Item 5.1
MEMORANDUM
To: Nick Jacobs, Otsego Parks and Recrea�on Director
CC: City of Otsego, MN Parks and Recrea�on Commission
From: Laura Domyancich-Lee, FMR Senior Ecologist; Leah Weston, FMR Ecologist; Alex Roth, FMR
Conserva�on Director
Date: March 19, 2024
RE: Davis Farm Park Natural Resources Management Plan
In coopera�on with City of Otsego Parks and Recrea�on staff and with funding from the
Outdoor Heritage Fund, and the City of Otsego, Friends of the Mississippi River (FMR) has
developed a natural resources management plan (NRMP) for Davis Farm Park in Otsego,
Minnesota. This memorandum serves as an overview of findings and recommenda�ons of the
plan which is to be considered by the City of Otsego Parks and Recrea�on Commission on
March 19, 2024.
The key purposes of an NRMP are to plan for and guide the management of a site’s natural
resources, including its plant and animal communi�es, as well as the community’s connec�on to
nature through passive recrea�on. This includes documenta�on of a site’s priority features that
are essen�al to maintain and enhance, priority issues that are essen�al to address in protec�on
of the habitat, and human use poten�al of the park. The comple�on of an NRMP also allows
municipali�es and their partners to access state grant funding to implement restora�on giving
site managers a “road map” for priori�za�on, steps, �meline, and budget.
Throughout summer 2023, FMR staff visited Davis Farm Park to record vegeta�on, document
wildlife and recrea�onal use, and assess habitat and water quality within the park. FMR has now
developed a dra� NRMP which:
- documents the site’s characteris�cs and interac�on with the river,
- provides management recommenda�ons to address erosion and invasive species,
- considers current and future recrea�onal use of the park,
- and es�mates costs for priori�zed and phased restora�on of habitat within the first five
years of restora�on as well as long-term management.
As a first step to preserve quality habitat, the dra� plan recommends management of invasive
woody species, such as buckthorn, in key areas of the park’s forest. Ini�al mechanical removal
would be followed by suppression of new invasive species germinants and seeding in areas
where na�ve herbaceous species have been diminished by increased shrub cover.
As a second step, the dra� plan recommends restora�on of the park’s grassland and oak
savanna. Woody removal in the grassland and targeted mechanical removal of the shrub layer in
the oak savanna would be followed by seeding and the reintroduc�on of fire through prescribed
burning. This habitat is cri�cal for pollinator, bird, and the protec�on of water quality.
The plan also recommends full restora�on of the 1-acre por�on of the park that has been used
for row crop agriculture. This will include both seeding and plan�ng to replicate condi�ons in
nearby forested areas of the park.
In subsequent years of restora�on, the plan recommends follow-up management of invasive
woody and herbaceous species in the forest areas, periodic prescribed burning of the grassland
and oak savanna, and increasing vegeta�on diversity through plan�ng and seeding, as
necessary.
The NRMP also contemplates current recrea�onal use of the park and generally recommends
preserving and further promo�ng access to those opportuni�es. Based on input from Otsego
Parks staff, there is a precedent of signage at all Otsego parks, and Davis Farm Park will receive a
park sign and orienta�on/interpre�ve signage. The plan also recommends the realignment of
the park’s trail system. The recommenda�on is to convert the single primary trail down the
park’s hill to a meandering path across the hill which would improve accessibility, resist erosion,
preserve water quality, and allow explora�on of more of the park. The plan also recommends
the establishment of safe river access near the former boat launch and at the east end of the
park leading from the Mississippi Cove neighborhood.
Lastly, FMR staff have developed cost es�mates to complete priori�zed and phased restora�on
at Davis Farm Park. In the forested areas with invasive species and limited na�ve vegeta�on, five
years of management and restora�on is es�mated at approximately $92,760. In the grasslands
and oak savanna, five years of work to restore a more self-sustaining plant community and
habitat is es�mated at approximately $58,130. To ini�ate work priori�zed in the NRMP, FMR has
secured $50,000 in funding from the Outdoor Heritage Fund. We are also ac�vely pursuing
addi�onal funding from Wright County Health and Human Services for plan implementa�on.
FMR appreciates the opportunity to have collaborated on the development of the NRMP with
Parks and Recrea�on staff and to have created a plan that reflects community and Parks and
Recrea�on Commission goals for Davis Farm Park. We look forward to the approval of the plan
by the Parks and Recrea�on Commission and partnering in its implementa�on.
For wildlife, water quality, and public access:
An NRMP for Davis Farm Park
Otsego Parks and Recreation Commission
Alex Roth, Conservation Director
Laura Domyancich-Lee, Senior Ecologist
March 19, 2024
Friends of the Mississippi River engages people to
protect, restore and enhance the Mississippi River
and its watershed in the Twin Cities region.
LandConservation Land Use& Planning Water Stewardship& Education
Our four interrelated program areas
Work with landowners Protect important natural areas Restore habitat and ecological health
Land Conservation
Planning:
Corridor planning
80+ management plans
3 volunteer-centric management plans
Protection:
Protected and established 3 SNAs, 2 WMAs,
conservation areas, easements
Restoration:
42 active restoration sites
1,500-2,500 acres of annual restoration and
enhancement
Forest, prairie, savanna, wetland, riverine habitat
20+ SGCNs and rare species
North Metro Planning
and Restoration:
5 sites:
All city-owned
485 acres:
Forest, savanna, prairie,
wetland
Rare species
River frontage
New public access
opportunities
Camp Cozy
Davis Farm Park
Houlton
Conservation
Ar e a
Bailey Point
The Unsung Hero
What makes a natural area special?
Vie w s ?
Overall character?
Plant species?
Wildlife?
Wa t e r?
How do we ensure that these special places are
managed to protect what makes them special?
Land Protection → Natural Resource Management Planning →
Restoration and Maintenance
Natural Resource Management Plan (NRMP)
●Characterize land use (historical and current)
○Document past development, natural areas
●Characterize vegetation (historical and current)
○Use MLCCS data, aerial photos, species surveys
●Document environmental issues
○Invasive species, erosion, dumping
●Recommend target restoration goals
○Including task tables, costs, and timelines
The natural resources of Davis Farm Park
-Grassland, restored prairie
-Oak savanna
-Forests
-Floodplain
-Mississippi River
Goals for Davis Farm Park
-Improve and link wildlife habitat
-Reduce erosion
-Support water quality
-Enhance and increase community access
Priority Issues
-Presence of non-native, invasive species
-Suppression, poor regeneration of native species
-Ongoing erosion and bank sloughing
-Agricultural use in the park
-Lack of accessibility for the community
-Yard waste dumping
Priority Features
Management and enhancement of:
-Grassland and oak savanna
-Floodplain
-Eastern woodland slope
-Western woodland
Management Units
Unit 1: River Edge
Unit 2: Agricultural Field
Unit 3: Wooded Field Edge
Unit 4: Floodplain
Unit 5: Terrace
Unit 6: Forest Slope
Unit 7: Savanna
Unit 8: Old Field
Unit 1 River Edge
-Woody invasive management
-Selective tree thinning
-Herbaceous invasive management
-Seeding and planting
Unit 2 Agricultural Field
-Preparatory herbicide
-Drill seeding
-Tree and shrub planting
-Enhancement seeding
Unit 3 Wooded Field Edge
-Fence removal
-Woody invasive management
-Follow -up woody and herbaceous
invasive management
-Seeding and planting
Unit 4 Floodplain
-Woody invasive management
-Herbaceous invasive management
-Seeding and planting
Unit 5 Terrace
-Woody invasive management
-Herbaceous invasive management
-Seeding and planting
Unit 6 Forest Slope
-Woody invasive management
-Selective tree thinning
-Herbaceous invasive management
-Seeding and planting to reduce
erosion
Unit 7 Savanna
-Native shrub and canopy layer
thinning
-Herbaceous invasive management
-Initial seeding
-Prescribed burning
-Supplemental seeding & planting
Unit 8 Old Field
-Woody invasive management and
tree removal
-Preparatory herbicide treatment
-Prescribed burning
-Seeding and planting
-Establishment mowing
-Supplemental seeding
Recommended restoration and management
UNIT SIZE
(ACRES)UNIT NAME
TARGET
PLANT
COMMUNITY
CURRENT
GRADE
PRIORITY
LEVEL
5-YEAR
RESTORATION COST
MU1 0.7 River Edge FFs68 or FFs59 C 1 $5,585
MU2 0.8 Agriculture Field MHs49 N/A 1 $30,770
MU3 0.7 Wooded Field Edge MHs49 D 1 $9,390
MU4 2.3 Floodplain FFs68 C 4 $8,185
MU5 2.1 Terrace FFs59 B/C 4 $8,590
MU6 3.4 Forest Slope MHc36 B/C 2 $30,240
MU7 2.3 Savanna UPs14 D 3 $20,980
MU8 4.2 Old Field UPs13 D 2 $37,150
TOTAL $150,890
Recommended long-term management
UNIT
NAME LONG-TERM MGMT TASK FREQUENCY COST RANGE
All Units Seeding As needed
Seed cost: $300 -$1,000 per acre.
Contractor implementation cost: $600
per acre
All Units Planting*As needed Plant material cost: $4 -$30. Volunteer
event advised for implementation.
Savanna,
Old Field Prescribed burning
Every 2 -3 years. Half the
acres should be burned at any
given time.
$1,000 -$1,200 per acre
All Units Invasive species monitoring 3x annually $1,000 -$1,500 annually
All Units Invasive species spot-
treatment As needed Contractor cost: $1,000 per acre
All Units
Invasive species
management/ planting
volunteer event
Annually, as needed $2,000 -$2,500 for FMR-sponsored
public event
How to get involved
Check out volunteer and education
events on our website
Sign up for our bi-weekly
newsletter, Mississippi Messages
Become a River Guardian
Become a member
Follow, like, share, subscribe
fmr.org Facebook Instagram (@friendsmissriv )Flickr.com /photos/friendsmissriv
Questions?
Alex Roth,
FMR Conservation Director
aroth@fmr.org / 651.477.0928
Laura Domyancich-Lee,
FMR Senior Ecologist
ldomyancich -lee@fmr.org / 651.477.0914
Planting at Nicollet Island/ Wita Waste, Rich Wahls
1
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
Davis Farm Park
Natural Resources Management Plan
Prepared for:
The City of Otsego, Minnesota
Prepared by:
Friends of the Mississippi River
St. Paul, Minnesota
Spring 2024
2
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
This Natural Resources Management Plan and Work Plan has been reviewed and approved
by:
City of Otsego Parks and Recreation Commission Chair
_________________________________________ Date: _________________________
Kitty Baltos
City of Otsego Parks and Recreation Director
_________________________________________ Date: _________________________
Nick Jacobs
This document can be changed only by written agreement by both the City of Otsego,
Minnesota and Friends of the Mississippi River.
3
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
SITE INFORMATION
Owner name, address, city/township, county and phone:
City of Otsego, Minnesota
13400 90th St. NE
Otsego, MN 55330
Wright County
Contact person: Nick Jacobs, Otsego Parks and Recreation Director,
njacobs@ci.otsego.mn.us, 763.334.3170
Township, range, section:
T121, R023, Section 18.
Watershed:
Mississippi River – St. Cloud
Parcel Identification Numbers:
118247000020
Rare Features:
No occurrences on the property.
