## Solidago canadensis Canada Goldenrod Native

## Ageratina altissima White Snakeroot Native

## Bouteloua curtipendula Side-Oats Grama Native

## Euphorbia virgata Leafy Spurge Non-native, Invasive

## Euphorbia corollata Eastern Flowering Spurge Native

## Andropogon gerardii Big Bluestem Native

## Artemisia ludoviciana White Sage Native

## Sorghastrum nutans Indian Grass Native

## Rosa arkansana Prairie Rose Native

## Panicum capillare Witch Grass Native

## Agastache foeniculum Blue Giant Hyssop Native

## Monarda fistulosa Wild Bergamot Native

## Monarda punctata Spotted Horsemint Native

## Helianthus pauciflorus Stiff Sunflower Native

## Eryngium yuccifolium Rattlesnake Master Native

## Asclepias tuberosa Butterflyweed Native

## Baptisia lactea White Wild Indigo Native

## Silphium perfoliatum Cup Plant Native

## Phalaris arundinacea Reed Canary Grass Non-native, Invasive

## Lythrum salicaria Purple Loosestrife Non-native, Invasive

40

## Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS)

The Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) cover types for Wood Lake Nature Center are

shown in Table 6 and Figure 3. Although this classification system informs our understanding of site

composition and habitat complexes, technological limitations of MLCCS and land use changes should be

considered to accurately depict current conditions. Due to the rapidly changing nature of urban parks

and redundancies amongst code definitions, the MLCCS cover types were condensed and simplified into

general land use categories and descriptions for Wood Lake Nature Center.

The Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) cover types for Wood Lake Nature Center are

shown in Figure 14. The MLCCS survey identified eighteen different land cover types within the project

boundary (Table 16). Wetlands and woodlands dominate the vegetation classes of the site (31% and

30% , respectively). Altered/non-native deciduous woodland covers more than 27% of the mapped area,

with small areas of oak forests in the eastern sections and other deciduous trees with a range of

impervious cover throughout the site. Prairies and transitional land comprise 11%, largely in the

restored savanna habitat in the south with some acres surrounding the nature center campus that will

be impacted by the construction of the new building facilities. The remainder (1%) of impervious land

use class is represented by the northern parking lot area. Little to no turf, paved spaces or other

managed urban land use exists within Wood Lake Nature Center as the playgrounds and multi-use

recreational / educational facilities are incorporated within the surrounding natural hab itats. These

MLCCS codes have been simplified into broad categories to summarize land use types and associated

restoration needs below (Table X and Figure X).

Table 16. Minnesota Land Cover Classification System codes throughout Richfield Park, Richfield, MN

## Map ID MLCCS Codes Category MLCCS Code Name/Description

1 32112, 11241,

11239, 42130,

42210

Woodlands Upland deciduous forest with temporary flooding exists

throughout 30% of project area. Oaks are particularly

dominant throughout edges of the eastern woodland.

2 - Maintained

short grasses

-

3 61110, 61410,

13223, 23212

Prairies Upland grassland dominated by wet to mesic prairie

species with minimal canopy exists throughout 6% of the

project area.

4 14122, 14113 Buildings and

## Pavement

Buildings and pavement make up 1% of the total project

area, specifically the northern entrance and parking lot.

5 14214 Transitional

## Land

Transitional land use with no canopy and mowed turf

exists throughout 5% of the project area.

6 92100, 93300 Open Water Palustrine open water exists throughout 27% of the

project area.

7 61830, 61630,

61730, 61480

Wetland Altered, non-native dominated vegetation ranging from

saturated to permanently flooded soils exist throughout

31% of the project area.

41

Figure 14. Minnesota Land Cover Classification System codes throughout Wood Lake Nature Center, Richfield, MN.

42

## Minnesota DNR Native Plant Community Classification (MNDNR NPC)

The diversity of native species at Wood Lake Nature Center does provide a good basis for the proposed

NPCs. While t he current plant communities are considered ‘degraded’ versions of the target restoration

NPC s due to the history of the site and the continued urban impacts that define this space, they do

largely align with the MLCCS classes as well as the proposed management units and goals. Descriptions

of approximate native plant community types found throughout Wood Lake Nature Center are provided

below (Table 17).

The plant communities break out into three major forest types, two upland savanna / prairie types , and

one wetland edge prairie habitat type.

NOTE – The MHs49 NPC is the only NPC that comes up on the DNR habitat shapefile. We will either

remove it as proposed NPC (units may lack the rich soil described for the current or proposed species) or

reevaluate the fit of the FFs59.

Table 17. Minnesota DNR Native Plant Communities identified throughout Wood Lake Nature Center, Richfield, MN.

## NPC Code NPC Code Name Description

## MHs49

## Southern Wet-Mesic

## Hardwood Forest

Rich, wet-mesic lowland hardwood forests on level silty

alluvium in stream valleys and on level glacial till

bordering lakes. Sites are protected from fire, and soils

remain moist throughout the growing season.

## MHs37/MHs38 Southern Dry-Mesic Oak

## Forest/ Southern Mesic

## Oak Basswood Forest

Dry-mesic or mesic hardwood forests occurring most

often on thin, wind-deposited silt on crests and upper

slopes of bedrock bluffs and less often on hummocky

stagnation moraines in calcareous, partially sorted drift.

## FFs59

Southern Terrace Forest Wet-mesic deciduous forests on silty or sandy alluvium

on level, occasionally flooded sites along small streams

to large rivers in the southern half of Minnesota.

## UPs14/UPs13 Southern Dry Savanna

and Prairie

Sparsely treed communities with grass-dominated

herbaceous ground layers on nearly level to steeply

sloping sites with droughty soils. Moderate growing-

season moisture deficits occur during most years, and

severe moisture deficits are frequent, especially during

periodic regional droughts. Trees are open grown,

typically small and gnarled. Historically, fires probably

occurred every few years.

## WPs54 Southern Wet Prairie Grass-dominated but forb-rich herbaceous

communities on poorly drained to very poorly drained

loam soils formed in lacustrine sediments, unsorted

glacial till, or less frequently outwash deposits. Typically

in slight depressions, sometimes on very gentle slopes.

Flooded for brief periods at most; upper part of rooting

zone is not saturated for most of the growing season,

but saturation usually persists in lower zone for much

of season.

43

## 6.b. Restoration Objectives

Wood Lake Nature Center has had staff on site since the construction of the original nature center

buildings in 1971. Current and continuing efforts include invasive shrub removal with follow up

maintenance, native shrub planting and protection, native seeding, and prairie maintenance. The new

nature center campus will also include landscaped or developed natural areas for educational purposes

that may utilize similar species and techniques but will not be included in this management plan.

## Recreation Management Area Objectives

 Maintain a healthy natural space by removing invasive species and stewarding the growth of

native plants at all forest levels.

 Continu e establish ing and maintaining the prairie and savanna habitats.

 Diversify the native shoreline to reduce cattail and reed canary grass expansion and contribute

to water quality.

 Balance the sustainability of wild natural areas with trail use and nature center programs.

 Maintain a diversity of marsh and lake views along trails and at bird viewing areas.

## Ecological Restoration Objectives

Management comments consider the challenges of restoring a disturbed urban landscape and should

continue to be evaluated as environmental conditions change over time.

1. Restore and enhance forest habitats (MHs 37/38 and FFs59)

a. Strategies

i. Maintain and enhance woodland remnants in Units 2, 3, and 6.

ii. Conduct mechanical and chemical removal of invasive, hazard, and non-suitable woody

species. This will include thinning or removal of MN native species such as box elder and

green ash .

iii. Re-establish a tree canopy cover of 50- 100 % after initial undesirable canopy removal.

iv. Maintain a representative age class to allow for regeneration.

v. Enhance understory diversity with deep rooted native grasses, forb, and shrub species.

(a) Historical and existing native vegetation structure should be considered for future

habitat enhancement species selection.

(b) Where possible, use local ecotype seed following the Minnesota Board of Water &

Soil Resources (BWSR) “Native Vegetation establishment and enhancement

guidelines.” See Appendices E and G for species lists.

2. Restore and enhance upland savanna and prairie habitats (Ups14 and 13)

a. Strategies

i. Conduct mechanical and chemical removal of invasive, hazard, and non-suitable woody

species in Units 4 and 5, as well as the adjacent edges of Unit 3.

ii. Establish a tree canopy cover of 5-20% with habitat connectivity to savanna habitats in

Units 4 and thin or control aspen expansion in Unit 3.

iii. Remove and continue suppression of reed canary grass in Units 3, 4, and 5.

44

iv. Continue ground layer vegetation restoration with continued establishment

maintenance of deep-rooted native savanna grasses, forb, and flowering shrub species

to enhance pollinator habitat connectivity in Units 4 and 5.

3. Restore and enhance wetland edge prairie for e rosion control and surface water health (WPs54)

a. Strategies

i. Remove and continue suppression of reed canary grass and invasive cattails in and

adjacent to all accessible shorelines.

ii. Establish deep root ed plant species to filter pollutants carried by rainfall, improve soil

health, and reduce soil erosion into Wood Lake.

4. Reduction/mitigation of non-native and invasive species

a. Rationale: Due to vectors likely to persist on the site due to its urban setting and relatively

small size, non-native species will persist on the site, if left unmanaged. As per

recommendations outlined in section 6.c, many management units include an initial

removal of the most dominant invasive species, followed by a revegetation plan that can

provide competition against re-colonization by invasives.

b. Strategies

i. Document location, density, and area of invasive populations with GIS.

ii. When feasible, use biological control.

iii. Where biological control is not available, use chemical and mechanical means to control.

iv. Monitor infested areas for effectiveness of control.

v. Provide education to community members and adjacent landowners regarding

prevention and management.

5. Consider impacts to wildlife, habitat management, and visitor use of Wood Lake Nature Center

a. Strategies

i. Install signage of restoration and management activities at entry points that explain

restoration activities and their importance to ecosystem health.

ii. When possible, remove or stack felled or dead trees away from trails.

iii. Provide access that is sensitive to surrounding landscape and minimizes impact on

natural resources.

iv. Review and prioritize tree removal of invasive and potentially hazardous trees

throughout the corridor (See Appendix A).

45

Figure 15. Target restoration ecosystems, by work unit, defined by MN DNR Native Plant Communities recommended for Wood

Lake Nature Center, Richfield, MN.

46

## 6.c. Habitat Complexes and Management Comments

These habitat complexes are guided by the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) and

Native Plant Communities (NPC), defined by the MNDNR, and have been simplified to streamline the

recommended management activities. Following the description of each habitat type per MLCCS,

observations and commentary on the specifics of each identified management unit at Wood Lake Nature

Center are discussed.

The following section also contains specific recommendations for the execution of management

objectives at each work unit (Fig. 15). In each unit, observations are detailed based on observed

conditions as of summer and fall 2025 and spring 2026. The recommended activities are proposed here

generally as a sequential timeline, with high-disturbance activities such as woody debris and major

invasive control being first priority, followed by subsequent follow-up measures and vegetation

enhancement. Management comments should continue to be evaluated as environmental conditions

change over time. A more structured presentation of the proposed activity timeline across the site is

detailed in the cost summary table in section 6.c., with the per-unit tasks broken down in the table

found in 6.d. Recommended activities could be phased across a wider time frame, or by specific units

per phase, as funding and capacity require, although it should be recognized that alignment of similar

management activities chronologically across the entire site will likely provide increased efficiency and

lower cost-per-acre, due to efficiency of scale. Long-term maintenance recommendations are broken

down into 5-10- and 10-20-year recommendations in section 6.e., however, inflation changes should be

considered. Section 6.f. lists recommended specifications related to the associated management

actions. Refinement of exact specifications will still be required when any management guidance is

translated into a request for proposals or implementation by city staff.

Note : Hazardous and invasive tree removal recommendations are outlined on a high level within the

following management comments by unit. Further explanation and detailed mapping for all tree

removal can be found in Appendix A.

47

## Target Ecosystem – Urban Interface with Nature Center Campus

## Work Unit 1: Nature Center Campus _____________________________________________

Description: Urban infrastructure with native planting areas.

Management comments:

1. Refer to the campus design for the newly constructed nature center facility for plans that will be

instituted after the building construction in 2026/27.