4
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 8
BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................................... 8
INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................. 9
PRIORITY ISSUES ............................................................................................................................... 11
PRIORITY ISSUE 1: PRESENCE OF NON-NATIVE, INVASIVE SPECIES ...................................................................... 11
PRIORITY ISSUE 2: ABSENCE, SUPPRESSION, AND POOR REGENERATION OF NATIVE SPECIES ............................. 11
PRIORITY ISSUE 3: ONGOING EROSION AND BANK SLOUGHING ........................................................................... 11
PRIORITY ISSUE 4: AGRICULTURE USE IN PUBLIC PARK ....................................................................................... 11
PRIORITY ISSUE 5: LACK OF ACCESSIBILITY FOR THE COMMUNITY ....................................................................... 11
PRIORITY ISSUE 6: YARD WASTE DUMPING .......................................................................................................... 11
PRIORITY FEATURES ........................................................................................................................... 12
PRIORITY FEATURE 1: MANAGEMENT AND ENHANCEMENT OF THE GRASSLAND AND OAK SAVANNA..................... 12
PRIORITY FEATURE 2: MANAGEMENT AND ENHANCEMENT OF THE FLOODPLAIN ................................................... 12
PRIORITY FEATURE 3: MANAGEMENT AND ENHANCEMENT OF THE EASTERN WOODLAND SLOPE .......................... 13
PRIORITY FEATURE 4: MANAGEMENT AND ENHANCEMENT OF THE WESTERN WOODLAND .................................... 14
ECOLOGICAL CONTEXT ....................................................................................................................... 15
GEOLOGY AND GROUNDWATER ........................................................................................................................... 15
TOPOGRAPHY & ASPECT ..................................................................................................................................... 16
SOILS ................................................................................................................................................................. 17
SURFACE WATER RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................ 17
HISTORICAL VEGETATION ................................................................................................................... 19
CONNECTIVITY ................................................................................................................................... 21
ADJACENT LAND USE .......................................................................................................................................... 21
PROXIMITY TO ECOLOGICAL CORRIDORS ............................................................................................................. 21
ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE AND WILDLIFE VALUE .............................................................................................. 21
RARE SPECIES ................................................................................................................................... 23
MANAGEMENT UNITS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... 24
BACKGROUND DATA .......................................................................................................................... 24
MANAGEMENT UNITS OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................ 24
MANAGEMENT UNIT 1: RIVER EDGE .................................................................................................... 26
MANAGEMENT UNIT GOALS ................................................................................................................................. 27
DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION .............................................................................................................................. 27
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS...................................................................................................................................... 28
MANAGEMENT UNIT 2: AGRICULTURE FIELD ........................................................................................ 30
MANAGEMENT UNIT GOALS ................................................................................................................................. 31
DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION .............................................................................................................................. 31
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS...................................................................................................................................... 31
MANAGEMENT UNIT 3: WOODED FIELD EDGE ...................................................................................... 33
MANAGEMENT UNIT GOALS ................................................................................................................................. 34
DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION .............................................................................................................................. 34
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS...................................................................................................................................... 35
MANAGEMENT UNIT 4: FLOODPLAIN ................................................................................................... 37
MANAGEMENT UNIT GOALS ................................................................................................................................. 39
DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION .............................................................................................................................. 39
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS...................................................................................................................................... 40
MANAGEMENT UNIT 5: TERRACE ......................................................................................................... 42
5
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
MANAGEMENT UNIT GOALS ................................................................................................................................. 43
DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION .............................................................................................................................. 44
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS...................................................................................................................................... 44
MANAGEMENT UNIT 6: FOREST SLOPE ................................................................................................ 46
MANAGEMENT UNIT GOALS ................................................................................................................................. 48
DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION .............................................................................................................................. 48
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS...................................................................................................................................... 49
MANAGEMENT UNIT 7: SAVANNA ........................................................................................................ 51
MANAGEMENT UNIT GOALS ................................................................................................................................. 52
DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION .............................................................................................................................. 52
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS...................................................................................................................................... 53
MANAGEMENT UNIT 8: OLD FIELD ....................................................................................................... 55
MANAGEMENT UNIT GOALS ................................................................................................................................. 57
DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION .............................................................................................................................. 57
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS...................................................................................................................................... 58
WORKPLAN ............................................................................................................................................ 60
RESTORATION PRIORITIZATION ........................................................................................................... 60
5-YEAR WORKPLAN ............................................................................................................................ 62
LONG TERM MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT .................................................................................... 70
SEEDING AND PLANTING (ALL UNITS, AS NEEDED) ............................................................................................... 70
INVASIVE SPECIES MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT (ALL UNITS) ........................................................................ 70
PRESCRIBED BURNING (SAVANNA, OLD FIELD) ................................................................................................... 70
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 71
TREE DISEASE .................................................................................................................................... 71
DUTCH ELM DISEASE AND EMERALD ASH BORER ................................................................................................ 71
OAK WILT AND BUR OAK BLIGHT .......................................................................................................................... 72
EROSION CONTROL ............................................................................................................................ 73
COMMUNITY USE, SITE ACCESS AND SIGNAGE ................................................................................... 74
INFORMATION SOURCES ........................................................................................................................ 75
APPENDICES.......................................................................................................................................... 77
APPENDIX A: PLANT SPECIES RECORDED AT DAVIS FARM PARK ........................................................... 77
APPENDIX B: PLANT SPECIES FOR RESTORATION AT DAVIS FARM PARK ............................................... 81
APPENDIX C: METHODS FOR CONTROLLING INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES ................................................. 81
TREES AND SHRUBS ........................................................................................................................................... 81
FORBS ................................................................................................................................................................ 84
GRASSES............................................................................................................................................................ 87
APPENDIX D: ECOLOGICAL CONTRACTORS .......................................................................................... 89
6
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: 2023 Aerial image of Davis Farm Park parcel. ............................................................................. 9
Figure 2: Map of groundwater at Davis Farm Park. ................................................................................... 15
Figure 3: Map of topography and soils at Davis Farm Park. ...................................................................... 16
Figure 4: Map of surface water resources on the site. .............................................................................. 18
Figure 5: Historic aerial photos documenting land use change at Davis Farm Park.................................... 20
Figure 6: Proximity of Davis Farm Park to several other areas of ecological significance. ........................... 22
Figure 7: Management Unit map for Davis Farm Park. ............................................................................. 25
Figure 8: Target native plant communities for each management unit at Davis Farm Park. ........................ 60
TABLE OF IMAGES
Image 1: Image of low-lying drainageway; illustrates saturated soils and steep topography at site. ........... 17
Image 2: Riverbank within River Edge Management Unit, Davis Farm Park ............................................... 26
Image 3: Agriculture field from trail to boat launch looking West, Davis Farm Park ................................... 30
Image 4: Wooded Field Edge Management Unit, Davis Farm Park ............................................................ 33
Image 5: Floodplain Management Unit (Floodplain West Subunit), Davis Farm Park ................................. 37
Image 6: Floodplain Management Unit (Floodplain East Subunit), Davis Farm Park .................................. 38
Image 7: Terrace Management Unit 5, Davis Farm Park ........................................................................... 42
Image 8. Forest Slope Management Unit 6, Davis Farm Park. .................................................................. 46
Image 9: Image of 35-foot slope located in eastern subunit from the bottom. ......................................... 47
Image 10: Savanna management unit looking south from the top of the slope, Davis Farm Park. .............. 51
Image 11: Another view of the mature oak canopy in the savanna unit. .................................................... 54
Image 12: Old Field West subunit, Davis Farm Park ................................................................................. 55
Image 13: Old Field East subunit, Davis Farm Park .................................................................................. 56
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1: Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) within 5-mile radius of site. ................................ 23
Table 2: Common and notable species observed in Management Unit 1 .................................................. 27
Table 3: Management Unit 1 Potential Management Actions. .................................................................. 28
Table 4 : Management Unit 2 Potential Management Actions. ................................................................. 32
Table 5: Common and notable species observed in Management Unit 3 .................................................. 34
Table 6 : Management Unit 3 Potential Management Actions. ................................................................. 35
Table 7: Common and notable species observed in Management Unit 4 .................................................. 39
Table 8 : Management Unit 4 Potential Management Actions. ................................................................. 40
Table 9: Common and notable species observed in Management Unit 5 .................................................. 43
Table 10 : Management Unit 5 Potential Management Actions. ............................................................... 45
Table 11: Common and notable species observed in Management Unit 6 ................................................ 48
Table 12: Management Unit 6 Potential Management Actions. ................................................................ 49
Table 13: Common and notable species observed in Management Unit 7 ................................................ 52
Table 14: Management Unit 7 Potential Management Actions. ................................................................ 53
Table 15: Common and notable species observed in Management Unit 8 ................................................ 57
Table 16: Management Unit 8 Potential Management Actions. ................................................................ 58
Table 17: Summary of management units, target plant communities, and prioritized restoration ranking. . 61
7
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
Table 18: Restoration Schedule and Cost Estimates ................................................................................ 62
Table 19: Long-Term Management Schedule and Cost Estimates ............................................................ 71
8
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Natural Resources Management Plan (NRMP) presents the site analysis and
recommended land use activities for the 17-acre Davis Farm Park in Otsego, Minnesota. This
document was drafted by Friends of the Mississippi River (FMR) in 2023-24 and is based on an
assessment of site characteristics including natural resource and community access
priorities, issues, and corrective actions. These actions reflect community values regarding
Davis Farm Park’s unique features, and p rotection of the park’s natural areas suggests
restoration and improvement of access for the health and well-being of the community. Th e
NRMP provides a framework for those goals including recommended habitat restoration and
public use enhancement activities, timing and costs for associated tasks, and long-term
management objectives.
Davis Farm Park is facing threats and pressures related to habitat loss and fragmentation,
non-native species, development pressure, uses that are incompatible with habitat
protection, and climate change. These threats are meaningful even if they only affect certain
aspects of the site because the park is seen as contiguous habitat. As a result, taking no
action will ultimately result in degradation of the entire system.
BACKGROUND
Davis Farm Park’s location on the Mississippi River may point to a long history of Indigenous
use, and this is likely given archaeological records of nearby locations on the river. The land
cover around the time of the public land survey of Minnesota (1847-1907) was classified as
“As p e n -Oak Land.” This cover type is most closely associated with today’s dry-mesic oak-
aspen forests with a canopy dominated by northern red oak, paper birch, red maple, quaking
aspen, basswood, sugar maple, bur oak, and big-toothed aspen and saplings of these species
plus ironwood in the subcanopy. The shrub layer would have been patchy t o continuous with
beaked hazelnut, chokecherry, downy arrowwood, and juneberries. The ground layer would
have had variable cover of large-leaved aster, Pennsylvania sedge, wild sarsaparilla, bracken
fern, and early meadow rue among others. While the landscape has changed considerably
since the late 1800s, these plant communities can be referenced when setting restoration
goals and target plant communities.
There has been a long history of agriculture in this area of the county, and while agriculture is
still a fixture of the landscape, the city of Otsego is rapidly developing. The lands directly
around the park are residential neighborhoods, and this land use will continue as Otsego
grows. Historically, conversion of upland habitat has led to the loss of many native plant and
animal species. Davis Farm Park offers an opportunity to protect native plant communities
and the habitats they provide , create a n easily accessible outdoor space for diverse
communities, and benefit the health and wellbeing of a growing city.
9
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
Driven by the desire to preserve natural areas in this matrix of residential and agricultu ral
lands , this plan recommends restoring and enhancing native plant communities on the site
and improving access for the community. Restoration of forest, prairie and oak savanna
communities on the site is prioritized as these habitats are among the most in need of
restoration in this ecological subsection of the state, the Anoka Sandplain/Big Woods
subsections. Because public use of the site is not well understood and access and site
orientation are poor, involving the community in decision-making about management of the
park is vital to its succes s as a community asset.
Figure 1: 2023 Aerial image of Davis Farm Park parcel.
INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT
A natural resources inventory and assessment was conducted by FMR ecologists during the
summer of 2023 to determine existing plant and wildlife communities, identify opportunities
10
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
for restoration, and develop guidance for long-term public use. The Davis Farm Park site
consists of five primary vegetation cover types : upland old field, oak savanna, mixed
deciduous forest, terrace forest, and floodplain forest . These cover types occur in eight
distinct units across the park, and three of these units are further divided into subunits which
are distinguished by changes in topography.
The upland old field units are characterized by herbaceous vegetation dominated by non-
native, cool season grasses. The western area of the old field has been supplementally
seeded to native prairie of moderate diversity. It is presumed that this seeding occurred in
conjunction with the nearby residential development and creation of a stormwater basin. The
old field acts as a quasi-transition area from the park to the neighborhood, and ornamental
evergreens have also been planted in the unit.
The oak savanna unit is characterized by very large, open-grown bur and white oak within the
park’s transition from old field to forested areas. While oak savannas’ typical open understory
is maintained by regular burning, fire has been excluded from the landscape, and dense
prickly ash and other native shrubs are present. Some herbaceous layer persists , but the
structure and composition of the plant community is atypical of an oak savanna.
The mixed deciduous forest units are characterized by second-growth trees in the canopy.
Hackberry and basswood are the dominant overstory species, and ironwood, green ash and
white cedar comprise the understory. Prickly ash, gooseberry, and tree seedlings are present
in the shrub layer, and the herbaceous layer is of moderate diversity with primarily native
species.
The terrace forest units are characterized by moisture-tolerant canopy trees such as hackberry,
cottonwood, and green ash with red oak in the more upland parts of the terrace. Gooseberry
and prickly ash are dominant in the shrub layer, and the herbaceous layer is almost entirely
made up of wood nettle with some garlic mustard. These plant communities are indicative of
frequent disturbance by flood events.
The floodplain forest units are characterized by flood-tolerant canopy trees including silver
maple, hackberry, green ash, and willow. Invasive common buckthorn is present but spotty in
the shrub layer, and the herbaceous layer contains a diverse species list including American
slough grass, hairy wood mint, clearweed, bidens, sweet cicely, jewelweed, Virginia waterleaf,
and cut leaf coneflower among others.
Current management actions appear to have been limited to mowing the old field areas near
the road. A single, partially paved trail connects the old field on the south end of the site to
the river and appears to have once been used for boat access. No additional resource or park
management has been documented.
11
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
PRIORITY ISSUES
Priority Issues are concerns that pose the greatest risk or threats to the ecological integrity of
the site. They can be addressed through a variety of management actions and prevention
over time. If left unchanged, current conditions will persist or worsen .
PRIORITY ISSUE 1: PRESENCE OF NON-NATIVE, INVASIVE SPECIES
Species including common buckthorn, Tartarian honeysuckle , garlic mustard and reed
canary grass are present, but the populations are small. If left unchecked, these populations
will expand further and continue to degrade habitat.
PRIORITY ISSUE 2: ABSENCE, SUPPRESSION, AND POOR REGENERATION OF NATIVE
SPECIES
Native plant communities are present throughout the park either through planting or natural
regeneration, but their presence is not continuous throughout the park, and the species do
not represent a full complement of their subject plant communities .
PRIORITY ISSUE 3: ONGOING EROSION AND BANK SLOUGHING
Soil loss is occurring in some areas of the park due to erosion resulting from discontinuous
vegetation cover, floodwaters, and the site’s topography. The hill on the southwest side of
the park grades into a steep bluff to the east where a side channel of the Mississippi joins with
the main channel. River flow, frequent flooding, and sandy soils are contributing to sloughing
of the bluff. Limited herbaceous vegetation on the face of the bluff and dense shade on the
top of the bluff exacerbate the soil loss.
PRIORITY ISSUE 4: AGRICULTURE USE IN PUBLIC PARK
Approximately 0.8 acre at the northwestern corner of the park is used for row crop
agriculture. The use of public land for this purpose is not compatible with community use of
the public resource or long-term habitat management.
PRIORITY ISSUE 5: LACK OF ACCESSIBILITY FOR THE COMMUNITY
The park is not locatable with common navigation application s, the entrance is not signed,
and the park lacks internal trail orientation or interpretive signage. The single trail within the
park is over-widened and cuts directly down a steep hill to the river, and its alignment does
not allow for safe exploration of most of the park. The scenic connection of the backwaters at
the park to the main channel of the Mississippi is only accessible by steep social trails. The
community’s use of the park is limited by the lack of these features.
PRIORITY ISSUE 6: YARD WASTE DUMPING
Adjacent residential properties use the southeast edge of the park to dispose of yard waste.
This issue is a priority to resolve because yard waste containing grass clippings contains high
12
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
levels of phosphorus. The decomposition of grass clippings sends phosphorus, a major driver
of algae growth, to the river. Yard waste containing weeds and cultivated plant material can
also create new invasive species populations.
PRIORITY FEATURES
Priority Features are key components of the park that require management attention to
sustain ecological integrity and build resiliency in the face of Priority Issues. This NRMP will
focus on four Priority Features listed below and provide associated management
recommendations.
Natural resources management recommendations associated with each Priority Feature
incorporate the resource assessment conducted by FMR ecologists and the identification of
Priority Issues , past land use and management activities, goals and perspectives of the City of
Otsego Parks and Recreation Department, and the community’s values for the park. The
recommendations also stem from general ecological guidelines for these types of landscapes
set by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) in consideration of native
plant communities of Minnesota.
PRIORITY FEATURE 1: MANAGEMENT AND ENHANCEMENT OF THE GRASSLAND AND OAK
SAVANNA
The park contains an area that was historically oak savanna but has been overcome by
woody encroachment. Directly adjacent is a linear old field that is degraded by non -native
species but has been partially restored by seeding of native prairie species. Oak savanna and
prairie are rare habitats in Minnesota due to conversion to agriculture and fire suppression.
Both plant communities support songbirds, a range of mammal species, and pollinators, but
have the potential to support more diversity within these groups. Restoration efforts to return
this area to oak savanna and a complementary prairie are relatively straightforward.
Priority Management Objectives include:
1) Removal and management of non-native species, including common buckthorn,
Tatarian honeysuckle, garlic mustard, smooth brome, and spotted knapweed.
2) Enhancement of habitat throughout the savanna and grassland through native
planting, seeding, thinning of native shrub cover, and re-introduction of prescribed
fire.
The p rimary goals will be to reduce non-native plant cover, increase native vegetation cover,
diversity, and habitat structure, reintroduce a disturbance regime, and increase habitat for
rare features like Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN).
PRIORITY FEATURE 2: MANAGEMENT AND ENHANCEMENT OF THE FLOODPLAIN
The floodplain within Davis Farm Park is typical of many floodplain forests along the
Mississippi. The tree canopy is dominated by native and flood-tolerant trees, and the shrub
13
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
layer is sparse. Compared to similar sites in this area, this specific section of floodplain has
high levels of native plant diversity and very minimal presence of non-native or invasive
species, making it a priority for management while populations are still small. Additionally,
b ecause agriculture fields to the west of the park drain into the floodplain and eventually to
the river, an opportunity exists to enhance the floodplain with additional deep-rooted native
plants and shrubs that will trap nutrients and sediment.
From a community use perspective, the floodplain is the only access to the river within the
park. The former boat launch creates a canopy opening to view the river, but interacting with
the river by boat or angling is not safe given the condition of the access.
Primary Management Objectives include:
1) Removal and management of small populations of common buckthorn and common
burdock to prevent spread.
2) Enhancement of vegetation diversity and habitat throughout the floodplain through
native planting and seeding.
3) Exploring options to attenuate off-site runoff.
4) Improved access to the river.
The p rimary goals will be to reduce non-native plant cover, increase native vegetation cover,
diversity, and habitat structure, capture nutrient-laden farm runoff, improve community
access, and increase habitat for rare features like Species of Greatest Conservation Need
(SGCN).
PRIORITY FEATURE 3: MANAGEMENT AND ENHANCEMENT OF THE EASTERN WOODLAND
SLOPE
The eastern woodland slope is situated on a bluff above the floodplain. This area has great
views of the Mississippi and currently contains several social trails traversing down the bluff
to the river. This slope has likely experienced sloughing due to undercutting during flood
events, the instability of sandy soils, the lack of deep-rooted vegetation on the bluff, and tree
loss . Management efforts prioritizing slope stabilization and re-vegetation will ensure this
area of the park exists for many generations to come.
Primary Management Objectives include:
1) Very selective removal of canopy trees from the edge of the bluff that are in peril of
toppling and causing soil loss from the bluff.
2) Seeding and planting on the top of the slope to establish continuous native
herbaceous groundcover.
3) Reduction of social trails and establishment of a singular maintained trail and
orientation signage. The trail should safely traverse the slope through switchbacks
and allow access to the river.
14
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
The primary goals will be to attenuate slope soil loss and erosion, establish native vegetation
cover, diversity, and habitat structure, establish, and maintain safe access, and increase
habitat for rare features like Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN).
PRIORITY FEATURE 4: MANAGEMENT AND ENHANCEMENT OF THE WESTERN WOODLAND
The western woodland currently consists of degraded woodland and an agriculture field .
Compared to other areas of the park, this area has the highest amount of non-native invasive
species presence, likely due to its location on the edge of the park and high nutrient loading
from runoff. As such, it represents the greatest opportunity for habitat improvement.
Management of this area will positively impact the remainder of the park by reducing nutrient
loading and invasive species seed spread.
Primary Management Objectives include:
1) Removal and management of non-native species, including common buckthorn,
Tatarian honeysuckle, garlic mustard, common burdock, among others.
2) Reduction of edge habitat by establishment of a native plant community in the farmed
area.
3) Enhancement of habitat throughout the woodland through native planting, seeding,
thinning of native shrub cover, and re-introduction of prescribed fire.
4) Improved access to the river.
The primary goals will be to reduce non-native plant cover, increase native vegetation cover,
diversity, and habitat structure, reintroduce a disturbance regime, and increase habitat for
rare features like Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN).
15
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
ECOLOGICAL CONTEXT
GEOLOGY AND GROUNDWATER
The site is situated on geological terraces, or areas that were once the river channel or
floodplains carved by rivers. The southern half of the site exists on top of a terrace, above the
current river floodplain. The northern half exists within the floodplain. These terraces are
principally sand, gravel, and some finer materials, especially along the Mississippi and its
smaller tributaries (Hobbs and Goebel 1982).
Groundwater is visibly present on -site and can be seen seeping out along the terrace edge. In
the upland areas, the depth to groundwater ranges from 30-50 feet, which is quite shallow. In
the floodplain, the depth to groundwater is less than 10 feet.
Figure 2: Map of groundwater at Davis Farm Park.
16
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
TOPOGRAPHY & ASPECT
Overall, the topography of the site slopes from the high point in the southwest corner to the
low point in the northeast corner and creates 3 sections within the park. The southern half of
the site is a relatively flat terrace that gradually begins to slope down toward the north. A
steep north-facing slope exists bisect s the site from southwest to northeast. This slope was
likely carved by water from the Mississippi River and the unnamed creek meandering through
the site. Elevation ranges from 920 feet above sea level to 866 feet, generally spanning
variable distances and ranging from a 40% - 70% slope. In the northeast corner of the site, the
slope transitions to an undercut wall approximately 40 feet tall. The third section of the site is
the relatively flat floodplain which drain s to the Mississippi River.
Figure 3: Map of topography and soils at Davis Farm Park.
17
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
SOILS
Soils largely align with topography across the site. The upland terrace consists of excessively
well-drained loamy sand. The soils here are primarily not suitable for farming. The steep
slope consists of gravelly coarse sandy loam and is excessively well drained. Groundwater
seeps out of the soil and drains to the river. There are two dominant soil types in the
floodplain. Most of the soil is classified as poorly drained loam. In the northwest corner of the
site, there is one area classified as prime farmland, containing moderately drained fine sandy
loam.
Image 1: Image of low-lying drainageway; illustrates saturated soils and steep topography at
site .
SURFACE WATER RESOURCES
RIVERS
The site is directly connected to the Mississippi River and an unnamed stream. The Mississippi
River flows from west to east along the northern boundary of the site with many depositional
islands separating the park from the main channel of the Mississippi. Approximately one third
of the site exists within the river’s floodplain. A smaller, unnamed stream flows fro m we st to
east through the site, ultimately flowing into the Mississippi. This unnamed stream acts as a
drainage ditch connecting to tiled farm fields to the west , carrying nutrients and sediments
through the site to the Mississippi. Both rivers are listed on the Minnesota Public Waters
Inventory, and the Mississippi is impaired for E. coli and mercury in fish tissue within this
reach.
18
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
WETLANDS
According to the National Wetland Inventory (NWI), the low-lying area surrounding the
unnamed stream is classified as a forested wetland that experiences seasonal flooding. It is in
the Mississippi River floodplain and provides water storage during flood events.
Figure 4: Ma p of surface water resources on the site.
19
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
HISTORICAL VEGETATION
This site is located at a transition point between forest and savanna. Technically, the site
resides in the Anoka Sand Plain, an ecological subsection delineated by the Minnesota DNR
that is characterized by flat, sandy soils, terraces along the Mississippi River, and plant
communities such as prairies and savannas dependent on fire and drought (Anoka Sand Plain
Subsection). Less than one mile to the south of this site, the ecological subsection changes to
Big Woods, characterized by maples, basswood, elms, and oaks, forming a dense forest (Big
Woods Subsection). Specifically, the plant community prior to European colonization at this
site is described as an oak woodland and brushland. This indicates there was some level of
historical fire disturbance to prevent this area from becoming dense forest.
Historical aerial photos can also explain the vegetation changes over the last 75 years (Wright
County Historic Aerial Photo Indexes). In 1940, the site was largely dominated by large tree
cover. Farm operations appear on the western and southeastern edges of the parcel, but the
woodland tree cover appears largely intact. By 1953, a more uniform landscape appeared.
Farming is present in the northeast corner. The tree canopy in the southern half appears
more uniform, which could indicate the understory was grazed while large trees were
maintained. By 1958, tree canopy in the southern half is further reduced to make way for
crops. The 1963 and 1970 aerials are similar, with the tree canopy restricted to the steepest
terrain. Then, there is a 40-year gap in the aerial records during a time of suburban expansion
and development in Otsego. The 2008 aerial photo shows the beginnings of the neighboring
housing development to the south and east, and agricultural expansion within the parcel
boundaries to the northeast. Interestingly, there are several historic bur oak trees that remain
on the southern edge of the terrace. Overall, the native plant communities that remain are
largely located in areas inaccessible to agriculture and development – namely the steep slope
and wetland areas.
20
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
Figure 5: Historic aerial photos documenting land use change at Davis Farm Park.
Note: h istorical aerial photos from the mid-20th century lack fine resolution and do not
reproduce well. The text description of these photos above describes the changes in land
cover that can be generally identified in the images in Figure 5.
21
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
CONNECTIVITY
ADJACENT LAND USE
There are a mix of surrounding land uses adjacent to this site that have the potential to have
impact to the park. Row crop agriculture exists to the west and within the parcel boundary of
the site. Drainage moves through the unnamed creek and connecting floodplain wetland. On
the terrace, a residential housing development abuts the property, and some landscaping
from these properties extends into the park boundary. Based on aerial imagery, most houses
likely have functioning irrigation systems and are hydrologically connected via groundwater
to this site. The Mississippi River and the Mississippi River Islands Scientific and Natural Area
(SNA) borders this site to the North.
PROXIMITY TO ECOLOGICAL CORRIDORS
This property is highly connected to several ecological corridors and natural areas within a
10-mile radius. It is located within the Metro Conservation Corridor, a regional land protection
plan of the DNR (MN Geospatial Commons). Additionally, it is approximately 6 miles upstream
of the Mississippi River Critical Area (MRCCA, MNDNR). It is also directly adjacent to one of the
seven islands comprising the Mississippi River Islands Scientific and Natural Area (SNA).
Additionally, it is less than 2 miles from the William H. Houlton Conservation Area and Camp
Cozy Park in Elk River , two natural areas undergoing active ecological restoration to improve
habitat. Camp Cozy Park is located within the Minnesota Wildlife Action Network (WAN,
MNDNR), which distinguishes areas across the state that support existing biological diversity.
ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE AND WILDLIFE VALUE
The site is not currently ranked by the Minnesota County Biological Survey as biologically
significant (MBS, MNDNR). However, rankings for the MCBS survey were conducted in this
area between 1979-1998 and likely did not capture all sites of significance because of
technology limitations. This site is highly connected to several ecological and riverine
corridors, so it has inherent wildlife significance. Nearly all forms of wildlife depend on rivers
for sustenance, especially invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, and fish. Mammals and birds
also benefit greatly from the water, shelter and nutrients provided by the river, and birds use
the river corridor as an important migratory flyway.
Wildlife observed at the park during 2023 site surveys include: bald eagle, red-tailed hawk,
American goldfinch, field sparrow, downy woodpecker, hairy woodpecker, black-capped
chickadee, white-breasted nuthatch, American crow, blue jay, white-tailed deer, red fox, and
evidence of American beaver. The outcomes of future restoration could be measured, in part,
by a simple wildlife monitoring program.
22
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
Figure 6: Proximity of Davis Farm Park to several other areas of ecological significance.
Davis Farm
Park location
23
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
RARE SPECIES
According to the DNR natural heritage database, there are no rare species recorded within the
site . However, 14 rare species have been recorded within five miles of the site . Ten of these
rare species are designated as species of greatest conservation need (SGCN) in Minnesota
(Table 1). Habitat loss and degradation have been primary drivers of decline for SGCN.
Table 1: Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) within 5-mile radius of site.
Common Name Scientific Name Category SGCN
A Jumping Spider Pelegrina arizonensis Spider Ye s
Beach Heather Hudsonia tomentosa Plant No
Black Sandshell Ligumia recta Mussel Ye s
Blandings Turtle Emydoidea blandingii Turtle Ye s
Butternut Juglans cinerea Plant No
Creeping Juniper Juniperus horizontalis Plant No
Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Bird Ye s
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Bird Ye s
Plains Pocket Mouse Perognathus flavescens Mammal Ye s
Prairie Vole Microtus ochrogaster Mammal Ye s
Red -shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus Bird Ye s
Rusty-patched
Bumblebee Bombus affinis Bee Ye s
Seaside Three-awn Aristida tuberculosa Plant No
Uncas Skipper Hesperia uncas Butterfly Ye s
24
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
MANAGEMENT UNITS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
BACKGROUND DATA
Th e natural resources management plan uses the Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities
of Minnesota: The Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province (MNDNR, 2005) to characterize the
property’s existing land cover and identify target plant communities for restoration. The
guide identifies ecological systems and native plant community types in the state based on
multiple ecological features such as major climate zones, origins of glacial deposit, and plant
composition.
To simplify and summarize these data, Native Plant Community conditions (grades ) were
identified for each intact community and are ranked from A (excellent) to B (good), C (fair),
and D (poor). This ranking considers abundance of non-native species, diversity, abundance,
and health of native species, level of disturbance and degradation, and impacts or alterations
to water features. Condition ranks are only assigned to native plant communities classified
according to DNR guidelines; other plant communities are considered land cover types and
are not assigned condition ranks.
The following site -specific factors were also considered when determining the target plant
communities for restoration (Table 17): historic conditions, existing conditions , relative effort
to derive benefits, and community values for the park. These considerations help to
determine the optimal and most suitable goals for restoration of plant communities within
the park.
MANAGEMENT UNITS OVERVIEW
A natural resources inventory and assessment was conducted by FMR ecologists during 2023
to determine existing plant and wildlife communities, identify opportunities for restoration,
and develop guidance for long-term community use . This assessment was used to designate
management units across the site and to categorize restoration tasks and costs.
Davis Farm Park contains eight management units (MUs), three with subunits defined by
topographical changes or separated by existing land use: River Edge (MU1), Agricultu re Field
(MU2), Wooded Field Edge (MU3), Floodplain (MU4; with subunits), Terrace Forest (MU5; with
subunits), Forest Slope (MU6), Savanna (MU7), and Old Field (MU8; with subunits).
The following sections include a description of each management unit, the plant
communities or land cover types within each management unit, and possible management
strategies. Unit description s also include a recommended plant community which can be
used to guide restoration, based on the MNDNR Native Plant Communities. Full descriptions
of each native plant community recommended for the property can be found in Appendix B.
This section also contains representative photos of each Management Unit.
25
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
Figure 7: Management Unit map for Davis Farm Park.
26
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
MANAGEMENT UNIT 1: RIVER EDGE
Image 2: Riverbank within River Edge Management Unit, Davis Farm Park
Management Unit 1, the River Edge Unit (MU 1,) consists of a narrow floodplain and terrace
forest located in the northwe st corner of the park and has a “C” grade native plant
community condition. The 0.7-acre unit is linear and follows a back channel of the Mississippi
River with an island of the Mississippi Islands SNA directly north across the back channel. The
eastern edge of the unit is the location of a former boat launch at the end of the park’s main
trail, though the access area to the river is muddy and unmaintained.
MU1 is stable with only small amounts of bank undercutting on the west end of the unit. A
narrow floodplain of approximately 15 feet rises to a terrace forest to the south. The
stabilization of this unit is likely owed to the separation from the currents of the Mississippi’s
main channel and the presence of nearly continuous native understory vegetation such as
American slough grass and cut -leaf coneflower. Abundant hackberry and green ash are in the
canopy, which will open considerably as ash are lost to the Emerald ash borer. Non-native
species such as smooth brome and garlic mustard are also present, and this unit could
27
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
benefit from supplemental planting or seeding to increase diversity and improve long-term
soil stabilization and nutrient filtration.
While this unit contains the only formal access to the river in the park, the former boat launch
is in poor condition and does not allow safe entry to the river or an opportunity to interact
with the water. As future investments are made in the park, this location is both a Priority
Feature and Priority Issue.
Table 2: Common and notable species observed in Management Unit 1
TREES SHRUBS GROUND COVER (WILDFLOWERS,
GRASSES, SEDGES, FERNS, VINES)
• Hackberry
• Green ash
• Black willow
• Boxelder
• Prickly ash
• Riverbank grape
• Missouri gooseberry
• Tatarian honeysuckle
• Red elderberry
• Black cap raspberry
• Smooth brome
• American slough grass
• Wood nettle
• Creeping Charlie
• Virginia creeper
• Common oxeye
• Cut leaf coneflower
• Garlic mustard
BOLDED: Non -native and/or invasive species
MANAGEMENT UNIT GOALS
The goals for this unit include:
1) Reduction or elimination of Tatarian honeysuckle, smooth brome, and garlic mustard
to address Priority Issue 1 (presence of invasive species).
2) Enhancement of habitat through seeding, planting, and adaptive management to
address Priority Issue 2 (poor native species regeneration).
3) Establishment of a safe and maintainable access to the river to address Priority Issue 5
(lack of interpretation) and Priority Feature 2 (floodplain enhancement).
DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION
A reasonable trajectory for the plant communities in MU1 is to work towards a B quality mesic
forest plant community with reduced cover of non-native/invasive species and increased
cover of native trees, shrubs, and woodland understory species. Target plant communities to
consider include Southern Floodplain Forest (FFs68) and Southern Terrace Forest (FFs59).
General guidelines for desired vegetation composition include:
• Continuous ground cover (50-100%) of plants such as wood nettle, Virginia waterleaf,
jewelweed, tall coneflower, stinging nettle, Northern bedstraw, common blue violet, eastern
28
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
narrowleaf sedge, honewort, and Virginia bluebells. Woody vines such as Virginia creeper and
riverbank grape.