2. Replanting of canopy trees lost to the construction should prioritize diverse native species that

are applicable to the habitat such as bur oaks, basswood, hackberry, or maples.

3. Any turf grass required by the nature center can incorporate bee lawn enhancements to create

pollinator resources but maintain pedestrian use with minimal disturbance.

a. Recommended installation of at least three forb species, with associated relaxation of

mowing intervals, especially during establishment. Mower deck height minimum of 4” is

recommended for optimum results of flowering species.

b. Low mow fescue grasses can be introduced along with the bee lawn forbs for better drought

tolerance, reduced mowing frequency, and a more rustic aesthetic.

## Target Ecosystems – FFs59 – Southern Terrace Forest

Work Units 2 and 6: Eastern and Western Woodlands __________________________

Description: Cottonwood trees (Populus

deltoides) dominate the canopy throughout

the woodland. These fast-growing natives

establish quickly and mature in 50-70 years

along shallow lakeshores. Other dominant

native tree species include silver and sugar

maples (Acer saccharinum and A. saccharum),

American elm (Ulmus americana), hackberry

(Celtis occidentalis) and basswood (Tilia

americana). Weedy or invasive green ash

(Fraxinus pennsylvanica), box elder (Acer

negundo), black locust (Robinia

pseudoacacia), Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila),

white poplar (Populus alba) and white mulberry (Morus alba) can be found throughout the site, with

dense patches of young growth expanding in many areas.

The shrub layer is reasonably diverse with a wide range of native species. Invasives such as glossy and

common buckthorn (Frangula alnus and Rhamnus cathartica) do dominate patches of the understory.

However, natives including black cherry and chokecherry (Prunus serotina and P. virginiana), prickly and

Missouri gooseberry (Ribes cynosbati and R. missouriense), red-berried elder (Sambucus racemosa),

prickly ash (Zanthoxylum americanum) and black raspberry (Rubus occidentalis) are widespread,

providing pollinator and wildlife forage throughout the year.

Image 15. Walking trail along the east side of Wood Lake showing

an established understory and canopy trees, Richfield, MN.

48

Common motherwort (Leonurus cardiaca), purple loosestrife, thistles (Circium spp.), leafy spurge

(Euphorbia virgata), sweet clover (Melilotus alba), ground-ivy (Glechoma hederacea), garlic mustard

(Alliaria petiolata) and common burdock (Arcium minus) can be found densely outcompeting natives in

many areas but again the understory is dominated by native vegetation.

The ground vegetation is very sparse in sections, with sandy open soil supporting little to no vegetation

in large patches. White snakeroot (Ageratina altissima), common jewelweed (Impatiens capensis ),

Virginia stickseed (Hackelia virginiana), ostrich fern (Matteuccia struthiopteris) dwarf clearweed (Pilea

pumila) and multiple other nettles in the Urticaceae family widely cover the ground. Wild grape (Vitis

riparia) and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia) vine both up tree trunks as well as cover

large areas of the woodland floor. Multiple Solomon’s seal species (Maianthemum racemosum, M.

trifolium and Polygonatum biflorum), Jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum) and common and smooth

yellow violet (Viola sororia and V. eriocarpa) are also widely found.

## Management Comments:

1. Proactive and hazard tree removal should be conducted to prevent trail obstructions and could

be done simultaneously with woody invasive control and disposal.

2. Invasive and weedy trees, like boxelder, silver maple, mulberries, as well as their resprouts and

clonal shoots, should be removed and controlled over multiple years.

3. Continue buckthorn and invasive shrub removal with follow up treatments in all areas. Seedlings

may still establish after initial population removal due to the seedbank deposited by older

“mother” berry producing plants that have since been removed.

4. Herbaceous invasive and weedy species should be monitored and controlled after buckthorn

removal with timed herbicide spot treatments.

5. Understory seeding is recommended to promote native species, deter invasive establishment

and enhance habitat.

6. Native trees and shrubs should be planted in individual cag es or small, protectively fenced pods,

to continue understory diversification especially in areas of invasive tree or shrub removal.

7. Targeted pockets of open areas should be planted with native forb and fern plugs, especially of

species that do not establish well from seeds

## Work Unit 2: Eastern Woodland and SE Neighborhood Edge___________________________________

Description: Bur oak and other oak

species (Quercus macrocarpa and

Quercus spp.) are found predominantly

on the eastern and southern edges of this

unit. Invasive woody is minimal, however,

this unit should still be swept as there is a

large Siberian elm along the trail of this

unit that will continue to seed. There is a

large established patch in the SE access

area that extends into the neighborhood

by W. 71

st

## St. and Bryant Ave S. This

Image 16. A deer browsing between downed woody debris along the

fenceline of the oak-filled neighborhood east of Wood Lake, Richfield,

49

eastern edge rises in topography up into the remnant oak grove that dominates the private property

along Oak Grove Blvd.

## Management Comments:

1. Disposal of existing woody debris is suggested to be conducted prior to woody invasive removal

to maximize accessibility.

2. Invasive trees and shrubs should be managed along with the rest of this unit.

3. Bur oak seedlings that are naturally propagating should be found, marked, and caged to prevent

wildlife damage or mortality during other management activities.

4. Garlic mustard and other herbaceous species should be monitored and removed as restoration

continues.

5. Understory enhancement with shade tolerant native vegetation is recommended. Snow seeding

is recommended to promote effective germination, especially given the compacted soils where

disturbance has occurred.

Work Units 2 and 6: Upland Forests Near Fencelines and Nature Center _________________________

Description: While there isn’t a hard designation between these three ecosystem types within Units 2

and 6, there are pockets of slightly higher (and potentially previous shoreline woodlands) at the edges of

these units.

## Management Comments:

1. Tasks will be like the other woodlands but refer to Appendices D and G for applicable native

species lists.

Work Unit 3: Southern Woodland __________________________

Description: Condition is very similar to Unit 2 with more altered shoreline due to stormwater drainage

outlets, ditches, and constructed walkways. The canopy contains walnut, ash, silver maple, cottonwood,

elm, and boxelder. The habitats are similar in composition but considerably less accessible in the SW

corner.

## Management Comments:

1. Priority will be for invasive species removal, specifically for those that produce seeds, berries,

or otherwise may spread prolifically to adjacent areas.

2. Trail-adjacent habitat will benefit from native species establishment and hazard tree removal.

3. The eastern portion of this unit may be transition ed to savanna depending on the management

goals of Units 4 and 5.

50

## Target Ecosystem – UPs13/14/23 – Southern Dry Prairie and Savanna

Work Units 4 and 5: Native Prairie and Savanna __________________________

Description: The prairie section of open

and relatively higher ground in the

southern section of the park is unique

in that not only does it date prior to the

lowering of the lake levels, potentially

retaining a seedbank or at least land

use history that supports native

grassland vegetation, the city has also

replanted this habitat in recent

decades. A stand of quaking aspen

(Populus tremuloides) and cottonwoods

contribute to the savanna portion

adjacent to the establishing prairie.

Reed canary grass (Phlaris arundinacea) and other non-native grass species threaten to dominate if left

unmanaged. However, the native grasses big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), Indian grass (Sorghastrum

nutans), side-oats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), canada bluejoint (Calamagrostis canadensis), witch

grass (Panicum capillare), and various native rye species (Elymus spp.) currently dominate.

Similarly, while many weedy or invasive forb species can be found such as leafy spurge (Euphorbia

virgata), field penny-cress (Thlaspi arvense), common burdock (Arctium minus), velvetleaf (Abutilon

theophrasti), bird’s-foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) and great mullein (Verbascum thapsus), a wide

variety of native wildflowers have also established well. These include leadplant (Amorpha canescens),

prairie rose (Rosa arkansana), common and butterfly milkweed (Asclepias syriaca and A. tuberosa),

rattlesnake master (Eryngium yuccifolium), wild bergamot and spotted horsemint (Monarda fistulosa

and M. punctata), white wild indigo (Baptisia lactea) and several aster and sunflower species.

## Management Comments:

1. Invasive grasses and weedy or invasive herbaceous species should be mapped, spot mowed and

treated and monitored over multiple seasons.

2. Prescribed fire may be a potential management tool to remove thatch and stimulate native

growth in very defined or partial acreage of Units 4 and 5. Wetland edges and savanna sections

with native shrubs or tree species that do not tolerate fire should be avoided.

3. Mowing may also promote native grasses and suppress “weedy agricultural forbs” such as

pennycress, bird’s-foot trefoil, and velvetleaf.

4. Burdock should be managed depending on the stage of life being treated (chemical or

mechanical treatments differ for first or second year plants) with multiple years of control to

address this biennial weed.

5. Continue overseeding and planting of native plugs to diversify prairie and savanna areas.

Image 17. Establishing prairie at Wood Lake Nature Center, Richfield, MN.

51

6. The area indicated as Upland Prairie in unit 5 will require a dryer seed mix indicated in Appendix

## B.

7. Unit 4 is a gradual transition between the upland prairie and southern woodland. Glossy and

common buckthorn removal is a priority. A quaking aspen stand is encroaching this unit and

may require thinning in the long-term to encourage understory establishment.

8. Plant bur oak trees into the savanna areas within caged pods or individual caging.

All Work Units – Marsh Edge Habitat __________________________

Description: The expanded lakeshore caused by lowered water

levels created an exposed habitat between the wooded upland

and the open water of the lake. Some sections filled in with marsh

species such as cattail, both the invasive narrow-leaved Typha

angustifolia and potentially the hybridized T. x glauca. Other

sections are shallow with sandbar willow (Salix interior), dogbane

(Apocynum cannabinum) and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria)

which line the shore in occasionally dense patches. Bullrushes,

sedges and native wildflowers like swam p milkweed (Asclepias

incarnata) provide diverse habitat in this transitional ecosystem.

## Management Comments:

1. Removal of reed canary grass may not be an option in

these areas, and especially not throughout the entire

habitat. However, it could be controlled in small areas to

establish patches of native diversity.

2. A weedy yet native wet prairie mix is recommended for

trail edges along the network of raised trails throughout

Wood Lake.

3. Tightly mow the edge habitat that will be planted with follow up herbicide applications multiple

seasons prior to planting.

4. Plant native plugs in the fall with fencing for protection as well as continued maintenance.

Image 18. Swamp milkweed and other

wetland edge ground cover adjacent to

Wood Lake, MN.

52

## 6.d. Restoration Management Phasing & Cost Estimate Summary

Total management costs* were based on 5-year management plans. Total 5-year costs for all vegetation management are $XXX,XXX . Cost

estimation is based on current 2026 market rates, subcontracting all implementation and necessary oversight, and the assumption that all

management units are implemented concurrently. Management unit nuances may influence cost totals and should be considered.

*All prices are estimates based on current market rates at the time of writing. Estimates do not factor in any state dollars being used to perform activities. Due

to new language change in statute as of August 1, 2024, any natural resource related projects need to follow state prevailing wage requirements. This change

in state statute language will have an increase in actual costs.

Activity Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

## Applicable

## Management Units

Hazard tree removal $XX,XXX 2, 3, 6

Undesirable and invasive tree removal $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX 2, 3, 4, 6

Woody debris disposal $XX,XXX 2, 3, 4, 6

Dead down woody disposal $XX,XXX 2, 6

Woody invasive control $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX 2, 3, 4, 6

Herbaceous invasive control $XX,XXX 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Reed canary grass control $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX 1, 4, 5

Understory seeding $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX 2, 3, 6

Woody invasive follow up control $XX,XXX $XX,XXX 2, 3, 4, 6

Native pollinator shrubs planting with fencing $XX,XXX 2, 4, 6

Prairie diversity reseeding $XX,XXX 4, 5

Shoreline habitat plantings $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX 1, 2, 6

Oaks and native tree plantings with fencing $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX 1, 2, 3, 4, 6

Native species establishment maintenance $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Total $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

53

## 6.e. Management Unit Recommendations

Note: Priority index is on a scale from 1 to 5 (1=high priority, 5=low priority).

## Existing Land Cover

## Types

## Acres Target Land Cover Recommended Actions Priority

## Index

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Assumptions and Notes

## Management Unit 1

## Altered/non-native

mesic hardwood

## X Enhanced mesic

hardwood

Woody invasive control 1 $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX Cut, treat, pile, burn on site or chip

Hazard tree removal 2 $XX,XXX Haul off or chip for trails

Dead down woody

disposal

## 1 $XX,XXX

Reed canary grass

control

3 $XX,XXX $XX,XXX $XX,XXX Two treatments year 2, Rx burn year

3, final spray and seeding year 4

Understory seeding 3 $XX,XXX $XX,XXX Seed understory after BT removal,

seed grasslands after RCG removal

Planting of native trees

and shrubs

4 $XX,XXX $XX,XXX Plant year 4, maintenance year 5

## Management Unit 2

## Altered/non-native

mesic hardwood

## X Enhanced mesic

hardwood

Dead down woody

disposal

1 $XX,XXX SWWD is conducting management in

this area. Chip into walking trail

Hazard tree removal 1 $XX,XXX

## Seed, Blanket, Cover

## Crop

2 $XX,XXX Seeding should be accompanied by

some form of erosion control

Woody invasive control 1 $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

## Management Unit 3

Existing X Target Task Priority $X,XXX $XXX Notes

## Management Unit 4

Existing X Target Task Priority $X,XXX $XXX Notes

54

## Management Unit 5

Existing X Target Task Priority $X,XXX $XXX Notes

55

## 6.f. Long Term Maintenance Recommendations

While it can be difficult to accurately forecast longer term maintenance needs once the initial restoration phase is complete, provided here are

estimates of likely activities that may be necessary to maintain the sites and continue to enhance the diversity and floristic quality of the

management units. Other details as needed.

## Management Units Activity Year 5-10 Cost

## Estimate*

## Year 10-20 Cost

## Estimate*

2, 3, 6 Woody invasive control

## $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Enhancement plugs and shrub plantings with fencing

## $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

4, 5 Prescribed burn or burn alternative

## $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Herbaceous invasive control

## $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

2, 4 Fencing maintenance

## $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

All Tree maintenance and replacement

## $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

## Totals

## $XX,XXX $XX,XXX

*Cost estimates here do not reflect inflation, changes to market rates for services, etc., but are intended to provide a relative reference

point for longer-term maintenance needs.

56

## Appendix A: Specifications

[Further edits will be made to this section to indicate relevant sites and units and site specific

modifications]

1. Target species for removal

a. Woody target species: 95% removal and 90% continued control of invasive brush

species: Common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), Glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus),

Amur maple (Acer ginnala), exotic honeysuckles (Lonicera tartarica, L. morrowii, L. maackii,

L. x bella) Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), and

Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila), Oriental bittersweet, (Celastrus orbiculatus), Japanese barberry

(Berberis thunbergeii), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), and Siberian pea shrub

(Caragana arborescens), Norway maple (Acer platanoides), tree of heaven (Ailanthus

altissima), white mulberry (Morus alba), winged euonymus (Euonymus alatus),

white/European poplar (Populus alba), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), autumn olive

(Elaeagnus umbellata)

b. Allowable incidental take of native weedy shrub species (no % control goal, no herbicide

treatment): Boxelder (Acer negundo), Silver maple (Acer saccharinum), green ash (Fraxinus

pennsylvanica), black walnut (Juglans nigra), cottonwood (Populus deltoides), American elm

(Ulnus americana).

c. Herbaceous invasive target species: 90% control of the following species: Kentucky

bluegrass/ turf grass (Poa pretensis) in all turf conversion units, Garlic Mustard (Alliaria

petiolata), Burdock (Arctium spp), bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamara), butter and

eggs (Linaria vulgaris), Motherwort (Leonurus cardiaca) Dame’s Rocket (Hesperis

matronalis), Japanese hedge parsley (Torilis japonica), Invasive thistles (Cirsium spp), Bird’s-

foot Trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), Sweet Clover (Melilotus spp.), spotted knapweed

(Centaurea stoebe), Crownvetch (Securigera varia), and Reed canary grass (Phalaris

arundinacea)**.

i. Spot treatments of reed canary grass where it is interspersed with desirable

vegetation are required throughout all work units (i.e. where populations do not

exceed 1000 square feet in size or are not the dominant cover).

d. This project is not concerned with the following invasive herbaceous species and are beyond

its scope as targets: Cattail, narrow leaf or hybrid (Typha spp.), Creeping Charlie (Glechoma

hederacea), and Smooth brome (Bromus inermis).

2. Cut and stump treatment

a. Cut surface and treat ALL target species ≥1/2” DRC (diameter at root collar).

b. Material smaller than 1/2” DRC must be followed up with a foliar treatment.

c. Stumps and stems must be cut flat (not shredded or left with angled top) within 2” of ground

using chainsaws, brush saws, or hand tools.

d. Herbicide must be spot-applied to cut stumps/stems with a dauber, backpack, or handheld

sprayer fitted with nozzles adjusted for a cone-shaped, coarse mist.

e. For ≥4” diameter - apply herbicide to the cambium (growth area along outer ring) of the stump

surface. For less <4” diameter stem/stump – herbicide must be applied to all cut surfaces.

Avoid non-target damage.

f. No spraying from motorized vehicle is allowed, including an ATV or UTV.

g. All cut material from target species must be treated with approved herbicide:

h. Triclopyr amine (Garlon 3A® or approved equivalent) mixed with water or a water-based

adjuvant must be applied immediately after cutting. This cannot be applied during periods of

heavy sap flow or when temperatures are below 40º F. Concentration must be between 50-

100% v/v.

57

i. Triclopyr ester (Garlon® 4 Ultra or approved equivalent) must be applied with both an oil-

based carrier (e.g., Bark Oil Blue ®) and additional dye immediately following cutting. The

use of petroleum products as a carrier is not allowed.

j. Glyphosate must be applied immediately following cut during late spring, summer, or fall. Do

not apply herbicides during times of heavy sap flow (early spring). Follow herbicide label

instructions.

k. For herbicde treatment near wetlands, surface water, or seeps, only aquatic-rated herbicides

and oil carriers containing active ingredient Triclopyr are approved. Wetland edges will be

identified by Project Manager.

## 3. Foliar Application

a. Kill rate for foliar application is ≥95%.

b. Active chemical, formulation, and timing must be agreed upon by the Project Manager and

subcontractor.

c. Target plants < 3ft in height. Whips >3 ft tall must be cut first and allowed to regrow prior to

spraying.

d. Spray must cover entire leaf surface area of each plant to the point of wet but not dripping.

e. Care at minimizing overspray is critical.

f. Triclopyr formulations

i. Must be applied in fall between when nighttime temps drop below 50, prior to

senescence of target species (typically prior to first hard frost).

ii. Ester formulations (e.g., Garlon 4 Ultra) cannot be applied in June, July, and August

g. Glyphosate formulations

i. Must be applied in late spring and summer, after heavy sap run has ended

h. Water-soluble Triclopyr formulations (e.g. Garlon 3a) are preferred for summer foliar

applications to limit the potential for volatilization and off target impact of the chemical,

whereas oil-soluble Triclopyr formulations (e.g., Garlon 4 Ultra) are preferred for late fall

applications.

i. No foliar herbicide applications using an ester formulation (e.g. Garlon 4) shall be made

during the months of June, July, or August.

j. No foliar herbicide applications (regardless of formulation) shall be performed when the daily

temperature is predicted to be >85 degrees F with a corresponding relative humidity of <45%

at any time during the day (not just at the time of application).

k. Reapplication cannot occur until the target species has resprouted and leafed out.

l. In addition to spray applications, foliar wicking is also an acceptable form of foliar application.

4. Wicking applications

a. Below are species recommended for wicking techniques – EDIT BY SITE

i. Hybrid cattail (Typha x glauca)

ii. Poison ivy (Toxicodendron rydbergii and radicans)

iii. Glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus)Phragmites

iv. Particularly effective for conifers, large Norway maple, other large trees not known

prone to suckering.

b. Herbicide application will occur in fall, around the first hard frost and prior to the senescence

of target species.

c. Herbicide will be applied with the use of a wick or hand pump type applicator to the leaves

and stems of target plants in areas where dense native species are present. Herbicide will be

applied with a foliar spray in areas with dense target species and low native species

presence.

d. Wicking strategy will use a cloth glove fitted over a chemical resistant rubber glove (or fully

saturated sponge or rope), allowing the applicator to directly apply herbicide to just the leaf

surface by soaking the cloth glove and wiping the chemical along the leaf surface.

e. Wicking application to cover all of leaf surface area on each individual plant. Care at

minimizing non-target damage must be used during all herbicide application

f. Triclopyr ester (Garlon 4 ultra or approved equivalent) is preferred for all winter, early spring,

and late fall applications, unless otherwise stated. An oil-based, carrier must be a product

58

specifically designed for herbicide use (e.g. Diluent Blue™); use of diesel fuel as a carrier is

not allowed.

g. Amine formulations (e.g. Garlon® 3a) are intended for use in aquatic proximity and are

preferred for summer applications (June, July, August) to limit the potential for volatilization

and off target impact of the chemical.

h. Label directions must be followed. Active ingredient must be sufficient concentration to be

effective.

## 5. Basal Bark

a. Timing

i. Preferred timing of basal bark application is winter

(Nov 1 – Feb 15

th

).

ii. Herbicide should not be applied to stems during periods

of heavy sap flow.

iii. For non-root suckering species, basal barking can be

conducted year round for non-root suckering species.

iv. For root-suckering species – timing should be limited to

treatment from late summer through fall, before freeze-

up.

b. Maximum diameter for treatment of target species is 6” DBH.

c. For dense thickets of small stems (<6cm), the herbicide can be

applied to one side.

d. Herbicide must be spot-applied to basal stems with backpack

sprayer or handheld sprayer.

e. Spray must saturate the lower 18 inches of trunk, crown buds, and exposed roots around the

base of the trees or brush to optimize control.

f. Applicators must use oil-soluble triclopyr herbicide with an oil-based carrier with dye (e.g.,

Garlon 4 Ultra® with Bark Oil Blue®). Petroleum products are not an approved carrier.

g. For herbicide treatment near wetlands, surface water, or seeps, only aquatic-rated herbicides and

oil carriers containing active ingredient Triclopyr are approved. Wetland edges will be identified by

Project Manager.

h. Where snow depth inhibits the ability to spray all the way to the ground, treatment of this type

should be avoided.

i. Basal bark will be repeated until all target species have been removed.

j. Stems can be cut after 12 months have passed following basal bark treatment to allow for full

uptake of herbicide.

6. Forestry mowing

a. Forestry mowing must occur when soils are frozen to a depth of 6 inches to minimize soil

damage and compaction.

b. Areas receiving forestry mowing as a treatment are required to have follow up foliar spray in

the first fall following initial removal. See foliar application for further specifications.

c. Care should be taken when forestry mowing as to not injure or mow any non-target

vegetation.

d. Forestry mowing will be allowed on the edges with hand cutting (e.g. chain saw or brush saw)

within 20 feet of trails on the interior unless stated otherwise in the work unit activity

descriptions.

e. Trails must be closed to public when mowing adjacent. Spotter required.

f. Forestry mowing near trails should direct debris away from trails, or the material along the

trail corridor may be cut by brush saws or other methods that minimize debris on the trails.

g. Any mowing head is set low and never exceeds 3’ high off the ground.

h. The mowed vegetation should be shattered by the mower and left in place to decompose.

Areas of excessive mowed debris will be dispersed to ensure the depth does not exceed 6

inches.

i. Brush near standing non-target trees needs to be cut by hand-held tools (e.g. chain saws or

brush saw).

59

j. In areas where high quality native trees are dominant, hand cutting is required. In all forestry

mow areas the following species are allowable for incidental take:

i. Boxelder (Acer negundo), Silver maple (Acer saccharinum), green ash (Fraxinus

pennsylvanica), black walnut (Juglans nigra), cottonwood (Populus deltoides),

American elm (Ulnus americana).

k. Provider will be held accountable for any damage to desirable non-target trees through

operator negligence (including but not limited to scalping trees with cutter head).

l. Oak wilt: Extreme care should be taken to avoid damage to save trees to prevent the spread

of oak wilt. Wounds on oaks intended as save trees should be brought to the attention of the

project manager to determine if they need to be removed or painted with pruning paint.

m. No debris will be ejected off site and no private property will be in danger during this activity.