• Sparse to patchy shrub cover (5-50%) of species such as American elm, hackberry, box elder,
Missouri gooseberry, prickly ash, and chokecherry.
• Interrupted to continuous canopy cover (50-100%) of species such as American elm, green
ash, hackberry, basswood, box elder, silver maple, black ash, and cottonwood.
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
The following section summarizes the various actions that will support achieving the goals
and desired future condition for MU1. The table below identifies the likely trajectory of the
habitats and the effort associated with various actions. The paragraphs below provide a text
summary and activities that will help support the Priority Features.
Table 3: Management Unit 1 Potential Management Actions.
Bolded items are considered priority and addressed in further detail in Table 18 of the
Workp la n section.
MANAGEMENT
EFFORT MANAGEMENT ACTIONS RISKS & LIKELY TRAJECTORY PROJ ECTED
GRADE
None No management actions.
Non -native vegetation may spread and
become denser, making future removal
more difficult and further suppress
native vegetation. Non-native
vegetation will encroach on other areas
of the park. Condition will remain the
same or worsen.
C
Low Monitor to assess management
action.
No/low risk.
Condition will be maintained. Issues will
be identified before they become more
costly. Effectiveness of management
actions can be evaluated and inform
future actions.
C
Me d ium
Removal of non-native
herbaceous species through
mechanical and chemical
means.
Risks include unintentional impacts
from chemical overspray.
Condition will improve via reduction
of non-native plant cover and reduced
suppression of native plant cover.
B
Me d ium Planting native shrubs
Risks include soil disturbance, loss of
investment if shrubs don’t establish,
and accidental invasive species
reintroduction .
Condition will improve early season
nectar availability for pollinators,
forest structure, and riverbank
stabilization.
B
29
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
MANAGEMENT
EFFORT MANAGEMENT ACTIONS RISKS & LIKELY TRAJECTORY PROJ ECTED
GRADE
High
Removal of non-native and
invasive woody species through
mechanical and chemical
means.
Risks include unintentional targeting
of native species with chemical
overspray and damage via mechanical
removal.
Condition will improve via reduction
of non-native plant cover and reduced
suppression of native plant cover.
B
High
Removal of existing boat launch
and construction of new river
access.
Risks include unintentional root damage
to adjacent large trees.
Condition will reduce soil loss, allow for
introduction of native species, and allow
for community access and enjoyment of
the river.
B
Restoration of Management Unit 1 will require woody non-native vegetation management
followed by herbaceous non-native vegetation management. While Tatarian honeysuckle is
patchy wit hin MU1, it is a priority to manage it to preserve the native woodland diversity
present within the unit. Cutting and treating stumps with herbicide is the best way to
minimize chemical drift and avoid unnecessary impacts to the existing native plant
community. After initial clearing of Tatarian honeysuckle, garlic mustard may increase in
abundance. Given its current level of establishment, mechanical removal by hand-pulling or
mowing second-year garlic mustard plants is recommended. If populations expand to large
monocultures, chemical removal may be considered.
Improvement of the river access should be considered in this unit in alignment with
protection of Priority Feature 2. A safe and maintainable access is essential to a riverfront
park. Removal of asphalt within the trail corridor should also be considered. This large
disturbance may result in the need for reforestation or planting efforts after removal, so
timing is critical. Care should be taken to preserve existing large trees along the trail. If full
removal is not possible, partial removal in addition to strategic planting to mask the
remaining surface is an option. Species tolerant of soil compaction such as nodding wild
onion, ostrich fern, bee balm, little bluestem, bush honeysuckle, and New England aster
should be considered.
After initial management of non-native and invasive species, reestablishment of a native
shrub layer is recommended. Mass planting of bare root shrubs within the understory will
provide diversity and forest structure, and new plantings should be protected to prevent loss
by deer and rabbit browse. Increased density of planting should be prioritized along the
riverbank which is more vulnerable to erosion.
30
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
MANAGEMENT UNIT 2: AGRICULTURE FIELD
Image 3: Agriculture field from trail to boat launch looking West , Davis Farm Park
Management Unit 2, the Agriculture Field Unit (MU2), is 0.8 acres and is actively farmed as an
extension of a farm field to the west. In 2023, the field was planted in soybeans. A review of
aerial photos indicates that this unit was pastured in the 1940s and then a portion of it
cleared for row crop agriculture by 1953. Since then, all aerial photos indicate this unit has
been farmed or pastured. This type of agriculture use does not provide any habitat benefits
and likely contributes to degradation of surrounding habitats via nutrient runoff, soil erosion,
and increased edge habitat. Adjacent units (MU1, MU3) have a high presence of non-native
invasive species, likely because this farm field bisects the woodland habitat with exposed soil,
where weed seeds that land on the edges can easily germinate.
Despite its long history as a continuation of the farm field to the west, the encroachment is on
public parkland. From a community standpoint, this area gives park users a false sense they
are on private property when using the only paved trail in the park to access the boat launch
in MU1. This unit will have its property line marked, and agricultural use will cease.
31
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
MANAGEMENT UNIT GOALS
The goals for this unit include:
1) Reduction or elimination of farming to address Priority Issue 4 (presence of an
agriculture field).
2) Restoration of to a native plant community to address Priority Feature 4
(enhancement of western woodland).
DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION
A reasonable trajectory for the plant communities in MU2 is to work towards a B quality mesic
forest plant community with cover of native trees, shrubs, and woodland understory species.
Target plant communities to consider include Southern Floodplain Forest (FFs68) and
Southern Terrace Forest (FFs59).
General guidelines for desired vegetation composition include:
• Continuous ground cover (50-100%) of plants such as wood nettle, Virginia waterleaf,
jewelweed, tall coneflower, stinging nettle, Northern bedstraw, common blue violet, eastern
narrowleaf sedge, honewort, and Virginia bluebells. Woody vines such as Virginia creeper and
riverbank grape.
• Sparse to patchy shrub cover (5-50%) of species such as American elm, hackberry, box elder,
Missouri gooseberry, prickly ash, and chokecherry.
• Interrupted to continuous canopy cover (50-100%) of species such as American elm, green
ash, hackberry, basswood, box elder, silver maple, black ash, and cottonwood.
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
The following section summarizes the various actions that will support achieving the goals
and desired future condition for MU2. The table below identifies the likely trajectory of the
habitats and the effort associated with various actions. The paragraphs below provide a text
summary and activities that will help support the Priority Features.
32
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
Table 4 : Management Unit 2 Potential Management Actions.
Bolded items are considered priority and addressed in further detail in Table 18 of the
Workp la n section.
MANAGEMENT
EFFORT MANAGEMENT ACTIONS RISKS & LIKELY TRAJECTORY PROJ ECTED
GRADE
None No management actions.
Unit will continue to be farmed. Risks
include nutrient loading, increased
invasive species presence, limitations on
public access. Condition will remain the
same or worsen.
N/A
Low Cease agricultural use
Risks include leaving soil bare, which
could lead to erosion or increased
weed establishment and seed
production.
Condition will improve via reduction
of fertilizer and heavy machinery use
D
Me d ium Seed native cover crop or
buffer seed mix
Risks include poor seed establishment
and not meeting desired plant
community objectives.
Condition will improve habitat for
pollinators and other wildlife, soil
health will improve, nutrients will be
captured before reaching water
bodies.
C
High
Reforest unit to align with native
plant communities in MU1 and
MU3
Risks include difficulty with tree
establishment in sandy soils, long term
investment.
Condition will reduce soil loss, allow for
introduction of native species, increase
public comfort accessing unit, and
decrease edge effects.
B
Restoration of Management Unit 2 will require reforestation while concurrently monitoring
and managing any invasive species that begin to establish on unit edges. The first step will be
to establish native groundcover and protect the soil by seeding a cover crop or buffer seed
mix. After establishment, targeted planting of several large native trees such as basswood,
hackberry, silver maple, and cottonwood will jumpstart canopy cover. These trees should be
protected from deer browse with tree tubes. Watering of these trees in the first few years is a
priority. It is likely that prickly ash and boxelder from adjacent units will also seed itself
during reforestation efforts. Continued invasive species management should occur via spot
spraying or spot mowing to prevent invasive species from going to seed. After trees reach a
height above deer browse, protection can be removed.
Care should be taken to avoid reforestation efforts within existing or planned trail corridors.
33
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
MANAGEMENT UNIT 3: WOODED FIELD EDGE
Image 4: Wooded Field Edge Management Unit, Davis Farm Park
Management Unit 3, the Wooded Field Edge Unit (MU3,) consists of a degraded mesic forest
located on the western edge of the park and has a “D” grade native plant community
condition. The 0.7-acre unit is triangular with two sides bordered by the agriculture fie ld . A
wire fence runs through a portion of the unit and will have to be removed prior to
management. Its presence and the plant community suggest a grazing history.
MU 3 is the most degraded of the eight management units in the park. In addition to its high
ratio of edge in relation to its size, its ecology has been completely altered by non-native and
invasive common buckthorn. The unit is nearly impassable due to the density of mature
buckthorn and understory buckthorn saplings. Hackberry, box elder and green ash comprise
the canopy, but these species are not regenerating under the dense buckthorn cover.
Missouri gooseberry, prickly ash, and black cap raspberry are also present in the shrub layer.
The understory is typical of a formerly grazed terrace or mesic forest with white snakeroot,
wood nettle, American slough grass, and Virginia creeper in abundance. If restoration was
34
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
pursued in MU3, the restoration would be benefitted by restoration of the agriculture field
and subsequent habitat connection to MU1 and the river’s floodplain.
Significant invasive species management is needed in MU3 to both establish improved
habitat and prevent the spread of invasive species to other areas within the park.
Table 5: Common and notable species observed in Management Unit 3
TREES SHRUBS GROUND COVER (WILDFLOWERS,
GRASSES, SEDGES, FERNS, VINES)
• Hackberry
• Boxelder
• Crabapple
• American elm
• Common buckthorn
• Prickly ash
• Riverbank grape
• Missouri gooseberry
• Black cap raspberry
• American slough grass
• Wood nettle
• Creeping Charlie
• Virginia creeper
• Stinging nettle
• Garlic mustard
BOLDED: Non -native and/or invasive species
MANAGEMENT UNIT GOALS
The goals for this unit include:
1) Reduction or elimination of common buckthorn and garlic mustard to address Priority
Issue 1 (presence of invasive species)
2) Enhancement of habitat through seeding, planting, and adaptive management to
address Priority Issue 2 (poor native species regeneration) and Priority Feature 4
(western woodland enhancement).
DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION
A reasonable trajectory for the plant communities in MU3 is to work towards a B-C quality
mesic forest plant community with reduced cover of non-native/invasive species and
increased cover of native trees, shrubs, and woodland understory species. Target plant
communities to consider include Southern Terrace Forest (FFs59) and Southern Wet-Me sic
Forest (MHs49).
General guidelines for desired vegetation composition include:
• Continuous ground cover (75-100%) of plants such as false rue anemone, blue phlox, common
blue violet, hispid buttercup, appendaged waterleaf, Virginia spring beauty, tall coneflower,
white and yellow trout lilies, white bear sedge, and hairy-leaved sedge.
• Variable shrub cover (5-100%) of species such as chokecherry, Missouri gooseberry, basswood,
sugar maple, black ash, hackberry, bitternut hickory, American elm, red elm, and rock elm.
35
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
• Patchy to continuous subcanopy with sugar maple, basswood, hackberry, ironwood, black
ash, and elms.
• Interrupted to continuous canopy cover (50-100%) of species such as basswood, black ash,
sugar maple, American elm, red elm, and rock elm, green ash, hackberry, box elder, and bur
oak.
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
The following section summarizes the various actions that will support the Management
Objectives for Management Unit 3. The table below identifies the likely trajectory of the
habitats and the effort associated with various actions. The paragraphs below provide a text
summary and activities that will help support the Priority Features.
Table 6 : Management Unit 3 Potential Management Actions.
Bolded items are considered priority and addressed in further detail in Table 18 of the
Workp la n section.
MANAGEMENT
EFFORT MANAGEMENT ACTIONS RISKS & LIKELY TRAJECTORY PROJ ECTED
GRADE
None No management actions
Non -native vegetation may spread and
become denser, making future removal
more difficult and further suppress
native vegetation. Non-native
vegetation will encroach on other areas
of the park. Condition will worsen.
D
Low Monitor to assess management
action
Moderate risk.
Known issues will worsen without active
management. New issues will be
identified before they become more
costly. Effectiveness of management
actions can be evaluated and inform
future actions.
D
Me d ium
Removal of non-native
herbaceous species through
mechanical and chemical
means
Risks include unintentional targeting
of native species with chemical
overspray.
Condition will improve via reduction
of non-native plant cover and reduced
suppression of native plant cover.
C
Me d ium Planting native shrubs
Risks include soil disturbance,
potential loss of investment if shrubs
are lost due to browse or drought, and
accidental invasive species
reintroduction.
Condition will improve early season
nectar availability for pollinators,
forest structure, and riverbank
stabilization.
B
36
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
MANAGEMENT
EFFORT MANAGEMENT ACTIONS RISKS & LIKELY TRAJECTORY PROJ ECTED
GRADE
High
Removal of non-native and
invasive woody species through
mechanical and chemical
means
Risks include unintentional targeting
of native species with chemical
overspray and damage via mechanical
removal.
Condition will improve via reduction
of non-native plant cover and reduced
suppression of native plant cover.
B
High Removal of wire fencing
Risks include unintentional root damage
to adjacent trees.
Removal will allow for invasive species
management and better wildlife
movement.
B
Restoration of Management Unit 3 will require woody non-native vegetation management
followed by herbaceous non-native vegetation management in alignment with protecting
Priority Feature 2 Forestry mowing of buckthorn followed by foliar herbicide application to
reduce or eliminate resprouting is recommended. After initial clearing of buckthorn, invasive
biennial weeds such as garlic mustard may increase in abundance. Given its current level of
establishment, mechanical removal by hand-pulling second -year garlic mustard plants is
recommended. If populations expand to large monocultures, chemical removal may be
considered.
Concurrently with invasive woody management, removal of the wire fencing should occur to
facilitate management and improve habitat.
After initial management of non-native and invasive species, reestablishment of an
herbaceous understory is needed to prevent buckthorn seedbank germination and create
fine fuels so that the unit could potentially be managed with prescribed fire. Reestablishment
of a native shrub layer is also recommended. Mass planting of bare root or potted shrubs
within the understory will provide diversity and forest structure, and new potted plantings
should be protected to prevent loss by deer and rabbit browse.
37
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
MANAGEMENT UNIT 4: FLOODPLAIN
Image 5: Floodplain Management Unit (Floodplain West Subunit), Davis Farm Park
Management Unit 4, the Floodplain Unit (MU 4,) consists of floodplain forest associated with
the Mississippi, and the plant community is extended across two subunits divided by the
primary north-south trail. The subunits, We st and East, are hydrologically connected by a 60”
inch culvert under the trail. The culvert carries agricultural drainage from the west side of the
park to the river. While the floodplain subunits have grade “B” native plant community
conditions, they differ in other characteristics.
The 0.9-acre Floodplain West Subunit is linear and contains a moderately deep drainage
channel that carries water from the farm fields to the west. The channel is mucky and has
likely filled with sediment over time as water has carried soil from the fields. The west
floodplain has a nearly continuous canopy outside of the drainage channel with moderate
cover of herbaceous species, but the combination of agricultural drainage and floodplain
connection to the Mississippi creates enough disturbance to destabilize the banks of the
drainage channel. This unit would benefit from a termination of agricultural drainage or in-
channel structures to trap sediment and decrease the rate of flow.
38
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
Image 6: Floodplain Management Unit (Floodplain East Subunit), Davis Farm Park
The 1.2-acre Floodplain East Subunit is also linear and is stable on its north side. A wide
floodplain of approximately 75 feet rises gently to a terrace forest within the Mississippi
Islands SNA to the north. On the south side of the floodplain, the connection to adjacent
uplands significantly increases in steepness towards the main channel of the Mississippi to
the east with major bluff erosion and soil loss resulting from years of destabilizing flood flows
a nd subsequent tree loss o n the bluff. The floodplain itself contains large cobbles and
boulders, as well as downed tree limbs that create good floodplain roughness to trap
sediment and store floodwaters. The shallow banks of the floodplain are well vegetated with
several native species adapted to frequent inundation.
The stabilization of this unit is likely owed to the separation from the Mississippi’s main
channel and the presence of native understory vegetation such as American slough grass and
forbs . The canopy includes abundant silver maple, hackberry, black willow, and green ash .
Non -native species are scarce in this unit with just small amounts of common buckthorn
present on the wooded edges. This unit could benefit from a small amount of supplemental
planting or seeding to increase diversity and improve long-term soil stabilization and nutrient
filtration.
39
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
This unit is accessed by steep social trails on the east end of the park. The unit’s beauty and
connection to the river underlie the importance of establishing safe and maintainable access
on this end of the park. As future investments are made in the park, this location is both a
Priority Feature and Priority Issue.
Table 7: Common and notable species observed in Management Unit 4
TREES SHRUBS GROUND COVER (WILDFLOWERS,
GRASSES, SEDGES, FERNS, VINES)
• Silver maple
• Hackberry
• Basswood
• Green ash
• Black willow
• American elm
• Common buckthorn • American slough grass
• Clearweed
• Wood nettle
• Bidens
• Jewelweed
• Sweet cicely
• Ontario aster
• Hairy wood mint
• Obedient plant
• Cut leaf coneflower
• Garlic mustard
BOLDED: Non -native and/or invasive species
MANAGEMENT UNIT GOALS
The goals for this unit include:
1) Reduction or elimination of common buckthorn to address Priority Issue 1 (presence
of invasive species).
2) Enhancement of habitat through seeding, planting, and adaptive management to
address Priority Issue 2 (poor native species regeneration) and Priority Feature 4
(western woodland enhancement).
3) Establishment of a safe and maintainable river access to address Priority Issue 5 (lack
of interpretation) and Priority Feature 2 (enhancement of floodplain).
DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION
A reasonable trajectory for the plant communities in MU4 is to work towards a B quality
floodplain forest plant community with increased cover of native trees, shrubs, and
understory species tolerant of frequent inundation. The target plant community to consider
is Southern Floodplain Forest (FFs68).
General guidelines for desired vegetation composition include:
• Very sparse to variable ground cover (5-50%) of plants such as false nettle, clearweeds,
Ontario aster, Virginia wildrye, rice cut grass, hop umbrella sedge, and cattail sedge with wood
nettle in dense patches. Climbing vines including riverbank grape, moonseed, and climbing
poison ivy are also present.
40
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
• Sparse to patchy shrub cover (0-50%) of species such as silver maple, green ash, American
elm, and hackberry with climbing poison ivy and silver maple seedlings present.
• Interrupted to continuous canopy cover (50-100%) of species strongly dominated by silver
with occasional American elm, green ash, and cottonwood.
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
The following section summarizes the various actions that will support the Management
Objectives for Management Unit 4. The table below identifies the likely trajectory of the
habitats and the effort associated with various actions. The paragraphs below provide a text
summary and activities that will help support the Priority Features.
Table 8 : Management Unit 4 Potential Management Actions.
Bolded items are considered priority and addressed in further detail in Table 18 of the
Workp la n section.
MANAGEMENT
EFFORT MANAGEMENT ACTIONS RISKS & LIKELY TRAJECTORY PROJ ECTED
GRADE
None No management actions.
Non -native vegetation may spread and
become denser, making future removal
more difficult and further suppress
native vegetation. Non-native
vegetation will encroach on other areas
of the park. Condition will remain the
same or worsen.
C
Low Monitor to assess management
action.
No/low risk.
Condition will be maintained. Issues will
be identified before they become more
costly. Effectiveness of management
actions can be evaluated and inform
future actions.
C
Me d ium
Removal of non-native
herbaceous species through
mechanical and chemical
means.
Risks include unintentional targets
from chemical overspray.
Condition will improve via reduction
of non-native plant cover and reduced
suppression of native plant cover.
B
Me d ium Planting native shrubs
Risks include soil disturbance,
potential loss of investment if shrubs
are lost due to browse or drought, and
accidental invasive species
reintroduction.
Condition will improve early season
nectar availability for pollinators,
forest structure, and riverbank
stabilization.
B
41
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
MANAGEMENT
EFFORT MANAGEMENT ACTIONS RISKS & LIKELY TRAJECTORY PROJ ECTED
GRADE
High
Removal of non-native and
invasive woody species through
mechanical and chemical
means.
Risks include unintentional targeting
of native species with chemical
overspray and damage via mechanical
removal.
Condition will improve via reduction
of non-native plant cover and reduced
suppression of native plant cover.
B
High In -channel remediation of high
flows from agriculture field.
Risks include disrupting agricultural
drainage for neighboring farms.
Condition will reduce soil loss, reduce
nutrient transport to the river, and
reduce tree loss in the floodplain.
B
Restoration of Management Unit 4 will require a small degree of woody non-native vegetation
management followed by a small degree of herbaceous non-native vegetation management.
After initial management of non-native and invasive species, reestablishment of a native
shrub layer is recommended. Mass planting of bare root shrubs within the understory will
provide diversity and forest structure, and new plantings should be protected to prevent loss
by deer and rabbit browse. Increased density of planting should be prioritized along the
riverbank which is more vulnerable to erosion.
Additionally, remediation of effects from the agricultural drainage should be pursued.
42
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
MANAGEMENT UNIT 5: TERRACE
Management Unit 5, the Terrace Unit (MU5), consists of hardwood terrace forest situated
adjacent to the Mississippi River floodplain and surrounding the agricultural drainage on
either side of the large culvert in the park. As such, the topography of the unit effectively
creates three areas of terrace forest. The subunits have the same target plant communities
but differ in status and community composition. The variation in plant community across the
subunits is due to slightly different hydrology. The terrace forest adjacent to the river is
relatively flat with an open canopy of silver maple and cottonwood. The open canopy allows
for a grassy and nearly continuous herbaceous layer. The western half of the terrace forest
along the drainage is more obviously disturbed by flashy flood flows having a higher degree
of downed woody material and a less continuous herbaceous layer of cut-leaf coneflower and
other moisture-tolerant herbs. The eastern half of the terrace forest is likely disturbed by both
dissipated flows from the drainage and river floodwaters. The canopy here is mostly open
with sporadic green ash, red oak, and hackberry. The herbaceous layer is a nearly continuous
stand of wood nettle.
Image 7: Terrace Management Unit 5, Davis Farm Park
The 0.9-acre Mississippi Terrace Subunit is linear and is slightly upland of the river back
channel and adjacent floodplain to the south. This subunit ranks as a “C” native plant
43
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
community, largely because of its limited diversity. The tree canopy is dominated by
hackberry and green ash. The shrub layer is sparse, with scattered groups of prickly ash and
gooseberry. Buckthorn is present in this unit but does not dominate the shrub layer. The
understory largely consists of American slough grass and rice cut grass with small pockets of
reed canary grass.
The 0.8-acre West Terrace Subunit is also linear and lies adjacent to the agricultural drainage
and the base of the western woodland slope; the topography is mostly flat. The canopy is
open with green ash and hackberry most abundant. The ground layer is nearly continuous,
and wood nettle, Virginia waterleaf, and white snakeroot the most common species. Still, a
great deal of bare soil is present in the unit likely because of its hydrology.
The 0.4-acre East Terrace Subunit is less affected by the agricultural drainage but likely more
affected by river flooding and drainage from the slopes on the south half of the park. The
canopy is dominated by red oak and hackberry, and Missouri gooseberry and prickly ash are
in the shrub layer. The herbaceous layer is a nearly continuous stand of wood nettle with
small amounts of garlic mustard.
Table 9: Common and notable species observed in Management Unit 5
TREES SHRUBS GROUND COVER (WILDFLOWERS,
GRASSES, SEDGES, FERNS, VINES)
• Hackberry
• Green Ash
• Basswood
• Red Oak
• Eastern cottonwood
• Missouri gooseberry
• Prickly ash
• Red elderberry
• Common buckthorn
• Wood nettle
• Virginia waterleaf
• White snakeroot
• Garlic mustard
• Stickseed
• Zigzag goldenrod
• Cutleaf coneflower
BOLDED: Non -native and/or invasive species
MANAGEMENT UNIT GOALS
The goals for this unit include:
1) Reduction or elimination of garlic mustard to address Priority Issue 1 (presence of
invasive species).
2) Enhancement of habitat through seeding, planting, and adaptive management to
address Priority Issue 2 (poor native species regeneration) and Priority Feature 4
(western woodland enhancement).
3) Establishment of a safe and maintainable river access to address Priority Issue 5 (lack
of interpretation) and Priority Feature 2 (floodplain enhancement).
44
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION
A reasonable trajectory for the plant communities in MU5 is to work towards a B quality
terrace forest plant community with increased cover of native trees, shrubs, and understory
species tolerant of frequent inundation and disturbance. The target plant community to
consider is Southern Terrace Forest (FFs 59).
General guidelines for desired vegetation composition include:
• Continuous ground cover (50-100%) of plants such as wood nettle, Virginia waterleaf,
jewelweed, tall coneflower, stinging nettle, Northern bedstraw, common blue violet, eastern
narrowleaf sedge, honewort, and Virginia bluebells. Woody vines such as Virginia creeper and
riverbank grape.
• Sparse to patchy shrub cover (5-50%) of species such as American elm, hackberry, box elder,
Missouri gooseberry, prickly ash, and chokecherry.
• Interrupted to continuous canopy cover (50-100%) of species such as American elm, green
ash, hackberry, basswood, box elder, silver maple, black ash, and cottonwood.
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
The following section summarizes the various actions that will support enhancing the Priority
Features in Management Unit 5. The table below identifies the likely trajectory of the habitats
and the effort associated with various actions. The paragraphs below provide a text summary
and activities that will help support the Priority Features.
45
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
Table 10 : Management Unit 5 Potential Management Actions.
Bolded items are considered priority and addressed in further detail in Table 18 of the
Workp la n section.
MANAGEMENT
EFFORT MANAGEMENT ACTIONS RISKS & LIKELY TRAJECTORY PROJ ECTED
GRADE
None No management actions.
Non -native vegetation may spread and
become denser, making future removal
more difficult and further suppress
native vegetation. Non-native
vegetation will encroach on other areas
of the park. Condition will remain the
same or worsen.
C/B
Low Monitor to assess management
action.
No/low risk.
Condition will be maintained. Issues will
be identified before they become more
costly. Effectiveness of management
actions can be evaluated and inform
future actions.
C/B
Me d iu m Seeding native terrace forest
seed mix
Risks include poor establishment.
Condition will improve by increasing
herbaceous cover, where deep roots can
hold the soil in place , prevent erosion,
and filter nutrients.
B
Me d iu m Planting native shrubs
Risks include soil disturbance, potential
loss of investment if shrubs are lost due
to browse or drought, and accidental
invasive species reintroduction.
Condition will improve early season
nectar availability for pollinators, forest
structure, and riverbank stabilization.
B
High
Removal of non-native species
through mechanical and
chemical means.
Risks include unintentional targeting
of native species with chemical
overspray.
Condition will improve via reduction
of non-native plant cover and reduced
suppression of native plant cover.
B
Restoration of Management Unit 5 will require herbaceous non-native vegetation
management, planting and seeding native shrubs and forbs.
Vegetation within the terrace could be improved by removing non-native herbaceous species
and identifying open soil areas and then seeding or planting within these areas to establish
continuous vegetation, stabilize soils and increase nutrient filtration.
Native shrubs can also be replanted in areas least susceptible to erosion to provide floral
resources for early-season pollinators and structural diversity to the forest.
46
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
MANAGEMENT UNIT 6: FOREST SLOPE
Image 8. Forest Slope Management Unit 6, Davis Farm Park.
Management Unit 6, the Forest Slope Unit (MU6), consists of hardwood forest situated along a
north facing slope. The plant community is divided across two subunits, West and East,
separated by the primary north-south trail. The western end of the slope is a steep hill, and
the eastern end of the slope is situated on a bluff above the floodplain which drops off
considerably from the top of the bluff. Past conditions of this portion of the site are not well
understood, but it is suspected that this slope has experienced sloughing due to undercutting
during flood events, the instability of sandy soils, the lack of deep-rooted vegetation on the
bluff, and tree loss. The bluff has exposed subsoil, and several fallen trees lie at the base of
the slope in the floodplain. The tree canopy is primarily closed despite the tree loss, and
herbaceous vegetation at the top of the slope is present but sparse. The subunits have the
same current and target plant communities but differ in status and community composition.
The 0.8-acre Forest Slope West Subunit is linear and separates the Savanna Unit to the South
from Terrace West to the north. This subunit ranks as a “C” native plant community, largely
because of its limited diversity. The tree canopy is dominated by hackberry, basswood, and
47
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
green ash. The shrub layer is sparse, with scattered groups of prickly ash along the top of the
slope. Tatarian honeysuckle and buckthorn are present in this unit, but they do not dominate
the shrub layer. The understory largely consists of bare soil with some patches of creeping
Charlie, buckthorn seedlings, and Virginia creeper present. Invasive earthworms are present,
but not overwhelmingly so because oak leaf litter is still present. Overall, this unit is relatively
open compared to other forested areas within the park.
The 2.6-acre Forest Slope East Subunit is more diverse than the west subunit and ranks as a
“B” native plant community. The tree canopy is similarly dominated by basswood, hackberry,
and green ash, with some red and white oaks present near the eastern edge of the unit.
Elderberry, prickly ash, Missouri gooseberry, and black cherry comprise the shrub layer. The
understory has spring ephemerals including dutchman’s breeches and columbine, as well as
mid and late season forbs such as sweet cicely and wood nettle. Garlic mustard and
buckthorn are present in the unit but are not dominant. This unit has been subject to
undercutting and bank sloughing from the river over time. There are areas of steep drop-offs
to the floodplain below that are estimated to be over 40 feet tall. Soil erosion is a priority
issue.
Image 9: Image of 35 -foot slope located in eastern subunit from the bottom.
48
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
Additionally, there is evidence that some tree and shrub removal has occurred within the
northeast portion of this unit. Stumps, cut stems, and bare soil are common in the unit. This
management by neighbors to improve viewsheds from homes may positively contribute to
the minimal amount of buckthorn and a relatively diverse understory. Future management
should be aligned with increasing soil stability efforts.
There are steep social trails that traverse the bluff slope and allow for connectivity to the
floodplain and river. Formalization of one trail and erosion prevention measures would
decrease erosion and increase community access to the river.
Table 11: Common and notable species observed in Management Unit 6
TREES SHRUBS GROUND COVER (WILDFLOWERS,
GRASSES, SEDGES, FERNS, VINES)
• Basswood
• Gre e n As h
• Hackberry
• Ironwood
• Red Oak
• Common buckthorn
• Missouri gooseberry
• Prickly ash
• Tartarian honeysuckle
• Creeping Charlie
• Fowl manna grass
• Garlic mustard
• Kentucky bluegrass
• Lady fern
• Pennsylvania sedge
• Sweet cice ly
• Virginia waterleaf
• Wood nettle
• Zig zag goldenrod
BOLDED: Non -native and/or invasive species
MANAGEMENT UNIT GOALS
The goals for this unit include:
1) Reduction or elimination of common buckthorn and Tartarian honeysuckle to address
Priority Issue 1 (presence of invasive species).