7. Critical high cut

a. Target species is common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica).

b. Critical high cut will target vegetation >2” DBH. Additional removal technique is required to

target <2”DBH.

c. Year 1 (late May or early June):

i. Subcontractor will cut the main stem at a height of 3-5 feet above ground level, using a

hand saw, chain saw, or brush cutter. All side branches and growth on the remaining

stump is removed using loppers or pruners.

d. Year 1 (mid-September):

i. Subcontractor will cut off, or “re-strip,” any branches and new growth from the sides of

the target stumps.

e. Year 2 (May or early Jun):

i. Subcontractor will remove new growth again after the initial leaf-out in the spring.

f. Year 2 (early to mid-September):

i. All target stumps will be re-stripped in mid-September or before senescence.

ii. Stumps will be removed by pushing them over once target plants die.

g. Cut material can be bucked up in pieces no longer than 4’, with no branches coming off the

ground at >45degrees, and dispersed in wooded areas not more than a single layer of

material in depth and otherwise not impeding access and mobility; and/or piled and burned.

h. Critical high cut will be repeated until all target species have been removed.

8. Summer Critical Cut after initial removal

a. Summer critical cut will be conducted within the first summer following initial removal.

b. Critical cut will be conducted using hand tools (brush cutters or saws) to remove all resprouts

resulting from initial removal.

c. Cut/slash material will need to be bucked up and dispersed so it makes ground contact.

d. Cut material can be bucked up in pieces no longer than 4’, with no branches coming off the

ground at >45 degrees and dispersed in wooded areas not more than a single layer of

material in depth and otherwise not impeding access and mobility; and/or piled and burned.

e. Critical cut is to happen in late July – Mid August.

## 9. Girdling/ Frill Cutting/ Hack & Squirt

60

a. Girdling will target woody vegetation >2” DBH.

b. Service provider will conduct two girdle cuts, separated by 6-

8”.

c. Cut lines must extend around the circumference and fully meet

(no gaps).

d. Girdles must be made below the lowest branch or else remove

branches and treat cut branch areas.

e. Chainsaw girdles must penetrate all the way through the

cambium layer (depth from bark edge may vary by species),

typically ¾”.

f. Make sure each girdle receives enough herbicide to fully coat

the cambium ring exposed by the girdle.

g. Take care not to cut deeper than necessary on small, pole

sized trees or they are prone to snapping off prior to

dying/making a mess/hazard.

h. The following water-soluble systemic herbicides and approaches are acceptable (EDIT BY

## SITE):

i. 2,4-D:

i. Target: root-suckering species

ii. Any time of year; best between May 15 and October 15

iii. Create continuous frill or girdle at base of tree. Apply 1-2 ml/injection in cuts spaced

every 1-2” at root collar.

ii. Aminopyralid:

i. Target: Robinia pseudoacacia (Black Locust), Gleditsia triacanthos (Honey Locust)

ii. 10% solution in water, Any season, except for periods of heavy sap flow in spring.

iii. Create continuous frill or girdle, apply 1 ml/injection spaced 3-4” between wound

centers.

iii. Clopyralid:

i. Target: legumes and locust species

ii. Undiluted or diluted 1:1 with water, Periods of active growth.

iv. Frill cut every 3-4” or girdle. Apply 0.5 ml undiluted or 1 ml diluted/injection spaced 3-4”

between wound centers. Dicamba:

i. Target: Buckthorns (Rhamnus spp.)

ii. 25 to 50% solution in water, Any season, except during heavy sap flow in spring.

iii. Create continuous frill or gridle, apply to continuous cut.

v. Glyphosate:

i. Target: Buckthorns (Rhamnus spp.), Amur maple (Acer ginnala), Amur Honeysuckle

(Lonicera maackii), Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima), Robinia pseudoacacia

(Black Locust).

ii. 25 to 100% (undiluted) solution in water, During active growth after full leaf

expansion; avoid peak sap flow in spring.

iii. Create continuous frill, apply 1-2 ml per 2-3 inches in diameter BELOW all live

branches

vi. Triclopyr (amine):

i. Target: Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), boxelder (Acer negundo), Buckthorns

(Rhamnus spp.), Honeysuckles (Lonicera spp.)

ii. Undiluted or diluted 1:1 in water, Any season, except during periods of heavy sap

flow.

iii. Create frill cut at 3-4” intervals between wound centers, apply 0.5 undiluted or 1 ml

diluted per cut

i. Hack and squirt

i. A hatchet or similar device will be used to create frill cuts (downward-angled incisions)

along the stem/trunk, below the last live branch.

61

ii. Frill cuts must be approximately 2 inches long and evenly spaced 1-2 inches apart (two

cuts minimum).

iii. Bark must be penetrated such that living tissue is exposed, creating a cupping effect to

hold herbicide.

iv. Herbicide is applied into the cuts using a spray bottle or gunjet attached to backpack

sprayer.

v. Take caution to prevent overfilling “cup” to minimize nontarget impacts.

vi. An oil-based carrier with dye (e.g., Bark Oil Blue™) specifically designed for herbicide

use must be used. The use of petroleum products as a carrier is not expressly

prohibited.

j. Frill cutting:

i. Frill cutting is a variation of girdling in which a series of

downward angled cuts are made completely around the tree,

leaving the partially severed bark and wood anchored at the

bottom (see diagram). Frilling is done with an ax or hatchet.

ii. Trees that are frill cut can be left standing dead and do not need

to be cut and hauled off site.

iii. Areas receiving frill cutting as a treatment are required to have

follow up foliar spray in the first fall following initial removal. See

foliar application for further specifications.

k. Aspen and conifer girdling (No Herbicide):

i. Effective girdling will remove outer bark and cambium while taking care to not damage

sapwood.

ii. Girdle to be installed at chest height.

iii. Girdle must be at least 6 inches in length.

iv. Service provider may use draw knives, chisel, bow saw and/or similar hand tools only.

v. Outer bark within the 6-inch girdle should be completely peeled and removed from the

trunk of the tree.

## 10. Herbaceous Invasive Control

a. Service Provider is responsible for 90% removal of the following species by mechanical or

chemical methods (EDIT AS NEEDED):

b. Treatment will be conducted during industry accepted best management timeframes and will

be specified by the Project Manager on a species basis.

c. Contractor is responsible for 90% removal of the target herbaceous species by chemical

and/or mechanical methods.

d. Herbicide application and timing

i. Service Provider is responsible for applying chemical at the appropriate growth stage

for effective control.

ii. Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) herbicide with glyphosate in Mar-May and

Aug – Oct before it produces seed.

iii. Cool Season Grasses: April-June (spring) or September – October (early fall) with

(choose: clethodim, sethoxydim, or glyphosate)

iv. Warm Season Grasses: June – September with (choose: clethodim, sethoxydim, or

glyphosate).

v. Kentucky bluegrass/ turf grass (Poa pretensis) herbicide with sethoxydim or clethodim

Apr – May, Sept – Oct.

vi. Clopyralid formulations (e.g. Transline) are preferred for application to non-native

invasive thistles, knapweeds, vetches, and other species to be specified by the

Project Manager,to limit herbicide residence time in soil.

e. Initial turf removal

i. The service provider will control/clear >95% of existing turf, and other invasive

species from applicable units.

62

ii. In areas of dense turf, the use of a vertical cutter is recommended to dethatch in

preparation for seeding.

iii. The contractor will apply up to two herbicide treatments with interspersed mow or till

as needed.

iv. Herbicide will be broad spectrum (preferably glyphosate) that is formulated for use

near water. Use of other herbicides must be approved by the Project Manager.

v. The service provider may use boom sprayers for initial herbicide application with

approval from Project Manager.

vi. Approved methods for spot spraying will include backpack sprayer and/or other hand

sprayer application equipment.

vii. Ensure a 15-20 ft turf buffer adjacent to all roads to maintain sightlines.

f. Continued herbaceous invasive control

i. The service provider is responsible for continued herbaceous invasive control via spot

mowing/treating.

ii. Appropriate mowing equipment (e.g. weed whips, brush cutters, brush hogs) will be

used to mow target species.

iii. Avoid collateral damage to non-target plants.

iv. Approved methods for spot spraying will include backpack sprayer and/or other hand

sprayer application equipment.

v. Invasive forbs that follow a biennial or annual life cycle will be mowed and treated at

the appropriate times to inhibit/ prevent seed production.

vi. Target plants should be mowed to soil level/growth point if feasible without damage to

non-target species.

11. Seeding

a. Purchasing (choose one):

i. GRG Project Manager will order plant material and coordinate delivery with

## Subcontractor

ii. Subcontractor is responsible for supplying GRG with a seed tag and/or plant list for

all seed and plants introduced into the project area.

iii. Plants should be purchased from the following list of growers who are confirmed to

not be using pesticides on their plants. (List pending)

b. Seeding immediately follows site preparation.

c. Seed is broadcast or drill seeded with equipment modified to plant native seed.

d. Seed is not planted deeper than (0.25 inches or seed diameter) deep.

e. Small seed is broadcast directly onto the surface, distributed at the rate indicated in

recommended seed mix (Appendix XX).

f.

g. The specified areas have compact and/or bare soil conditions and require stabilization

measures to improve seed soil contact.

i. Insert specific type of stabilization

h.

i. An inert carrier such will be allowed to facilitate seed distribution.

j. Initial seeding in turf conversion units

i. A prep mow is required prior to seeding to improve seed-soil contact.

ii. In areas of compacted soil, the topsoil may be raked to prepare the area for seeding.

iii. Drill or broadcast seeding is acceptable for initial seeding.

k. Understory seeding in stream buffer units

i. Seeding will be conducted in the winter following the second woody foliar treatment.

ii. Initial ‘Graminoid Dominant Woodland seed mix’ will be hand broadcast, evenly

distributed, targeting areas of open canopy. The enhanced ‘Forb Enhanced

Woodland mix’ will be seeded in the following year.

iii. Avoid seeding areas where woody invasives or dead down debris are dense.

l. Cover crop seeding:

63

i. The entire site will receive a cover-crop of (specify spp, e.g. oats (spring), winter

wheat)

ii. Service provider is responsible for purchasing, delivering, and seeding the cover-crop

12. Biochar

a. Biochar – Kilns to be provided by GRG

a. Oregon Kiln (≤3’ 0” to 3’ 6” long, up to 4” DBH)

b. Ring of Fire Kiln (≤5’ - 6’ long, up to 4” DBH)

c. Big Box Kiln (≤9’ long, up to 8-10” DBH)

b. Stacking and Sorting

a. Material must be stacked In brush piles with cut ends all facing the same direction

b. Piles are to have a chainsaw cut through them at an interval that will fit in the

desired kiln.

i. Feedstock length is dependent on kiln being used.

c. Material larger than the largest kiln being used should be bucked up and piled or

left lay or moved outside treatment unit, depending.

d. Feedstock piles should be staged across unit, figure 3-4 Oregon Kilns or 2 Ring of

Fire kilns per acre.

## Kiln Operations

a. Documentation and Reporting

i. Keep track of data on biochar burn log

ii. Service Provider will submit to Great River Greening a follow up report that will include

weather conditions during the burn, burn results, unexpected events, deviations from the

plan etc.

iii. Report will be submitted as soon as possible or within one week of the burn.

b. Permitting and Notifications

i. Service Provider is responsible for securing all necessary state and local permits

including compiling necessary burn plan(s). Copies of permits and burn plan(s) must

be provided to Great River Greening prior to conducting any burns.

ii. Intent to burn needs to be communicated with Great River Greening and landowner a

minimum of 48 hours in advance.

iii. Any required notification of adjacent landowner contacts day of burn is responsibility of

Service Provider.

c. Safety

i. It is the Service Provider’s responsibility to provide qualified personnel.

ii. Have one or more designated burn bosses on site at all times during the firing process.

iii. Provide evidence that burn boss has led burns of similar complexity with similar fuel

types.

iv. Have members of the burn crew with a minimum training in S-130/S-190 or

equivalent.

v. All crew members and burn boss complete an annual safety refresher and passed an

annual physical fitness test prior to conducting the burn (RT130 or equivalent).

## d. Personal Protective Equipment

i. All participants need to have leather gloves.

ii. All clothing must be natural fibers, cotton or wool. Absolutely no synthetic clothing will

be allowed during the firing process.