2) Stabilization of bare slopes and rerouting of the trail to address Priority Issue 3
(erosion).
3) Establishment of clear boundaries between park and private property to address
Priority Issue 6 (yard waste dumping).
4) Establishment of a safe and maintainable access to the river to address Priority Issue 5
(lack of interpretation) and Priority Feature 3 (slope enhancement).
DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION
A reasonable trajectory for the plant communities in MU6 is to work towards a B quality
hardwood forest plant community with increased cover of native trees, shrubs, and
understory species tolerant of frequent inundation. The target plant community to consider
is Central Mesic Hardwood Forest (MHc36 ).
49
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
General guidelines for desired vegetation composition include:
• Patchy to interrupted ground cover (25 – 75%) of plants such as early meadow-rue, lady fern,
large -flowered bellwort, Clayton’s sweet cicely, Pennsylvania sedge, large-leaved aster, wild
sarsaparilla, zigzag goldenrod, and yellow violet.
• Variable shrub cover of plants including chokecherry, pagoda dogwood, prickly gooseberry,
and beaked hazelnut.
• Continuous canopy cover (> 75%) of species strongly dominated by such as basswood,
northern red oak, and sugar maple with occasional paper birch, bur oak, red maple, and
quaking aspen.
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
The following section summarizes the various actions that will support enhancing the Priority
Features in Management Unit 6. The table below identifies the likely trajectory of the habitats
and the effort associated with various actions. The paragraphs below provide a text summary
and activities that will help support the Priority Features.
Table 12: Management Unit 6 Potential Management Actions.
Bolded items are considered priority and addressed in further detail in Table 18 of the
Workp la n section.
MANAGEMENT
EFFORT MANAGEMENT ACTIONS RISKS & LIKELY TRAJECTORY PROJ ECTED
GRADE
None No management actions.
Non -native vegetation may spread and
become denser, making future removal
more difficult and further suppress
native vegetation. Non-native
vegetation will encroach on other areas
of the park. Condition will remain the
same or worsen.
C/B
Low Monitor to assess management
action.
No/low risk.
Condition will be maintained. Issues will
be identified before they become more
costly. Effectiveness of management
actions can be evaluated and inform
future actions.
C/B
Me d ium Seeding native forest seed mix
Risks include poor establishment.
Condition will improve by increasing
herbaceous cover, where deep roots
can hold the soil in place and prevent
erosion
B
50
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
MANAGEMENT
EFFORT MANAGEMENT ACTIONS RISKS & LIKELY TRAJECTORY PROJ ECTED
GRADE
Me d iu m Planting native shrubs
Risks include soil disturbance, potential
loss of investment if shrubs are lost due
to browse or drought, and accidental
invasive species reintroduction.
Condition will improve early season
nectar availability for pollinators, forest
structure, and riverbank stabilization.
B
High Tree thinning on top of slope
Risks include increasing erosion
potential by exposing bare soil.
Condition will increase light
availability to the understory,
improving potential for native plant
establishment
B
High
Removal of non-native species
through mechanical and
chemical means.
Risks include unintentional targeting
of native species with chemical
overspray.
Condition will improve via reduction
of non-native plant cover and reduced
suppression of native plant cover.
B
Restoration of Management Unit 6 will re quire woody non-native vegetation management,
herbaceous non-native vegetation management, planting and seeding native shrubs and
forbs .
Vegetation at the top of the slope could be improved by selectively thinning some trees to
provide better light conditions to establish continuous vegetation and prevent the toppling of
canopy trees which further destabilizes the slope. After selective thinning, a native seed mix
with fast -germinating species should be seeded to increase groundcover and establish plants
with deeper root systems.
At the same time as selective thinning, nonnative invasive woody plants including buckthorn
and honeysuckle should be removed. Plants can be cut at the base and treated with herbicide
to prevent resprouting. Woody material should be piled and burned where dense, and
slashed where it is sparse and where topography allows. Following woody removal, invasive
forbs such as garlic mustard can be managed by spot-treating with herbicide , or t his could
also be a great opportunity for volunteer help, where volunteers pull and bag garlic mustard
in the spring.
After invasive woody and herbaceous removal, the remainder of the unit should be seeded to
increase diversity and improve soil cover. In areas where earthworms are present, specifically
in the West subunit, a specialized seed mix consisting of earthworm tolerant native plants
should be used. Finally, native shrubs can be replanted in areas least susceptible to erosion
to provide floral resources for early-season pollinators and structural diversity to the forest.
51
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
MANAGEMENT UNIT 7: SAVANNA
Image 10: Savanna management unit looking south from the top of the slope, Davis Farm Park.
Management Unit 7, the Savanna Unit (MU7), is 2.3 acres in size and acts as a transition zone
from the upland prairie to the south (MU8) and the north-facing slope to the north (MU6). It
currently ranks as a "D" grade native plant community, as the understory has a continuous
shrub layer, and the understory species composition does not represent savanna. Th e canopy
in this unit is dominated by open-grown bur oak trees. Trees with this growth pattern often
exist in areas that were once much more open, either maintained by regu lar low-intensity fire
or grazing. The shrub canopy is a dense thicket of prickly ash, with some scattered pockets of
white cedar and Tartarian honeysuckle. The understory is dominated by smooth brome, an
invasive cool season grass commonly planted in pastures or as erosion control, and creeping
Charlie, an invasive vine.
52
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
Table 13: Common and notable species observed in Management Unit 7
TREES SHRUBS GROUND COVER (WILDFLOWERS,
GRASSES, SEDGES, FERNS, VINES)
• Bur oak
• Hackberry
• Basswood
• Gre e n As h
• Prickly ash
• Common buckthorn
• Tartarian honeysuckle
• White cedar
• Creeping Charlie
• Smooth brome
• Virginia creeper
• Pennsylvania sedge
• Motherwort
• Garlic mustard
• Mullein
• River grape
• Missouri gooseberry
BOLDED: Non -native and/or invasive species
MANAGEMENT UNIT GOALS
The goal for this unit is to improve ecological diversity and restore a critically imperiled
Minnesota native plant community, addressing Priority Feature 1.
The goals for this unit include:
1) Reduction or elimination of common buckthorn, Tartarian honeysuckle, smooth
brome , and garlic mustard to address Priority Issue 1 (presence of invasive species).
2) Reduction of the shrub layer of prickly ash, a native, but aggressive shrub.
3) Enhancement of habitat through seeding, planting, and adaptive management to
address Priority Issue 2 (poor native species regeneration) and Priority Feature 1
(grassland and savanna enhancement).
4) Establishment of clear boundaries between park and private property to address
Priority Issue 6 (yard waste dumping).
DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION
A reasonable trajectory for the plant communities in MU7 is to work towards a B quality oak
savanna plant community with cover of native grasses, forbs, shrubs, and sparse oak canopy.
A target plant community to consider for this unit includes Southern Dry Savanna (UPs14).
General guidelines for desired vegetation composition include:
• Continuous native graminoid (grass) cover (25-100%) of plants such as little bluestem,
porcupine grass, big bluestem, Indian grass, and Pennsylvania sedge.
• Patchy native forb cover (5 – 50%) of plants such as western ragweed, Virginia ground cherry,
gray goldenrod, white sage, hairy puccoon, hoary puccoon, hoary frostweed, and starry false
Solomon’s seal.
• Sparse to patchy shrub cover (5-50%) of species such as leadplant, prairie rose, chokecherry,
American hazelnut, and smooth sumac.
• Scattered individual trees (25-50%) of species such as bur oak, pin oak, and black oak.
53
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
The following section summarizes the various actions that will support achieving the goals
and desired future condition for MU7. The table below identifies the likely trajectory of the
habitats and the effort associated with various actions. The paragraphs below provide a text
summary and activities that will help support the Priority Features.
Table 14: Management Unit 7 Potential Management Actions.
Bolded items are considered priority and addressed in further detail in Table 18 of the
Workp la n section.
MANAGEMENT
EFFORT MANAGEMENT ACTIONS RISKS & LIKELY TRAJECTORY PROJ ECTED
GRADE
None No management actions.
Non -native vegetation may spread and
become denser, making future removal
more difficult and further suppress
native vegetation. Non-native
vegetation will encroach on other areas
of the park. Condition will remain the
same or worsen.
D
Low Seeding native seed mix
Risks include poor establishment.
Condition will improve by increasing
native species diversity, providing
habitat for pollinators and wildlife.
C/B
Low Thinning native tree canopy
Risks include over thinning, halting
natural regeneration.
Condition will improve by increasing
light availability to the understory and
allowing herbaceous establishment.
C
Me d ium Invasive woody species
management
Risks include off-target impacts to
oaks and other native plants.
Condition will improve by limiting
establishment of invasive plants in
this unit and other areas of the park
C
High Forestry mow to open
understory
Risks include destroying habitat for
woodland wildlife.
Condition will move toward savanna
habitat structure and provide habitat
for species dependent on this
imperiled community.
C
High Prescribed fire
Risks include insufficient burn, fire
escape.
Condition will improve habitat by
reintroducing critical disturbance for
this community. Shrub cover will be
limited, herbaceous cover will thrive.
B
54
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
Restoration of Management Unit 7 will require opening the understory and subcanopy to
recreate canopy structure that is typical of a savanna native plant community. The first step is
identifying all sapling/sub -canopy trees to be saved. The next step is to remove all remaining
shrub and sub-canopy trees by forestry mowing. Forestry mowing grinds up woody material
and creates a thatch layer that later decomposes. It is a cost-effective way to remove woody
material from a large area.
After forestry mowing, resprouts of non-native invasive plants such as buckthorn and
Ta tarian honeysuckle should be chemically treated with herbicide to prevent regrowth.
Additionally, a grass-specific herbicide should be used to treat the areas where cool season
grass growth is unaffected by forestry-mowed slash . One to three chemical applications may
be needed depending on how the target species respond to forestry mowing.
Once invasive species cover is reduced, the area should be reseeded with a native dry
savanna seed mix to increase forb diversity and provide resources for pollinators. Weeds
should continue to be spot treated during the 2-3-year establishment window. After there is
adequate fuel from senesced plants, managing the unit with prescribed fire should be
considered to ensure long-term restoration to savanna.
Image 11: Another view of the mature oak canopy in the savanna unit.
55
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
MANAGEMENT UNIT 8: OLD FIELD
Management Unit 8, the Old Field Unit (MU8), is 4.2 acres in size and is divided into two
geographically separate subunits, West and East. Both units currently rank as “D” quality
native plant communities due to their limited native plant diversity and significant presence
of nonnative invasive species. They are situated on the southern edge of the park in the
topographically flat upland, where soil is very sandy and dry. Although ranking and
management is similar, the units are further based on differences in current plant community
composition.
Image 12: Old Field West subunit, Davis Farm Park
The Old Field West subunit is 3.4 acres and exhibits greater plant diversity than the east
subunit. The western edge of the subunit is defined by a mowed path that leads to primary
north-south park trail. Portions of this subunit appear to have been graded as a dry
stormwater basin and planted with a native seed mix during adjacent subdivision
development. There is some presence of native species including side oats grama, common
milkweed, and purple prairie clover. Most of the groundcover is comprised of non-native ,
invasive grasses and forbs including smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, butter and eggs,
absinthe wormwood, spotted knapweed, and Canada thistle. Some woody trees and shrubs
56
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
are beginning to establish in this area including bur oak, boxelder, and green ash, as well as
invasive Siberian elm, white cedar, and white mulberry.
Image 13: Old Field East subunit, Davis Farm Park
The Old Field East subunit is 0.8 acres and is nearly a monoculture of smooth brome and
scattered red cedars. The eastern and northern unit boundaries are lined with an
unmaintained wire fence. The western edge of this unit is subject to encroachment including
mowing and tree clearing, presumably for the viewshed to the river.
Both subunits lack accessibility, signage, and overall park user comfort when entering the
park. Homeowner encroachment along the park boundary is an issue. Signage could be
added to increase awareness of exactly where property lines lie. Additionally, park signage
should be placed in the west subunit by the cul-de-sac entrance to inform visitors that this
area is public land. Formal trails should be added to allow the community to feel comfortable
using the park.
57
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
Table 15: Common and notable species observed in Management Unit 8
TREES SHRUBS GROUND COVER (WILDFLOWERS,
GRASSES, SEDGES, FERNS, VINES)
• Siberian elm
• Boxelder
• Northern white cedar
• Red mulberry
• Smooth brome
• Side oats grama
• Spotted knapweed
• Kentucky bluegrass
BOLDED: Non -native and/or invasive species
MANAGEMENT UNIT GOALS
The goals for this unit include:
1) Reduction or elimination of smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, spotted knapweed,
and Siberian elm to address Priority Issue 1 (presence of invasive species).
2) Enhancement of habitat through seeding and adaptive management to address
Priority Issue 2 (poor native species regeneration) and Priority Feature 1 (grassland
and savanna enhancement).
3) Establishment of clear boundaries between park and private property to address
Priority Issue 5 (lack of interpretation) and Priority Issue 6 (yard waste dumping).
DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION
A reasonable trajectory for the plant community in MU 8 is to work towards a B quality dry
prairie plant community with cover of native grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Target plant
communities to consider include Southern Dry Prairie (UPs13) and Southern Dry Savanna
(UPs14).
General guidelines for desired vegetation composition include:
• Continuous native graminoid (grass) cover (25-100%) of plants such as little bluestem,
porcupine grass, side oats grama, prairie dropseed, June grass, hairy grama, big bluestem,
Indian grass, and Pennsylvania sedge.
• Patchy native forb cover (5 – 50%) of plants such as silky aster, aromatic aster, dotted blazing
star, hairy golden aster, pasqueflower, harebell, false boneset, flowering spurge, western
ragweed, Virginia ground cherry, gray goldenrod, white sage, hairy puccoon, hoary puccoon,
hoary frostweed, and starry false Solomon’s seal.
• Sparse to patchy shrub cover (5-50%) of species such as leadplant, prairie rose, and sage
wormwood.
• Scattered individual trees (5-25%) of species such as bur oak.
58
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
The following section summarizes the various actions that will support achieving the goals
and desired future condition for MU8. The table below identifies the likely trajectory of the
habitats and the effort associated with various actions. The paragraphs below provide a text
summary and activities that will help support the Priority Features.
Table 16: Management Unit 8 Potential Management Actions.
Bolded items are considered priority and addressed in further detail in Table 18 of the
Workp la n section.
MANAGEMENT
EFFORT MANAGEMENT ACTIONS RISKS & LIKELY TRAJECTORY PROJ ECTED
GRADE
None No management actions.
Non -native vegetation may spread and
become denser, making future removal
more difficult and further suppress
native vegetation. Woody vegetation will
encroach into unit. Condition will
remain the same or worsen.
D
Low Add signage to increase
accessibility and access
Risks include push back from adjacent
landowners about park utilization.
Condition will improve access for
community members who do not live
directly adjacent to park.
N/A
Low Spot treatment of invasive
woody species
Risks include off target chemical
impacts to native plants.
Condition will limit shading and
encroachment of invasive species into
old field.
C
Me d ium Seeding native seed mix
Risks include poor establishment.
Condition will improve by increasing
native species diversity, providing
habitat for pollinators and wildlife.
C/B
High Mechanical or chemical
nonnative species management
Risks include off-target impacts to oaks
and other native plants.
Condition will improve by reducing
cover of invasive plants in this unit and
other areas of the park
C
High Prescribed fire
Risks include insufficient burn, fire
escape.