1. Due to the intense heat during the firing process, synthetic materials pose a safety

hazard to the individual wearing them with the possibility of melting.

iii. Onsite drinking water needs to be available to all participants. This can be supplied in

personal water jugs or shared 5-gallon water coolers.

iv. All participants need to know the signs of heat exhaustion and heat stroke and monitor

all individuals participating in the firing process throughout its duration. Any signs of

heat-related illness need to be treated immediately.

64

v. Service Provider is responsible for providing water and all necessary resources per

burn plan.

## e. Feedstock Moisture

i. Ideal feedstock moisture should be between 10-20%.

1. Take several readings from various piles.

2. Record moisture readings.

ii. Wet wood should be stacked to the side. Wet wood will cool the burn process down

and impact the quality of the biochar production.

f. Filling the Kiln

i. Place kiln(s) in an area where flames will not ignite any overhead canopy.

ii. Prior to filling, make sure all air gaps are sealed.

1. Oregon Kilns – make sure plug is in place in drainpipe.

2. Ring of Fire – make sure the bottom edge is sealed completely with soil.

3. Big Box Kiln – make sure dog door is securely closed.

iii. Initial rick for lighting should be with medium sized material < 2”.

iv. Stack should be open and loose on the bottom to allow air draft.

v. Rick should fill the kiln up to about a foot above the top of the kiln.

vi. Place a densely packed pile of kindling on top of the rick.

vii. No treated lumber or engineered lumber material (LVLs, plywood, etc.) should be used

as feedstock at any point in the firing process.

viii. If treated lumber material is encountered separate out and dispose of appropriately.

g. Ignition

i. Prior to ignition - Fire breaks must be sufficient to contain the fire and escape

possibilities during mop-up. Must meet DNR and local permitting requirements.

ii. Fire must be conducted within state and local permitting guidelines, and neighbor

relations.

1. This includes but is not limited to smoke management, weather prescription, drought,

red flag, burn restrictions, and burn bans.

iii. Ignite the kindling on top of the rick and make sure the flame is evenly dispersed

1. Ignition – Propane weed dragon type torch or drip torches

2. Do not use accelerants to assist in ignition process

h. Tending

i. Add a new layer of feedstock when white ash starts to form

ii. Try to keep each layer of feedstock the same diameter class

iii. Larger stock should be added towards the beginning to middle of the firing process

i. Finishing

i. As the kiln fills up - Finish the burn with medium size stock 1”-2” allowing larger

material to process

ii. Charring is complete when there are no more flames

j. Quenching

i. Minimum water requirements are provided as a guide – Service provider is responsible

for providing enough water to fully quench and extinguish char

1. Oregon Kilns require 50 gallons,

2. Ring of Fires require 250 gallons (6 panel setup)

3. Big Box Kiln requires 350 gallons.

ii. Snow can also be used during winter burning when snow depths are sufficient

iii. When flames are gone and white ash starts to form, start adding water with a gentle

spray to the top of the kiln

iv. Do not use to strong of a spray to avoid driving air into the biochar and forcing out

black particulates in the steam

v. Stir the biochar up to mix in the water.

vi. Kilns may need to be dumped or opened up to complete quenching process

vii. Make sure all biochar is extinguished. Biochar should be cool to the touch

k. Spreading

65

i. Prior to spreading, grab a two or five-gallon pail for testing. If using more than one kiln

grab a mixed sampling.

ii. Spread cooled biochar out across the site no deeper than one inch.

## l. Additional Terms and Conditions of GRG Biochar Kiln Rental

i. This equipment is rented for use in burning woody biomass to create biochar. Any

other use is not authorized. Do not burn plastics, waste liquids, fabrics, synthetics,

composite wood or any other materials other than wood. Remove all nails, screws, or

other fasteners from wood to be burned.

ii. Kiln rental includes just the kiln. Associated equipment for safe operation of kilns is the

responsibility of the renter. Minimum recommended equipment includes: 300 gallons of

water per big box kiln firing, loader, hard tine rake, square shovel, pitchfork, propane

torch for lighting, garden trailer for site transport of kiln. Renter is responsible for

picking up and returning kilns. Each big box kiln weighs around 1800 lbs so renters

should have adequate help or equipment to load and unload kilns and a safe transport

in a truck or trailer with adequate tie down capability.

iii. Wear fireproof gloves, eye protection, and any other safety equipment to prevent injury

from burning material. Renter is responsible to know and follow all federal, state and

local regulations on burning, and obtain needed burning permits as required. GRG

recommends filling out a burn plan and submitting to appropriate agencies for permits.

iv. Refer to best practices factsheet for most productive use of kilns to produce biochar.

v. Kiln rentals is for ____ days. Any damage to the Kiln(s) upon return will be assessed to

the renter. The equipment is not deemed to be “returned” until inspected by a GRG

representative. Rental fees are due upon receipt of invoice. Late fees will apply.

vi. Equipment care, operation, and cleaning instructions have been reviewed with me, and

I agree to all terms and conditions of this rental agreement including rental fees due for

the equipment rented.

## Appendix B: Seed Mixes

Seed mixes below are intended for guidance in selecting appropriate species for revegetation of

restoration units. The Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources (BWSR). Given the future scenario

of more degree days and prolonged drought periods due to climate change, some sites may trend more

toward prolonged periods of either dry or wet conditions and require adjustment and supplementation

to continue to deliver high quality, diverse habitat . Where possible, use local ecotype seed following the

Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources (BWSR) “Native Vegetation establishment and

enhancement guidelines.”

## Early Successional Floodplain General 34-161

## Applicable Sites: Park (units), Park (units)

This mix has been designed for areas with floodplains of rivers and streams and full to partial sun. This

seed mix is commonly used where land is being converted from other uses such as agriculture or non-

native grasses. The seed mix has relatively low diversity and low cost as it is designed for projects where

natural colonization of grasses, sedges, forbs and woody vegetation is expected following flooding.

66

Partners also include collaboration among Non-profits, Seed vendors, SWCD, Tribal Governments,

Consultants, County and Cities. (See partner list on website )

## Code Common Name Scientific Name

## PLS

lb/ac

% by

## PLS

lb/ac

## Seeds/ft

2

% by

## Seeds/ft

2

elyrip

## Riverbank Wild

Rye Elymus riparius 0.28 0.84% 0.30 0.53%

elyvil Silky Wild Rye Elymus villosus 0.30 0.90% 0.61 1.08%

elytra

## Slender

Wheatgrass Elymus trachycaulus 1.78 5.36% 4.51 8.04%

elyvir Virginia Wild Rye Elymus virginicus 3.24 9.76% 5.00 8.91%

panvir Switchgrass Panicum virgatum 1.95 5.87% 10.03 17.87%

poapal Fowl Bluegrass Poa palustris 0.25 0.75% 11.94 21.28%

Grasses Subtotal 7.80 23.49% 32.38 57.71%

ascinc Swamp Milkweed Asclepias incarnata 0.06 0.18% 0.11 0.19%

helaut Sneezeweed Helenium autumnale 0.06 0.18% 2.87 5.11%

lobsip Great Blue Lobelia Lobelia siphilitica 0.02 0.06% 3.67 6.55%

rudlac Cutleaf Coneflower Rudbeckia laciniata 0.04 0.12% 0.21 0.37%

verhas Blue Vervain Verbena hastata 0.15 0.45% 5.12 9.13%

verfas Common Ironweed Vernonia fasciculata 0.07 0.21% 0.62 1.10%

Forbs Subtotal 0.40 1.20% 12.59 22.44%

cover

## Oats/Winter

## Wheat

Avena sativa/Triticum

aestivum 25.00 75.30% 11.14 19.85%

Cover Crop Subtotal 25.00 75.30% 11.14 19.85%

Total 33.20

100.00

% 56.11 100.00%

This mix has been designed for areas with soil saturation within a foot of the surface during a majority

of the growing season and full to partial sun where land is being converted from other uses such as

agriculture or non-native grasses to a wetland restoration.

67

Partners also include collaboration among Non-profits, Seed vendors, SWCD, Tribal

Governments, Consultants, County and Cities. (See partner list on website)

## Code Common Name Scientific Name

## PLS

lb/ac

% by

## PLS

lb/ac Seeds/ft2

% by

## Seeds/ft2

brocil Fringed Brome Bromus ciliatus 0.25 0.85% 1.01 0.52%

calcan Bluejoint Grass Calamagrostis canadensis 0.05 0.17% 5.14 2.66%

elyvir Virginia Wild Rye Elymus virginicus 0.86 2.91% 1.33 0.69%

glygra

## American Manna

Grass Glyceria grandis 0.12 0.41% 3.09 1.60%

glystr Fowl Manna Grass Glyceria striata 0.09 0.30% 2.98 1.54%

leeory Rice Cut Grass Leersia oryzoides 0.20 0.68% 2.50 1.29%

poapal Fowl Bluegrass Poa palustris 0.35 1.18% 16.71 8.65%

spapec Prairie Cord Grass Spartina pectinata 0.33 1.12% 0.80 0.41%

Grasses Subtotal 2.25 7.61% 33.55 17.36%

carcom Bottlebrush Sedge Carex comosa 0.09 0.30% 0.99 0.51%

carhys Porcupine Sedge Carex hystericina 0.09 0.30% 0.99 0.51%

carpel Woolly Sedge Carex pellita 0.02 0.07% 0.21 0.11%

carsco Pointed-broom Sedge Carex scoparia 0.13 0.44% 4.01 2.07%

carsti Common Fox Sedge Carex stipata 0.07 0.24% 0.87 0.45%

carstr Tussock Sedge Carex stricta 0.01 0.03% 0.19 0.10%

carvul Brown Fox Sedge Carex vulpinoidea 0.16 0.54% 5.88 3.04%

jundud Dudley's Rush Juncus dudleyi 0.02 0.07% 23.51 12.16%

junten Path Rush Juncus tenuis 0.01 0.03% 3.67 1.90%

sciatr Dark Green Bulrush Scirpus atrovirens 0.17 0.58% 28.72 14.86%

scicyp Woolgrass Scirpus cyperinus 0.03 0.10% 18.73 9.69%

## Sedges & Rushes

Subtotal 0.80 2.71% 87.78 45.41%

ascinc Swamp Milkweed Asclepias incarnata 0.26 0.88% 0.46 0.24%

bidcer Nodding Bur Marigold Bidens cernua 0.04 0.14% 0.31 0.16%

doeumb Flat-topped Aster Doellingeria umbellata 0.02 0.07% 0.49 0.25%

eupper Boneset Eupatorium perfoliatum 0.03 0.10% 1.76 0.91%

eutgra

## Grass-leaved

Goldenrod Euthamia gramnifolia 0.01 0.03% 1.29 0.67%

eutmac Joe Pye Weed Eutrochium maculatum 0.06 0.20% 2.09 1.08%

helaut Sneezeweed Helenium autumnale 0.08 0.27% 3.82 1.98%

helgro Sawtooth Sunflower Helianthus grosseserratus 0.05 0.17% 0.28 0.14%

lobsip Great Blue Lobelia Lobelia siphilitica 0.03 0.10% 5.51 2.85%

lycame Water Horehound Lycopus americanus 0.06 0.20% 4.17 2.16%

lytala Winged Loosestrife Lythrum alatum 0.02 0.07% 2.20 1.14%

mimrin Monkey Flower Mimulus ringens 0.02 0.07% 16.90 8.74%

68

pedlan Marsh Betony Pedicularis lanceolata 0.07 0.24% 1.00 0.52%

phyvir Obedient Plant Physostegia virginiana 0.02 0.07% 0.08 0.04%

## pycvir Virginia Mountain Mint

## Pycnanthemum

virginianum 0.04 0.14% 3.23 1.67%

solrid Riddell's Goldenrod Solidago riddellii 0.03 0.10% 1.02 0.53%

## symlan Panicled Aster

## Symphyotrichum

lanceolatum 0.03 0.10% 1.72 0.89%

## symnov New England Aster

Symphyotrichum novae-

angliae 0.04 0.14% 0.96 0.49%

sympun Swamp Aster Symphyotrichum puniceum 0.03 0.10% 0.88 0.46%

thadas Purple Meadow Rue Thalictrum dasycarpum 0.03 0.10% 0.08 0.04%

verhas Blue Vervain Verbena hastata 0.14 0.47% 4.78 2.47%

verfas Common Ironweed Vernonia fasciculata 0.09 0.30% 0.79 0.41%

vervir Culver's Root Veronicastrum virginicum 0.02 0.07% 5.88 3.04%

zizaur Golden Alexanders Zizia aurea 0.28 0.95% 1.13 0.59%

Forbs Subtotal 1.50 5.08% 60.83 31.47%

## cover Oats/Winter Wheat

Avena sativa/Triticum

aestivum 25.00 84.60% 11.14 5.76%

Cover Crop Subtotal 25.00 84.60% 11.14 5.76%

Total 29.55 100.00% 193.31 100.00%

69

## Wet Prairie 34-266

## Applicable Sites: Park (units), Park (units)

This mix has been designed for areas with soil saturation within a foot of the surface during most of the

growing season and full to partial sun where land is being converted from other uses such as agriculture

or non-native grasses to a wetland restoration. This mix is most often used as part of prairie pothole

restoration projects.

Partners also include collaboration among Non-profits, Seed vendors, SWCD, Tribal Governments, Consultants,

County and Cities. (See partner list on website)

## Code Common Name Scientific Name

## PLS

lb/ac

% by

## PLS

lb/ac Seeds/ft2

% by

## Seeds/ft2

andger Big Bluestem Andropogon gerardii 1.09 3.35% 4.00 2.91%

brocil Fringed Brome Bromus ciliatus 0.74 2.28% 2.99 2.17%

calcan Bluejoint Grass Calamagrostis canadensis 0.04 0.12% 4.11 2.99%

elyvir Virginia Wild Rye Elymus virginicus 1.62 4.98% 2.50 1.82%

glygra American Manna Grass Glyceria grandis 0.08 0.25% 2.06 1.50%

glystr Fowl Manna Grass Glyceria striata 0.11 0.34% 3.64 2.65%

panvir Switchgrass Panicum virgatum 0.58 1.78% 2.98 2.17%

poapal Fowl Bluegrass Poa palustris 0.10 0.31% 4.78 3.47%

sornut Indiangrass Sorghastrum nutans 0.45 1.38% 1.98 1.44%

spapec Prairie Cord Grass Spartina pectinata 0.84 2.58% 2.04 1.48%

Grasses Subtotal 5.65 17.38% 31.08 22.61%

carpel Woolly Sedge Carex pellita 0.04 0.12% 0.41 0.30%

carsco Pointed-broom Sedge Carex scoparia 0.08 0.25% 2.47 1.80%

carvul Brown Fox Sedge Carex vulpinoidea 0.16 0.49% 5.88 4.28%

jundud Dudley's Rush Juncus dudleyi 0.01 0.03% 11.75 8.55%

sciatr Dark Green Bulrush Scirpus atrovirens 0.09 0.28% 15.21 11.06%

scicyp Woolgrass Scirpus cyperinus 0.02 0.06% 12.49 9.08%

## Sedges & Rushes

Subtotal 0.40 1.23% 48.21 35.07%

achmil Common Yarrow Achillea millefolium 0.01 0.03% 0.65 0.48%

anecan Canada Anemone Anemone canadensis 0.02 0.06% 0.06 0.04%

ascinc Swamp Milkweed Asclepias incarnata 0.17 0.52% 0.30 0.22%

descan Showy Tick Trefoil Desmodium canadense 0.10 0.31% 0.20 0.15%

doeumb Flat-topped Aster Doellingeria umbellata 0.02 0.06% 0.49 0.36%

70

eupper Boneset Eupatorium perfoliatum 0.03 0.09% 1.76 1.28%

eutgra

## Grass-leaved

Goldenrod Euthamia gramnifolia 0.01 0.03% 1.29 0.94%

eutmac Joe Pye Weed Eutrochium maculatum 0.03 0.09% 1.05 0.76%

genand Bottle Gentian Gentiana andrewsii 0.01 0.03% 1.03 0.75%

helaut Sneezeweed Helenium autumnale 0.06 0.18% 2.87 2.08%

helgro Sawtooth Sunflower Helianthus grosseserratus 0.04 0.12% 0.22 0.16%

lialig Meadow Blazing Star Liatris ligulistylis 0.03 0.09% 0.11 0.08%

liapyc Prairie Blazing Star Liatris pycnostachya 0.11 0.34% 0.44 0.32%

lobsip Great Blue Lobelia Lobelia siphilitica 0.02 0.06% 3.67 2.67%

lycame Water Horehound Lycopus americanus 0.03 0.09% 2.08 1.52%

lytala Winged Loosestrife Lythrum alatum 0.01 0.03% 1.10 0.80%

mimrin Monkey Flower Mimulus ringens 0.01 0.03% 8.45 6.15%

solrig Stiff Goldenrod Solidago rigida 0.03 0.09% 0.45 0.33%

pedlan Marsh Betony Pedicularis lanceolata 0.06 0.18% 0.86 0.63%

phlpil Prairie Phlox Phlox pilosa 0.01 0.03% 0.07 0.05%

## pycvir Virginia Mountain Mint

## Pycnanthemum

virginianum 0.03 0.09% 2.42 1.76%

rudhir Black-eyed Susan Rudbeckia hirta 0.03 0.09% 1.01 0.74%

solrid Riddell's Goldenrod Solidago riddellii 0.04 0.12% 1.37 0.99%

symeri Heath Aster Symphyotrichum ericoides 0.01 0.03% 0.73 0.53%

## symlan Panicled Aster

## Symphyotrichum

lanceolatum 0.01 0.03% 0.57 0.42%

## symnov New England Aster

Symphyotrichum novae-

angliae 0.04 0.12% 0.96 0.69%

sympun Swamp Aster Symphyotrichum puniceum 0.02 0.06% 0.59 0.43%

thadas Purple Meadow Rue Thalictrum dasycarpum 0.06 0.18% 0.16 0.12%

verhas Blue Vervain Verbena hastata 0.15 0.46% 5.12 3.73%

verfas Common Ironweed Vernonia fasciculata 0.03 0.09% 0.26 0.19%

vervir Culver's Root Veronicastrum virginicum 0.02 0.06% 5.88 4.28%

zizaur Golden Alexanders Zizia aurea 0.20 0.62% 0.81 0.59%

Forbs Subtotal 1.45 4.46% 47.05 34.22%

## cover Oats/Winter Wheat

Avena sativa/Triticum

aestivum 25.00 76.92% 11.14 8.10%

Cover Crop Subtotal 25.00 76.92% 11.14 8.10%

Total 32.50 100.00% 137.47 100.00%

71

## Applicable Sites: Park (units), Park (units)

This woodland edge mix has been designed for southern and western parts of Minnesota in areas with

dry to mesic soils and part sun for at least 50% of the day where land is being converted from other uses

such as lawn, or agricultural fields like row crops or pasture.

Partners also include collaboration among Non-profits, Seed vendors, SWCD, Tribal Governments,

Consultants, County and Cities. (See partners list on website)

## Code Common Name Scientific Name

## PLS

lb/ac

% by

## PLS

lb/ac Seeds/ft2

% by

## Seeds/ft2

andger Big Bluestem Andropogon gerardii 1.00 2.93% 3.67 6.11%

boucur Sideoats Grama Bouteloua curtipendula 1.00 2.93% 2.20 3.67%

brokal Prairie Brome Bromus kalmii 1.19 3.48% 3.50 5.82%

elycan Canada Wild Rye Elymus canadensis 1.00 2.93% 1.91 3.18%

elyhys Bottlebrush Grass Elymus hystrix 0.32 0.94% 0.89 1.49%

elytra

## Slender

Wheatgrass Elymus trachycaulus 0.90 2.64% 2.28 3.79%

elyvil Silky Wild Rye Elymus villosus 0.65 1.90% 1.31 2.18%

panvir Switchgrass Panicum virgatum 0.07 0.20% 0.36 0.60%

schsco Little Bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium 0.62 1.82% 3.42 5.68%

sornut Indiangrass Sorghastrum nutans 1.00 2.93% 4.41 7.33%

Grasses Subtotal 7.75 22.69% 23.95 39.85%

achmil Common Yarrow Achillea millefolium 0.03 0.09% 1.96 3.27%

agafoe Anise Hyssop Agastache foeniculum 0.10 0.29% 3.31 5.50%

agealt White Snakeroot Ageratina altissima 0.03 0.09% 1.65 2.75%

aqucan Wild Columbine Aquilegia canadensis 0.05 0.15% 0.70 1.16%

dalcan

## White Prairie

Clover Dalea candida 0.17 0.50% 1.19 1.97%

descan

## Showy Tick

Trefoil Desmodium canadense 0.14 0.41% 0.28 0.47%

helhel Ox-eye Sunflower Heliopsis helianthoides 0.15 0.44% 0.35 0.58%

monfis Wild Bergamot Monarda fistulosa 0.06 0.18% 1.54 2.57%

osmcla Sweet Cicely Osmorhiza claytonii 0.05 0.15% 0.05 0.08%

rosbla

## Smooth Wild

Rose Rosa blanda 0.06 0.18% 0.06 0.10%

72

rudhir Black-eyed Susan Rudbeckia hirta 0.18 0.53% 6.08 10.12%

solfle

## Zig Zag

Goldenrod Solidago flexicaulis 0.02 0.06% 0.62 1.03%

solrig Stiff Goldenrod Solidago rigida 0.06 0.18% 0.90 1.50%

solspe Showy Goldenrod Solidago speciosa 0.06 0.18% 1.76 2.93%

symlae

## Smooth Blue

Aster Symphyotrichum laeve 0.06 0.18% 1.21 2.02%

## symlat Calico Aster

## Symphyotrichum

lateriflorum 0.03 0.09% 2.75 4.58%

zizaur

## Golden

Alexanders Zizia aurea 0.15 0.44% 0.61 1.01%

Forbs Subtotal 1.40 4.10% 25.02 41.62%

cover

## Oats/Winter

## Wheat

Avena sativa/Triticum

aestivum 25.00 73.21% 11.14 18.53%

Cover Crop Subtotal 25.00 73.21% 11.14 18.53%

Total 34.15 100.00% 60.12 100.00%

## General Bee Lawn Mix

Applicable Sites: Veterans Park (U nit X) and Taft Park (Unit X)

* Bee lawn mixes typically include species that are non-native to Minnesota.

## Species

Scientific name

## PLS %

## Boreal Creeping Red

## Fescue

Festuca rubra

94.92

## Shadow III Chewings

## Fescue

Festuca rubra subsp.

commutata 89.97

## Tenacious Hard fescue

Festuca trachyphylla

77.92

Sierra vista sheep fescue

Festuca ovina

80.75

Dutch white clover

Trifolium repens

98.08

Yaak yarrow

Achillea millefolium var.

‘yaak’ 86.96

## Self-heal

Prunella vulgaris

93.97

73

## Seeding Dates

Forb-dominated pollinator seed mixes can be installed in the spring or fall but fall dormant plantings

allow seeds to naturally stratify and settle into the soil through periods of freezing and thawing over the

winter. Spring seedings should be done on or around May 1-July 1 when soil temperatures are at least

60 degrees Fahrenheit or higher. Fall seeding should occur when soil temperatures fall below 50 degrees

Fahrenheit for a consistent period of time (usually around October 15 in the northern half of the state

and November 1 in the southern half of the state). Fall dormant seedings can help reduce weed pressure

during the first year of growth because native cool-season grasses and forbs germinate earlier and start

competing with weed species right away. Frost seedings are also an option if the snow cover is shallow,

ice-free, and winds are calm. For a frost seeding, seeding rates may need to be increased by 25 -50

percent due to lower germination rates and loss of seed that is consumed by wildlife over the winter

months.