Condition will improve habitat by
reintroducing critical disturbance for
this community. Shrub cover will be
limited, herbaceous cover will thrive.
B
Restoration of Management Unit 8 is relatively straightforward. Conversion of old fields to
prairie restoration is common. Prior to site prep, all trees and shrubs should be removed from
the east subunit and stumps should be chemically treated to prevent resprouts.
59
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
Site preparation for prairie restoration includes 1-2 years of herbicide treatment to reduce
current invasive species populations. Care should be taken to avoid areas where the largest
amounts of native species are present. In those areas, spot-mowing can negatively impact
invasive species while not drastically harming natives. After site preparation, the unit can be
drill or broadcast seeded with a diverse native shortgrass prairie seed mix. The next growing
season, the unit should be mowed when the vegetation reaches 12-18” high. After one year of
mowing, continued weed pressure should be assessed. Small populations of invasives can be
hand pulled or seed heads clipped to limit the use of herbicide near newly seeded areas. The
site should be managed with prescribed fire in the long term.
Efforts should be taken to preserve bur oak regeneration from the neighboring savanna unit
(MU7). The boundary between prairie and savanna can shift over time. For park users, added
shade could be a nice benefit. Bur oaks should not be treated with chemical herbicide and
should be left to grow, if canopy cover does not reach more than 25% in any given area.
60
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
WORKPLAN
RESTORATION PRIORITIZATION
Ecological restoration can be costly and time-consuming during the first few years. Often, it is
advisable to prioritize by starting on a subset of units first, rather than starting in all units and
potentially sacrificing follow up steps. This section contains a map (Figure 11) of target native
plant communities for each unit and a table prioritizing which units to start first. Prioritization
is based on invasive species establishment, potential for erosion, cost, and potential to
increase habitat quality.
Figure 8: Target native plant communities for each management unit at Davis Farm Park.
61
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
Table 17: Summary of management units, target plant communities, and prioritized restoration
ranking.
UNIT
SIZE
(ACRES) UNIT NAME
TARGET
PLANT
COMMUNITY
CURRENT
GRADE
PRIORITY
LEVEL
5 -YEAR
RESTORATION
COST
MU1 0.7 River Edge FFs68 or
FFs59 C 1 $5,585
MU2 0.8 Agricu lt u r e Field MHs49 N/A 1 $30,770
MU3 0.7 Wooded Field Edge MHs49 D 1 $9,390
MU4 2.3 Floodplain FFs68 C 4 $8,185
MU5 2.1 Terrace FFs59 B/C 4 $8,590
MU6 3.4 Forest Slope MHc36 B/C 2 $30,240
MU7 2.3 Savanna UPs14 D 3 $20,980
MU8 4.2 Old Field UPs13 D 2 $37,150
TOTAL $150,890
Target Plant Community Abbreviations:
• FFs68 - Southern Floodplain Forest
• FFs59 - Southern Terrace Forest
• MHs49 – Southern We t -Mesic Hardwood Forest
• MHc36 – Central Mesic Hardwood Forest
• UPs14 - Southern Dry Savanna
• UPs13 - Southern Dry Prairie
More information for each target plant community is included in Appendix B.
62
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
5-YEAR WORKPLAN
A general time frame is shown in Table 17, but the year for any given task may shift,
depending on when restoration is initiated. The costs shown are estimates, based on recent
and similar work at other sites, but actual costs may be higher based on prevailing wages.
Table 18: Restoration Schedule and Cost Estimates
This table provides estimated schedules and approximate costs for restoration and
management tasks for Davis Farm Park. Both the project tasks and costs are likely to change
as the project progresses. Tasks are suggested to be phased. Work units correspond with
those shown in Figure 11.
MU1: RIVER EDGE (0.7 ac)
TARGET: SOUTHERN TERRACE FOREST FFs59
Year Season Act ivit y Acre s
Unit
cost Total
Year 1
Early
fall
Hand cut Tatarian honeysuckle; immediately treat
stumps with 20% solution of aquatic-approved
glyphosate
0.3 $2,500 $750
Win t e r Selective thinning of mature trees. Chip in place or
haul material away. 0.5 $750 $375
Year 2
Spring Hand -pull 2nd year garlic mustard (optional
volunteer event) 0.5 $1,000 $500
Spring Mow patches of smooth brome at boot stage 0.3 $1,000 $300
Summer Treat regrowth of smooth brome and patches with
aquatic-approved glyphosate at 1.5% solution 0.3 $950 $285
Fall Treat resprouts of Tatarian honeysuckle with
aquatic-approved glyphosate at 1.5% solution 0.3 $600 $180
Fall Hand -broadcast moisture-tolerant graminoid seed
mix in open areas of unit; includes seed cost 0.3 $750 $225
Year 3
Spring Hand -pull 2nd year garlic mustard (optional
volunteer event) 0.5 $1,000 $500
Summer
Plant 15 bare root shrubs in open areas of unit and
along riverbank; protect with Plantra tree tubes
(optional volunteer event)
15
shrubs $38 $570
Year 4 Spring Hand -pull 2nd year garlic mustard and water new
trees (optional volunteer event) 0.5 $1,500 $750
Year 5 Fall
Hand -broadcast moisture-tolerant forb and
graminoid seed mix in open areas where garlic
mustard has been suppressed; includes seed cost.
0.5 $2,300 $1,150
MU1 TOTAL YEARS 1 -5 $5,585
63
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
MU2: AGRICULTURE FIELD (0.8 ac)
TARGET: SOUTHERN WET-MESIC HARDWOOD FOREST MHs 49
Year Season Act ivit y Acre s
Unit
cost Total
Year 1
Summer Site prep broadcast spray one time . 0.8 $300 $240
Fall
Drill / broadcast seed shade -tolerant native
savanna/woodland seed mix. BWSR mix 36-
211 or similar.
0.8 $1,500 $1,200
Year 2
Summer Site establishment mow twice during
growing season 0.8 $750 $600
Fall Plant 20 potted trees (10 gallon or larger).
Cost includes plant material and installation. 20 trees $650 $13,000
Fall Install tree protection around newly planted
trees. Cost includes Plantra tree tubes. 20 trees $50 $1,000
Fall Water trees 1 event $1,200 $1,200
Year 3
Spring Spot treat / mow invasive forbs (garlic
mustard) 0.8 $650 $520
Summer Water trees three times. Reliable volunteers
could perform this task. 3 $1,200 $3,600
Summer Spot treat / mow invasive forbs 0.8 $650 $520
Summer
Broadcast seed bare spots with native
savanna/woodland seed mix. BWSR mix 36-
211 or similar. Cost includes seed mix.
0.3 $1,500 $450
Year 4
Summer Water trees three times. Volunteers could
perform this task. 3 $1,200 $3,600
Summer Spot treat / mow invasive forbs 0.8 $550 $440
Year 5
Summer Water trees three times. Reliable volunteers
could perform this task. 3 $1,200 $3,600
Fall
Broadcast seed to increase species diversity.
Include a minimum of 3 early season and 3
late season flowering species.
0.8 $1,000 $800
MU2 TOTAL YEARS 1 -5 $30,770
64
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
MU3: WOODED FIELD EDGE (0.7 ac)
TARGET: SOUTHERN WET-MESIC FOREST MHS49
Year Season Act ivit y Acre s
Unit
cost Total
Year 1
Fall Remove fence within unit
1
removal $2,000 $2,000
Win t e r
Forestry mow entire unit protecting all native trees
and upright snags. Conduct mowing during frozen
ground conditions.
0.7 $1,750 $1,225
Year 2
Spring Hand -pull (by volunteers) or spot treat second-year
garlic mustard 0.7 $1,000 $700
Early
fall
Treat resprouts of common buckthorn with 5%
triclopyr solution 0.7 $600 $420
Year 3
Spring Hand -pull (by volunteers) or spot treat second-year
garlic mustard 0.7 $1,000 $700
Early
fall
Treat resprouts of common buckthorn with 5%
triclopyr solution 0.7 $600 $420
Fall Hand -broadcast graminoid seed mix to suppress
buckthorn resprouts 0.7 $750 $525
Year 4
Spring Hand -pull (volunteers) or spot treat second-year
garlic mustard 0.7 $1,000 $700
Summer Plant 100 bare root trees and shrubs. 100
trees $20 $2,000
Year 5 Spring Hand -pull (volunteers) or spot treat second-year
garlic mustard 0.7 $1,000 $700
MU3 TOTAL YEARS 1 -5 $9,390
65
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
MU4: FLOODPLAIN (2.3 ac)
TARGET: SOUTHERN FLOODPLAIN FOREST FFs68
Year Season Act ivit y Acre s
Unit
cost Total
Year 1 Fall Cut/treat/stack/burn common buckthorn over 0.5"
DSH. Buckthorn is patchy, assume 1/4 of unit. 0.6 $1,300 $780
Year 2
Spring Broadcast graminoid-dominated, moisture-
tolerant seed mix. Cost includes seed mix. 0.6 $2,300 $1,380
Spring
Spot treat invasive herbaceous plants including
garlic mustard. Presence is currently minimal;
assume 1/3 of unit.
0.7 $950 $665
Early
fall Follow up foliar treat buckthorn resprouts 0.6 $550 $330
Year 3
Spring
Spot treat invasive herbaceous plants including
garlic mustard. Presence is expected to be
minimal; assume 1/4 of unit.
0.6 $950 $570
Fall Native shrub planting to increase diversity
(volunteer event). Cost includes shrubs, not labor.
100
shrubs $8 $800
Fall
Broadcast diverse, moisture-tolerant native seed
mix to increase cover and prevent erosion. Assume
1/2 unit is open ground for seeding. Cost includes
seed.
1.2 $2,300 $2,760
Year 4 Summer Spot treat invasive species as needed. 0.6 $750 $450
Year 5 Summer Spot treat invasive species as needed. 0.6 $750 $450
MU4 TOTAL YEARS 1 -5 $8,185
66
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
MU5: TERRACE (2.1 ac)
TARGET: SOUTHERN TERRACE FOREST FFs59
Year Season Act ivit y Acre s
Unit
cost Total
Year 1 Fall Cut/treat/stack/burn common buckthorn over 0.5"
DSH. Buckthorn is patchy, assume 1/4 of unit. 0.5 $1,300 $650
Year 2
Spring
Broadcast graminoid -dominated, moisture-
tolerant seed mix. Assume bare ground is present
across 1/2 of unit. Cost includes seed.
1 $2,300 $2,300
Spring
Spot treat invasive herbaceous plants including
garlic mustard. Presence is currently minimal;
assume 1/3 of unit.
0.7 $950 $665
Early
fall Follow up foliar treat buckthorn resprouts 0.5 $550 $275
Year 3
Spring
Spot treat invasive herbaceous plants including
garlic mustard. Presence is expected to be
minimal; assume 1/4 of unit.
0.5 $950 $475
Fall Native shrub planting to increase diversity
(volunteer event). Cost includes shrubs, not labor. 100 $8 $800
Fall
Broadcast diverse, moisture-tolerant native seed
mix to increase cover and prevent erosion. Assume
1/2 unit is open ground for seeding. Cost includes
seed.
1 $2,300 $2,300
Year 4 Summer Spot treat invasive species as needed. 0.5 $750 $375
Year 5
Summer Spot treat invasive species as needed. 0.5 $750 $375
Fall Spot treat invasive species as needed. 0.5 $750 $375
MU5 TOTAL YEARS 1 -5 $8,590
67
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
MU6: FOREST SLOPE WEST (0.8 ac), FOREST SLOPE EAST (2.6 ac)
TARGET: CENTRAL MESIC HARDWOOD FOREST MHc36
Year Season Act ivit y Acre s
Unit
cost Total
Year 1
Fall
Cut/treat/stack/burn invasive woody shrubs over
0.5" DSH including buckthorn and Tartarian
honeysuckle. Material is patchy, assume 1/4 of
unit.
3.4 $1,300 $4,420
Win t e r Selective thinning of mature trees in MU6E. Chip in
place or haul material away. 6 trees $750 $4,500
Year 2
Spring Broadcast seed graminoid dominated buckthorn
replacement mix. Cost includes seed. 3.4 $1,000 $3,400
Spring Spot treat invasive herbaceous plants including
garlic mustard. 3.4 $950 $3,230
Early
fall
Follow up foliar treat buckthorn and honeysuckle
resprouts 3.4 $550 $1,870
Year 3
Spring Spot treat invasive herbaceous plants including
garlic mustard. 3.4 $750 $2,550
Fall Native shrub planting to increase diversity
(volunteer event). Cost includes shrubs, not labor.
200
shrubs $8 $1,600
Fall Broadcast seed diverse native seed mix to increase
cover & prevent erosion. Cost includes seed. 3.4 $2,000 $6,800
Year 4 Summer Spot treat invasive species as needed. 3.4 $550 $1,870
MU6 TOTAL YEARS 1 -5 $30,240
68
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
MU7: SAVANNA (2.3 ac)
TARGET: SOUTHERN DRY SAVANNA UPs14
Year Season Act ivit y Acre s
Unit
cost Total
Year 1
Summer Mark all save trees that would otherwise be
destroyed with forestry mower (oaks only) 2.3 - -
Fall /
Win t e r
Forestry mow all accessible areas when ground is
frozen. Avoid save trees. 2.3 $1,600 $3,680
Year 2
Spring /
summer
Spot treat monoculture patches of smooth brome
and other nonnative cool season grasses 2.3 $950 $2,185
Summer Spot mow invasive forbs to reduce seed
production 2.3 $1,000 $2,300
Late
Summer Follow up foliar treat invasive woody resprouts 2.3 $550 $1,265
Fall /
Win t e r
Broadcast seed graminoid dominated buckthorn
replacement mix. Cost includes seed mix. 2.3 $1,000 $2,300
Year 3 Summer Spot mow invasive forbs and cool season grasses. 2
visits 2.3 $1,000 $2,300
Year 4
Spring Prescribed burn. Protect save trees. 2.3 $1,000 $2,300
Spring
Broadcast seed diverse dry savanna seed mix.
Minimum of 25 forbs and 10 grasses. Local ecotype.
Cost includes seed.
2.3 $1,500 $3,450
Summer Spot mow invasive forbs to reduce seed
production. Assumes 1/4 of unit. 0.6 $1,000 $600
Year 5 Summer Spot mow invasive forbs to reduce seed
production. Assumes 1/4 of unit. 0.6 $1,000 $600
MU7 TOTAL YEARS 1 -5 $20,980
69
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
MU8: OLD FIELD WEST (3.4 ac), OLD FIELD EAST (0.8 ac)
TARGET: DRY SHORTGRASS PRAIRIE UPs13
Year Season Act ivit y Acre s
Unit
cost Total
Year 1
Spring Mark all save trees (bur oaks only, density less than
25% cover) 4.2 - -
Spring Fell and treat all trees. Stack and burn if material is
small enough, haul away large trees. 8 trees $500 $4,000
Summer Site prep broadcast spray. Avoid areas of high
native diversity as indicated by project manager. 4.2 $300 $1,260
Fall Spot mow any remaining invasive species.
Assumes 1/4 of unit. 1 $1,000 $1,000
Year 2
Spring Rx burn to remove thatch. Mowing is an acceptable
alternate to reduce cost. 4.2 $1,200 $5,040
Spring Drill diverse native seed mix. Minimum of 35 forbs
and 10 grasses. Local ecotype. Includes seed cost 4.2 $1,500 $6,300
Summer Site establishment mow 2-3 times during growing
season. 4.2 $1,500 $6,300
Year 3
Spring Site establishment mow 1 time. 4.2 $750 $3,150
Summer Spot treat invasive forbs. Assumes 2 visits, 1/4 of
unit . 2 $950 $1,900
Year 4
Summer Spot treat invasive forbs, mowing or targeted
herbicide application. Assumes 1 visit, 1/4 of unit. 1 $950 $950
Fall Prescribed burn 4.2 $1,000 $4,200
Fall Broadcast seeding of thin areas post-burn.