## Seedbed Preparation

Methods that are used to prepare a seedbed can vary depending on the type of seeding equipment to

be used. If a traditional native seed drill will be used, a smooth, firm seedbed is required. Soybean fields

usually are sufficiently prepared for a native seed drill. Corn fields should be raked and bailed if possible

or light tillage should be used to remove leftover corn residue that would prevent sufficient seed to soil

contact. Sites that were recently tilled will require additional soil treatment such as field cultivation,

harrowing and rolling to prepare a firm seedbed and prevent seed from being buried too deep. Native

seeds will have difficulty germinating if they are buried more than ¼” deep. Broadcast seeding can be

conducted on soybean or corn fields; fields that have been disked, should be cultipacked or allowed to

settle before seeding. Some practitioners have found that broadcast seeding on a smooth surface (not

tilled or disked) leads to the establishment of higher diversity. It is important that the soil surface is not

too hard packed, so cultipacking or light harrowing of crop fields before broadcast seeding may be

needed. Seed can be lost on smooth surfaces, so it is recommended to seed into temporary cover crops

or to roll sites after broadcast seeding. BWSR has seedbed preparation guidance based on current site

conditions on our website: https://bwsr.state.mn.us/habitat-establishment-management-resources

## Temporary Cover Crops and Mulch

Short-lived temporary cover crops can help stabilize project sites in preparation for planting native seed

mixes. Cover crops such as oats (the most commonly used species) should be mowed to 10-12 inches

before seeds mature (or harvested upon maturity) to prevent re-seeding. Other cover crops typically

used in agricultural fields, such as buckwheat, winter wheat, sorghum sudangrass, and radishes, can

help stabilize soil, build soil health, or provide weed competition as part of restoration projects.

Residues from temporary covers should be minimized prior to seeding to increase seed to soil contact.

## Seeding Methods

A variety of seeding equipment is used for upland pollinator plantings including broadcast seeders, no-

till native seed drills, Brillion seeders and Trillion seeders. Specialized native seed drills can handle a

wide variety of seed (fluffy, smooth, large and small) and low seeding rates. Conventional grain drills are

not capable of handling diverse seed sizes and will not provide satisfactory results. Broadcast seeding is

common for planting pollinator mixes. Broadcast seeding equipment should be used that is designed to

spread mixes with different sized seeds (e.g., Vicon Seeders). NRCS recommends broadcast seeding at a

rate of 1.5 times the normal seeding rate and cultipacking after seeding (based on Agronomy Tech Note

31).

74

Appendix C: Ta r g e t Native Plant Communities of

## Minnesota Species Lists

## FFs59: Southern Terrace Forest

75

76

77

78

## Appendix D: Invasive and Noxious Terrestrial Plant

## Management

## Burn April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar

Garlic mustard

## Burdock

Canada thistle

Crown vetch

Leafy spurge

## Motherwort

Birds-foot trefoil

Sweet clover

Smooth brome

Reed canary grass

Narrow-leaf cattail

## Honeysuckle

## Buckthorn

Siberian elm

Russian olive

Foliar Herbicide April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar

Garlic mustard

## Burdock

Canada thistle

Bull thistle

79

Crown vetch

Leafy spurge

## Motherwort

Birds-foot trefoil

Purple loosestrife

Sweet clover

Garden heliotrope

Smooth brome

Reed canary grass

Narrow-leaf cattail

Oriental bittersweet

## Honeysuckle

## Buckthorn

Siberian elm

Russian olive

Basal Bark Herbicide April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar

## Buckthorn

Siberian elm

Russian olive

Cut Stem Herbicide April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar

Canada thistle

Oriental bittersweet

Japanese barberry

80

## Honeysuckle

## Buckthorn

Siberian elm

Russian olive

## Mow April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar

Garlic mustard

## Burdock

Canada thistle

Bull thistle

Crown vetch

Leafy spurge

## Motherwort

Birds-foot trefoil

Sweet clover

Smooth brome

Reed canary grass

Narrow-leaf cattail

Oriental bittersweet

Don’t Mow April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec-Mar

Garlic mustard

Canada thistle

Leafy spurge

Birds-foot trefoil

Sweet clover

81

Garden heliotrope

## Appendix E: Conservation Planning Report

## ConservationPlanningReport_Richfield_NRMP_UPDATED

82

Appendix F: Tree and shrub species recommendations

The following shrub and tree recommendations serve as site-based guidance for habitat enhancement

after invasive shrub and hazard tree removal takes place. Reconnecting the canopy will improve

shoreline stabilization, water infiltration, soil quality, and wildlife habitat. Within each site, selection is

dictated by suitable species within the respective target ecosystems. Density per work unit is influenced

by the unit acreage combined with the extent of recommended hazard tree and woody invasive removal.

## Park: Code – Name units

Common name Scientific name

## Shrubs Chokecherry Prunus virginiana

Prickly ash Zanthoxylum americanum

Pagoda dogwood Cornus alternifolia

Missouri gooseberry Ribes missouriense

## Nannyberry Viburnum lentago

Downy arrowwood Viburnum rafinesquianum

American hazelnut Corylus americana

## Trees Basswood Tilia americana

Northern red oak Quercus rubra

Sugar maple Acer saccharum

## Ironwood Ostrya virginiana

Bur oak Quercus macrocarpa

White oak Quercus alba

American elm Ulmus americana

Paper birch Betula papyrifera

Bitternut hickory Carya cordiformis

White pine Pinus strobus

Black cherry Prunus serotina

Blue beech Carpinus caroliniana

83

## Appendix G: Summary of Rare Features within Project

## Areas

A Conservation Planning Report was conducted for all project areas for the purpose of identifying

ecologically significant areas and critical habitats documented within the defined area of interest. Below

is a summary of findings. Full report results can be found in Appendix Y.

## Rare Features and Impacts on Vegetation Management

A USFWS IPaC report and MN DNR NHIS (Natural Heritage Information System) assessment was

completed for all four Richfield sites and determined that the 4-park region does overlap with the

following species in Table 1. Management recommendations comply with state and federal regulations

and aim to improve the overall quality of these habitats. Rare feature impacts on vegetation

man agement are further outlined in Appendix E: Specifications for Restoration. MN DNR rare species

management considerations are outlined below.

Table 1. Minnesota DNR rare species overlapping 4-park project areas, Richfield, MN.

## Common Name Scientific Name Status in MN Category

Rusty Patched Bumble Bee Bombus affinis Endangered - Federal Invertebrate animal

## Bell’s Vireo Verio bellii Special Concern Vertebrate animal

## Blanding’s Turtle Emydoidea blandingii Threatened Vertebrate animal

## Common Gallinule Gallinula galeata Special Concern Vertebrate animal

## Forster’s Tern Sterna forsteri Special Concern Vertebrate animal

## Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Special Concern Vertebrate animal

## Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator Special Concern Vertebrate animal

The rusty patched bumble bee (RPBB) (Bombus affinis), federally listed as endangered, is likely to be

present in suitable habitat within the high potential zones. From April through October this species uses

underground nests in upland grasslands, shrublands, and forest edges, and forages where nectar and

pollen are available. From October through April the species overwinters under tree litter in upland

forests and woodlands. The RPBB may be impacted by a variety of land management activities including,

but not limited to, prescribed fire, tree-removal, haying, grazing, , herbicide use, pesticide use, land-

clearing, soil disturbance or compaction, or use of non-native bees. Management protocols for RPBB

high potential zones and all other features can be found in the specification appendix E.

Blanding’s Turtle habitat overlaps with the Richfield Lake Park and Wood Lake Nature Center. Wetlands

are a critical nesting habitat in these two parks, especially in the spring and summer. Wetlands should

be protected from pollution; use of chemicals should be avoided, and run-of f from lawns and streets

should be controlled. Erosion should be prevented to keep sediment from reaching wetlands and lakes.

Vegetation management in infrequently mowed areas, such as in ditches, along utility access roads, and

under power lines, should be done mechanically (chemicals should not be used). Work should occur

from fall through spring (after October 1st and before June 1st).

84

The Forster's tern is vulnerable to human disturbance, water level fluctuation, chemical contamination,

nest predation, and habitat destruction. Water fluctuation caused by storms, boat waves, or high tides

can destroy eggs, young, or nesting habitat. Forster's terns can benefit from preservation and

restoration of marsh habitats. The species has been shown to colonize restored areas, and to use

wooden platforms for nesting (McNicholl et al. 2001).

About 40% of Minnesota's Trumpeter Swan fatalities are caused by lead poisoning. Collisions with power

lines is another major threat leading to Trumpeter Swan losses. Human activity like boating in Trumpeter

Swan habitat may also disrupt breeding pairs of swans. The management recommendations in this plan

will improve habitat quality for Trumpeter Swans.

Grassland and shrub habitats in areas where Bell’s Vireo is known to occur should be maintained with

several important considerations. Invasive species that may compromise the bird’s habitat,

particularly reed-canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), hybrid/narrow-leaved cattail (Typha X glauca),

purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), and buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) should be controlled. At

known Bell’s Vireo sites, provision must be made for maintaining shrub patches in native prairies

otherwise managed to control or eliminate woody cover. Shrubby ecotones between forests and open

grasslands/wetlands need to be maintained or enhanced.

Wetland protection is vital to maintaining Common Gallinule populations. This species requires marshes

with a nearly equal interspersion of emergent vegetation and open water (Greij 1994). Many marshes in

Minnesota lack the necessary open water component and therefore are currently unsuitable for

Common Gallinules. Possible threats to this species include human disturbance and development,

wetland drainage and degradation, predation, pollution, and non-native plant invasions.

Continued threats to Peregrine Falcon populations include collisions with buildings, disease,

environmental pollutants, predation, and potential loss or disturbance of natural cliff nesting sites.

Proposed restoration will improve peregrine falcon habitat quality.

## Sites of Biodiversity Significance

Minnesota Biological Survey (MBS) Sites of Biodiversity Significance are areas with varying levels of

native biodiversity that may contain high quality native plant communities, rare plants, rare animals,

and/or animal aggregations. A Biodiversity Significance Rank is assigned based on the number of rare

species, the quality of the native plant communities, size of the site, and context within the landscape

(Outstanding, High, or Moderate).

The following MBS Sites of Biodiversity Significance are within the search area:

Table 2. Minnesota Biological Survey (MBS) sites of biodiversity significance identified by NHIS within 4-park project areas in

Richfield, MN.

## MBS Site Name Biodiversity Significance

Wood Lake Nature Center Moderate: Sites containing occurrences of rare species, moderately

disturbed NPCs, and/or landscapes that have strong potential for

recovery.

85

## DNR Native Plant Communities

Native plant communities are classified and described by considering vegetation, hydrology, landforms,

soils, and natural disturbance regimes. DNR Native Plant Community types and subtypes are given a

Conservation Status Rank that reflects the relative rarity and endangerment of the community type in

Minnesota. Conservation Status Ranks range from S1 (critically imperiled) to S5 (secure, common,

widespread, and abundant). Native plant communities with a Conservation Status Rank of S1 through S3

are considered rare in the state. The DNR recommends avoidance of rare native plant communities. This

NPC classification informs the target restoration ecosystem for several areas of the surrounding parks

and are further outlined in the restoration objective sections for each park.

Table 3. MN DNR native plant communities identified by NHIS within 4-park project areas in Richfield, MN.

## Location NPC Conservation Status

## Rank

Number of

communities

## Wood Lake Nature Center MHs49a S3 2

## Lakes of Biological Significance

Lakes of Biological Significance are high quality lakes as determined by the aquatic plant, fish, bird, or

amphibian communities present within the lake. To be included in this layer, a lake only needs to meet

the criteria for one of these four community types. The lake is assigned a biological significance of

Outstanding, High, or Moderate based on the community with the highest quality. The following Lakes

of Biological Significance are within the search area, however, all restoration within the project scope is

limited to terrestrial habitat, upland from the ordinary high water mark.

Table 4. Lakes of biological significance identified by NHIS within 4-park project areas in Richfield, MN.

## Public Water Basin Name Biological Significance Bird Rank

## Legion Lake (Veterans Park) High 2

## Wood Lake High 2

86

## Appendix H: Water Resources

[More to be expanded upon here about concurrent stormwater management efforts by city or other

funding]

## Appendix I: Soil Terminology

Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four

groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are

thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms.

The four hydrologic soil groups are:

Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist

mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate

of water transmission.

Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of

moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained, or well drained soils that have moderately fine

texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission.

87

Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a

layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture.

These soils have a slow rate of water transmission.

Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These

consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils

that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious

material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.

If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and

the second is for undrained areas.

Surface runoff refers to the loss of water from an area by flow over the land surface. Surface runoff

classes are based on slope, climate, and vegetative cover. The concept indicates relative runoff for very

specific conditions. It is assumed that the surface of the soil is bare and that the retention of surface

water resulting from irregularities in the ground surface is minimal. The classes are negligible, very low,

low, medium, high, and very high.

Soil moisture status is an estimate of the fluctuating water content in a soil. It greatly influences

vegetation type and plant growth; physical properties of soils, such as permeability, workability,

strength, linear extensibility, and frost action; and chemical interactions and transport. Many other

properties, qualities, and interpretations also are affected. Soil moisture status is important in the

classification of soils, wetland, and habitat. This table gives estimates of soil moisture for the

components of a map unit at various depths for every month of the year. The depths displayed are

representative values that are statistical estimates indicative of conditions that occur in normal years.

i. Dry indicates a moisture condition under which most plants (especially crops) cannot extract

water for growth.

ii. Moist indicates a moisture condition under which soil water is most readily available for plant

growth.

iii. Wet indicates a condition under which water will stand in an unlined hole or at least a condition

under which the soil is too wet for the growth of most agricultural species. A moisture status of

4.0-6.7 (wet) indicates that most of the time the soil is saturated between the depths of 4.0 feet

and 6.7 feet during the month designated.

In some years the soil may be saturated at a higher or lower depth; however, field observations indicate

that the soil will be saturated between the depths of 4.0 feet and 6.7 feet in normal years. In the

summer, the soil may show the effects of drying plus intermittent rains that result in a moist or wet

layer over a dry layer that gets moist or wet again.

Flooding, the temporary covering of the soil surface by flowing water, is caused by overflow from

streams or by runoff from adjacent slopes. Shallow water standing or flowing for short periods after

rainfall or snowmelt is not considered flooding. Standing water in marshes and swamps or in closed

depressions is considered to be ponding. This table gives estimates of the frequency and duration of

flooding for every month of the year. Flooding frequency is the annual probability of flooding expressed

as a class. None indicates no reasonable possibility of flooding (the chance of flooding is nearly 0 percent

in any year, or flooding is likely less than once in 500 years). Very rare indicates that flooding is very

88

unlikely but possible under extremely unusual weather conditions (the chance of flooding is less than 1

percent in any year, or flooding is likely less than once in 100 years but more than once in 500 years).

Rare indicates that flooding is unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions (the chance of

flooding is 1 to 5 percent in any year, or flooding is likely 1 to 5 times in 100 years). Occasional indicates

that flooding occurs infrequently under usual weather conditions (the chance of flooding is 5 to 50

percent in any year, or flooding is likely 5 to 50 times in 100 years). Frequent indicates that flooding is

likely to occur often under usual weather conditions (the chance of flooding is more than 50 percent in

any year, or flooding is likely more than 50 times in 100 years; but the chance of flooding is less than 50

percent in all months in any year). Very frequent indicates that flooding is likely to occur very often

under usual weather conditions (the chance of flooding is more than 50 percent in all months in any

year).

Flooding duration is the average duration of inundation per flood occurrence expressed as a

class. Extremely brief is 0.1 hour to 4.0 hours, very brief is 4 to 48 hours, brief is 2 to 7 days, long is 7 to

30 days, and very long is more than 30 days. About two-thirds to three-fourths of all flooding occur

during the stated period. The information on flooding is based on evidence in the soil profile, namely

thin strata of gravel, sand, silt, or clay deposited by floodwater; irregular decrease in organic matter

content with increasing depth; and little or no horizon development. Also considered are local

information about the extent and level of flooding and the relation of each soil on the landscape to

historic floods. Information on the extent of flooding based on soil data is less specific than that

provided by detailed engineering surveys that delineate flood-prone areas at specific flood frequency

levels.

Moist Loamy Lowland: The Moist Loamy Lowland ecological site is found throughout MLRA 90A, located

in depressions, drainageways, and flats on till plains, moraines, valley trains, lake plains, and sometimes

outwash plains and stream terraces. These sites are characterized by very deep, somewhat poorly

drained soils that formed in loamy deposits including lacustrine, eolian, glacial till and outwash,

alluvium, and residuum. Precipitation, runoff from adjacent uplands, and groundwater discharge are the

primary sources of water. Soils range from very strongly acid to slightly alkaline.

Moist Loamy Lowland is distinguished from other ecological sites by its deep loamy deposits and

somewhat poorly drained soils. This site lacks the elevated percentage of free carbonates found in Moist

Loamy Lowland with Carbonates. Other somewhat poorly drained sites have sandy or clayey deposits.

The loamy material often has a higher pH and available water capacity than sandy material, but less than

clayey material.

89

90

91

92

93

Citations – ( Will be fully edited prior to final draft)

1. Parks and Recreation Department, Parks | City of Richfield – Official website (n.d.).

https://www.richfieldmn.gov/departments/parks_and_recreation/parks/index.php

2. About Richfield | City of Richfield – Official website (n.d.).

https://www.richfieldmn.gov/residents/about_richfield.php

3. Wood Lake Nature Center, About Us | City of Richfield – Official website (n.d).

https://www.richfieldmn.gov/around_town/wood_lake_nature_center/about_us.php

4. Accelerated Migration of Bur Oak Ecotypes for Climate Resilience. Minnesota Environment and Natural

Resources Trust Fund LCCMR. (n.d.).

https://www.lccmr.mn.gov/projects/2015/finals/2015_08f_accelerated_migration_of_bur_oak_frelich_a

nd_toot.pdf

5. Moss, P. (2017). Adapting to Climate Change in Minnesota. MN PCA 2017 Report of the Interagency

## Climate Adaptation Team. https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/p-gen4-07c.pdf

6. Floods: Recurrence intervals and 100-year floods. USGS. (n.d.). https://www.usgs.gov/centers/new-

jersey-water-science-center/floods-recurrence-intervals-and-100-year-floods

7. Climate change impacts. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (n.d.). https://www.pca.state.mn.us/air-

water-land-climate/climate-change-impacts

8. County History | Washington County, MN - Official website. (n.d.).

https://www.co.washington.mn.us/102/County-History

9. History of Woodbury | Woodbury, MN. (n.d.). https://www.woodburymn.gov/722/History-of-Woodbury

## 10. Woodbury – Washington County Historical Society. (n.d.). https://www.wchsmn.org/woodbury/

11. Minnesota Planning (Agency). (n.d.). Minnesota Land use and cover: historic. MN IT Services.

https://www.mngeo.state.mn.us/chouse/land_use_historic.html

12. White, D. (n.d.). Level III and IV maps and descriptions. Ecological Regions of Minnesota.

https://gaftp.epa.gov/EPADataCommons/ORD/Ecoregions/mn/mn_eco_desc.pdf

13. MHAPO. (n.d.). https://apps.lib.umn.edu/mhapo/

14. St. Paul-Baldwin Plains and Moraines Subsection. (n.d.). Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ecs/222Md/index.html

15. Bedrock Geology. (n.d.). University of Minnesota Geological Survey.

https://conservancy.umn.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/bde71cad-4215-44af-9cda-

18c45d5cde6e/content

16. Web Soil Survey. (n.d.). https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx

17. Water Source | Woodbury, MN. (n.d.). https://www.woodburymn.gov/375/Water-Source

18. Generalized Land Use 2020 - Minnesota Geospatial Commons. (n.d.). https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/us-

mn-state-metc-plan-generl-lnduse2020

19. MNDNR. 2004. Minnesota Land Cover Classification System User Manual. Version 5.3. Minnesota

Department of Natural Resources, Central Region.

94

20. Native Plant Community Classification. (n.d.). Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/npc/classification.html

21. Woodbury Heritage House and Garden. (n.d.). Explore Minnesota.

https://www.exploreminnesota.com/profile/woodbury-heritage-house-garden/3888

22. Marsh Creek | Kim Ziton. (2015, April 20). Kim Ziton. https://kimziton.com/marsh-creek/

23. Marsh Creek/Savanna Oaks Park | Woodbury, MN. (n.d.). https://www.woodburymn.gov/1111/Marsh-

## CreekSavanna-Oaks-Park

24. Woodbury Minnesota Parks and Recreation. (n.d.).

https://web.archive.org/web/20081019091408/http://www.ci.woodbury.mn.us/parks/parks.html

25. Explore: Minnesota conservation explorer. Explore | Minnesota Conservation Explorer. (n.d.).

https://mce.dnr.state.mn.us/content/explore

26. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (2019, March). Section 7(a)(2) Voluntary Implementation Guidance for Rusty

Patched Bumble Bee. Endangered Species Act.

https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/64OJSHSMXNCLJJ2NBQEWDWKBSI/documents/generated/5967.

pdf

27. https://www.richfieldmn.gov/around_town/wood_lake_nature_center/index.php

28. https://www.richfieldmn.gov/around_town/wood_lake_nature_center/index.php

## Natural Resources Management

## Plan

What is a NRM Plan?

• PolicyandPlanningDocument

## – Identifies Goals

## – Inventories Current Resources

## – Identifies Path Forward

## – OutlineGeneral Costs

Why a NRM Plan?

## • Goals Never Defined

• Natural Areas of more than 300 acres

• Minimally/ inconsistently maintained

• Many invasive and weedy plants

• Grants and partnerships require a plan

## NRM Plan Structure

## • Park Overview

## • Vegetation Assessment

## • Define Objectives

– Recreation

– Ecological

## • Define Management Areas

• Phasing and Costs

## Sample Plan

## Woody Habitat

Y1: Invasive woody removal

## Y2~Y4: Continued invasive

control

(canopy & understory)

## Y2~Y5: Enhance canopy

andunderstory diversity

Long term: Functional habitat for

woodland wildlife, improve filtration of

runoff into surface and ground water.

## Appendix

-Invasive removal methods

-Invasive treatment timelines

-Site preparation procedures

-Seed Mix recommendations

-Tree and shrub recommendations

## General How To Guide

## Park Feedback

## • Park Overview

## • Vegetation Assessment

## • Management Objectives

## Richfield Lake

• 24 acres

• 1 mile of multi-use trails

• Upland 10.3 acres

• Connected to downtown

## • Neighborhood Park

1.Woodland

2.Mowed Grass

3.Prairie

4.Pavement

5.Transitional Land

6.Open Water

7.Wetland

## Plant Communities

## Management Objectives

## • Maintain Views

## • Stabilize Shoreline

## • Develop Shade Canopy

## • Stormwater Infrastructure

## • Manage Geese Impacts

## • Remove Invasives,

## Encourage Native Plants

## 12 Maintained Views

• 7 Benches

• 5 Entrances

## Taft Park

•42 acres

•Natural area 29 acres

•1 mile of multi-use

trails

•Regional Trail

## Connection

•Sports Complex

•Neighborhood Park

1.Woodland

2.Mowed Grass

3.Prairie

4.Pavement

5.Transitional Land

6.Open Water

7.Wetland

## Plant Communities

## Management Objectives

## • Stabilize Shoreline

## • Shoreline Fishing Spaces

## • Forest Nature Experience

## • Stormwater Infrastructure

## • Manage Geese Impacts

## • Remove Invasives, Encourage Native Plants

## Taft Park

## Work Units

## Veterans Memorial Park

•108 acres

•2 mile of multi-use trails

•Upland habitat 57 acres

•Pavilion

•Mini Golf

•Pool

•Ice Arena

## Management Objectives

## • Transition Unused Mowed Areas to Prairie

## • Maintain Diversity of Views

## • Protect Stormwater Infrastructure

## • Manage Geese Impacts

## • Remove Invasives, Encourage Native

## Plants

1.Woodland

2.Mowed Grass

3.Prairie

4.Pavement

5.Transitional Land

6.Open Water

7.Wetland

## Plant Communities

## Work

## Units

## Wood Lake Nature

## Center

• 150 acres

• Over 3 miles of multi-use

trails

• Community nature center

• Significant biodiversity in

aquatic and terrestrial

habitats

## Management Objectives

## • Maintain Diverse Views

## • Enhance Natural Spaces

## • Water Quality Improvement

• Balance restoration with nature center

activities

## Wood Lake Nature Center

## Plant Communities

1.Woodland

2.Mowed Grass

3.Prairie

4.Pavement

5.Transitional Land

6.Open Water

7.Wetland

Questions?