Includes seed cost. 4.2 $500 $2,100
Year 5 Summer Spot mow invasive forbs as needed. Assumes 1
visit, 1/4 of unit. 1 $950 $950
MU8 TOTAL YEARS 1 -5 $37,150
70
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
LONG TERM MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT
Restored areas will need to be regularly monitored to identify ecological issues, such as
erosion and sedimentation, invasive species, and disease. Early detection of concerns
enables quick, cost-effective responses to address them before significant problems evolve.
Once the primary restoration tasks are completed, the restoration process converts to an
adaptive management phase. Long-term management for all units is an important piece of
maintaining the habitat over time. It is difficult to predict specifically how t hese areas will
change over time, so being flexible and responding to needs as they arise is important.
Without continued monitoring and management, these areas will likely degrade rapidly, and
efforts will be undone in 5-10 years. Three critical long-term management actions are
described below.
SEEDING AND PLANTING (ALL UNITS, AS NEEDED)
Over time, it is likely that some areas may benefit from seeding and planting to maintain
ground cover or increase species diversity. The sloped areas of the park are prone to erosion
and may require occasional reseeding along trail edges and slopes. Additionally, as the tree
canopy changes in the ag field and wooded field edge units, it may be necessary to seed with
a mix more adapted to updated light conditions. Planting trees, shrubs, and plugs can be a
faster way to increase diversity and respond to changing light conditions in units with tree
canopy. If the primary park trail is rerouted, seeding and planting will be necessary to
revegetate the slope.
INVASIVE SPECIES MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT (ALL UNITS)
Both herbaceous and woody invasive species are a continued threat to the ecosystem health
of these restored areas. Seeds from invasive species are constantly being transported by
wind, water, and wildlife, so there is not a way to mitigate this threat. The best long-term
strategy to prevent invasive species establishment is to regularly monitor the area to any
presence of invasive plants can be caught early. It is relatively easy to manage a small
population in the first or second year after arrival. If left to proliferate, invasive species can
rapidly expand and have much larger ecological and monetary impacts over time.
PRESCRIBED BURNING (SAVANNA, OLD FIELD)
Savanna and Old Field (future prairie) units are dependent upon regular prescribed fire.
Prescribed burns are an essential tool for managing woody encroachment and controlling
invasive species. Additionally, burns stimulate grass and herbaceous growth in the
understory by warming the soil and encouraging early growth and regeneration of these
plants. Prairie burns should be conducted every 2-3 years. Savanna burns can be conducted
every 3 -4 years, depending on fuel accumulation. Planning to burn a subset of the acres
annually is a good long-term strategy to allow refuge for pollinators.
71
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
Table 19: Long -Term Management Schedule and Cost Estimates
UNIT
NAME LONG-TERM MGMT TASK FREQUENCY COST RANGE
All Units Seeding As needed
Seed cost: $300 - $1,000 per acre.
Contractor implementation cost:
$600 per acre
All Units Planting* As needed
Plant material cost: $4 - $30.
Volunteer event advised for
implementation.
Savanna,
Old Field Prescribed burning
Every 2 -3 years. Half the
acres should be burned at
any given time.
$1,000 - $1,200 per acre
All Units Invasive species monitoring 3x annually $1,000 - $1,500 annually
All Units Invasive species spot-
treatment As needed Contractor cost: $1,000 per acre
All Units
Invasive species
m anagement / planting
volunteer event
Annually, as needed $2,000 - $2,500 for FMR-sponsored
public event
* Items with an asterisk are lower priority and should be undertaken only if funds and logistics allow.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
TREE DISEASE
DUTCH ELM DISEASE AND EMERALD ASH BORER
There are many elms and large green ash trees growing within the floodplain forests along
the Mississippi River at Davis Farm Park. These trees are not only ecologically valuable but are
also at high risk to attack from tree pests. Elms are susceptible to Dutch Elm Disease and a sh
are susceptible to Emerald Ash Borer. These tree pests have caused widespread mortality of
elms and ash throughout the eastern United States and specifically in Minnesota.
Dutch Elm disease is a fungal infection caused by the fungus Ceratocystis ulmi, which is native
to Asia, and is spread by both native and non-native bark beetles (family: Curculionidae).
Once the fungus is introduced onto a tree, the tree reacts by sealing its own xylem tissues
(conduits of water and nutrients) to prevent further spread. This effectively prevents water
and nutrients from reaching the upper branches, causing gradual die-off as more and more of
the xylem is sealed. Symptoms include a yellowing and browning of leaves spreading from
the outer crown toward the trunk. Dutch elm disease was first recorded in Minnesota near
Monticello in 1961 and has since spread throughout the state. Minnesota relied heavily on
American e lms (Ulmus americana ) as shade trees on streets, with about 140 million in the
72
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
state at the time of the outbreak. The disease is now present in all Minnesota counties,
though elms remain an important component of many Minnesota forests.
Emerald ash borer (EAB) is a wood-boring beetle from Asia that was first identified in the
United States in the summer of 2002. Likely transported from Asia to Michigan in ash wood
used for pallets and other shipping materials, the beetle has now been confirmed in 36 states
and the District of Columbia, including Minnesota. The beetle works by depositing larvae
under the bark of the tree; these larvae then feed on the wood, eventually disrupting enough
of the phloem to prevent the transport of nutrients throughout the tree. While Minnesota’s
cold weather can stymie the of the extent of the beetle, it continues to spread.
Unless viable control or treatment options are developed, the elms and ash at Davis Farm
Park are at risk of dying soon. When such large trees die, a pronounced effect will be seen on
the vegetation and the river. These trees act to shade the water and provide habitat and
improve water quality for fish and other species. When large trees die, they open the canopy
and create gaps, which in turn releases understory formerly suppressed by the shade from
such trees. If desirable species like native forbs, grasses, sedges, and shrubs exist in the
understory, the canopy gap will lead to an increase in bank stability and diversity. In the case
of this property, these canopy gaps should be actively managed with seeding and planting to
ensure that native vegetation persists. Native shrubs and trees can also be planted to support
the stability of the native plant community.
For green ash in particular, the loss of these trees is especially significant as this species
makes up over 25% of the canopy in many areas of the floodplain forest. The principle of risk
is highly applicable here; risk is defined as the probability of a negative event weighted by its
consequences. In the case of EAB, the consequences will be large and quite negative, as a loss
of half the canopy in the park could have cascading consequences for invasive species, water
quality, and wildlife. Proactive management including ash removal along trail corridors is
recommended. Replanting with climate-adapted species could also be undertaken.
OAK WILT AND BUR OAK BLIGHT
Oak wilt is an increasingly common tree disease caused by the fungus Ceratocystis
fagacearum. While the disease is present in many eastern US states, it is most prevalent in the
Mid we st ern US . Within Minnesota, it is an issue of serious concern in and around the seven-
county metro area. Oak wilt affects all of Minnesota’s most common oak species (red oak
[Quercus rubra ], pin oak [Q. ellipsoidalis], bur oak [Q. macrocarpa ], and white oak [Q. alba ]),
though it does not affect these species equally. Red and pin oak are the most susceptible
species, with infected individuals wilting in six weeks or less. Bur and white oaks may take
years to wilt completely and may only do so one branch at a time. The fungus can be
transported from tree to tree by sap beetles, but most commonly spreads through root grafts.
The beetles are attracted to the fungal mats created when mature oaks die from oak wilt, and
to wounds on uninfected oaks, providing a convenient pathway of spread for the fungus.
73
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
Oaks commonly form root grafts between individuals, allowing direct transfer of the fungus
from infected to healthy individuals.
While Davis Farm Park has scattered red and pin oaks, many large bur oaks are present,
especially in the remnant savanna area on the southeast side of the park. While this provides
some hope that an outbreak of oak wilt at the property is less likely, the risk of infection
remains. Careful monitoring of individuals will be necessary to identify and manage infected
individuals. If infected individuals are found, ro ot barriers may be installed around infected
trees using a vibratory plow. Other options include soil sterilization and inoculation of high
value individual trees. Care should also be taken to avoid injuring trees during the early
growing season (April to July), when trees are most susceptible to the fungal spread. If a tree
is injured during this time, covering the wounds is recommended. If pruning or other
activities must be done, waiting for the winter is the safest option.
Bur oak blight (BOB) may be a mo re serious threat to the oaks on the property. BOB affects
only bur oaks and is most injurious to upland individuals in savanna remnants. Caused by a
species of fungus in the Tubaki genus, BOB causes lesions and discoloration of the veins on
the underside of the leaves, eventually causing large portions of the leaf to die. In many cases,
severe infections will cause tree death, though individual susceptibility to the disease varies.
The fungus can overwinter on leaf petioles that remain attached to trees and is primarily
spread by rain droplets moving spores throughout the tree. Early results suggest that
inoculation of trees with fungicide may help slow or stop the spread of the disease within
individual trees. At Houlton, monitoring existing oaks for symptoms will be an important first
step; moreover, if oaks are planted in the future, it may be beneficial to avoid planting the
variety Q. macrocarpa var. oliviformis, which has shown the most severe susceptibility to BOB.
EROSION CONTROL
The soil types at Davis Farm Park include excessively well-drained loamy sand in the uplands,
and the steep slope consists of gravelly coarse sandy loam and is excessively well drained.
These soil type s are erosion-prone, and the steep slopes throughout the park and the lack of
deep-rooted plant cover all contribute to areas of significant erosion. Several gullies and
small ravines are present within the slope units, and extreme bluff sloughing is occurring on
the east end of the park.
Bare soil resulting from the effects of invasive plants and earthworms also leads to splash
erosion. While frequent , this does not result in much sediment transport in the units. In all
units, there is some sheet erosion, evidenced by sediment accumulation behind trees or at
the base of portions of the steeper slopes. This is a chronic phenomenon that can also be
attributed to the lack of fine-rooted vegetation on these slopes. A denser vegetation layer
throughout these units would act to break the impact of raindrops and dissipate the energy
of stormwater running on these slopes, but in some cases larger interventions will be
required.
74
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
All units should be seeded with native forb and graminoid (grass and sedge) mixes once
removal of non-native shrubs is complete. Installing natural wood erosion bars in areas
where erosion (sheet and rill) is progressing is recommended. This is a relatively simple
volunteer task that can be accomplished by placing poles of cut buckthorn perpendicular to
the slope and anchored between two trees. In areas where erosion is present, but tree cover
is lacking, bars can be anchored by pounding wood stakes into the slope. These stakes can be
purchased at hardwood stores or crafted from additional cut vegetation. In areas where
erosion is worsening, erosion blankets, grass strips, seeding and other means may be
necessary to further control erosion. These should be purchased and installed with
supervision by parks staff or subcontractors.
Because the primary trail through the park follows a straight path to the river down a rather
steep hill, rerouting the trail and incorporating switchbacks should be considered. In addition
to making the trail more accessible, a meandering trail would slow sheet erosion, move water
into the landscape, capture soil and nutrients in the landscape and prevent their movement
to the river, and work to stabilize the slope in the long term. The trail would also likely require
less intensive maintenance.
COMMUNITY USE, SITE ACCESS AND SIGNAGE
The opportunities for exploration and connection to natural areas at Davis Farm Park can be
elevated with the addition of park signage and an improved trail system. While this NRMP
does not intend to plan recreation within the park, some consideration of use and interaction
with the natural resources, and especially the river, is needed to contemplate how
community use and natural resources protection should be balanced and enhance each
other.
Recently, Otsego Parks and Recreation completed a wayfinding plan for its parks and a
precedent of park signage exists. As such, a park name sign and simple orientation and
interpretive signage is recommended to bring awareness to the park and be more welcoming
to community use.
Similarly, an improved trail system with the park should be considered. A rerouting of the
primary trail to include switchbacks that traverse the slope more gradually would create
greater accessibility and prevent soil loss down the steep slope during precipitation events.
The river is such a beautiful feature of the park, and safe access to it should be prioritized.
Currently, only narrow and steep social trails to the river are present on the east end of the
park where the river’s floodplain is wide and quite spectacular. Establishment of safe and
maintainable trails to the river from the neighborhood to the south should also be prioritized.
75
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
Ongoing park planning should consider how site improvements can better function for
underserved and diverse communities. All of the ways that people interact with the forests,
river, and trails should be held in equal regard, and the development of amenities should
reflect how people are accessing the park, how to make the park safe and inviting, and how
people might interact with the park. This input should be gathered through community
information sessions; p ark planning is made more robust when the entire community has
guided decision -making.
INFORMATION SOURCES
Anoka Sand Plain Subsection. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Retrieved
December 1, 2023, from https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ecs/222Mc/index.html
Big Woods Subsection. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Retrieved December 1,
2023, from https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ecs/222Mb/index.html
Bur oak blight. (http://www.myminnesotawoods.umn.edu/2010/09/bur-oak-blight -bob-in -
minnesota/).
Dutch elm disease. (http://www.extension.umn.edu/garden/yard-garden/trees-
shrubs/dutch-elm -disease/).
Emerald ash borer. (http://www.mda.state.mn.us/emeraldashborer).
MBS – Minnesota Biological Survey. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, retrieved
December 1, 2023 from https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/mbs/index.html
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (2005) Field Guide to the Native Plant
Communities of Minnesota: The Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province. Ecological Land
Classification Program, Minnesota County Biological Survey, and Natural Heritage and
Nongame Research Program. MNDNR.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (2006) Tomorrow’s Habitat for the Wild and Rare;
An Action Plan for Minnesota Wildlife. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Division
of Ecological Services, MNDNR.
MN Geospatial Commons – Metro Conservation Corridors retrieved December 1, 2023 from
https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/env-conservation -corridors
MRCCA – Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Program. Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, retrieved December 1, 2023 from
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/critical_area/index.html
76
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
Oak wilt. (http://www.extension.umn.edu/environment/trees-woodlands/oak-wilt -in -
minnesota/).
Olsen and Mossler (1982) Geologica map of Minnesota, depth to bedrock. Minnesota
Geological Survey. University of Minnesota.
Rothaus, R, McFarlane J, Haug J. 2005. Prehistoric and Euroamerican Archaeology of Elk River
Township, Minnesota: Probability Modeling and Reconnaissance Survey
Soil Conservation Service. 1995. Soil Survey of Sherburne County. United States Department
of Agriculture.
WAN – Wildlife Action Network. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, retrieved
December 1, 2023 from https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mnwap/index.html
Wright County Aerial Photo Indexes. University of Minnesota. Retrieved December 1, 2023,
from https://geo.lib.umn.edu/aerial_photos/indexes/wright.html
77
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: PLANT SPECIES RECORDED AT DAVIS FARM PARK
The following plant species were identified at the site by Friends of the Mississippi River .
Scientific name Common Name Management Units
Trees Ace r negundo Boxelder 1, 3, 6E, 7, 8E
Acer saccharinum Silver maple 4E
Betula papyrifera Paper birch 4W, 6E
Celtis occidentalis Hackberry 1, 3, 4W, 4E, 5W, 5E, 6W, 6E,
7
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash 1, 4E, 5E, 5W, 6W, 6E, 7, 8E
Juglans nigra Black walnut 4W
Juniperus virginiana Red cedar 6E
Malus sp. Apple 3
Ostrya virginiana Ironwood 6W, 6E
Picea pungens Colorado blue spruce 8E
Populus deltoides Cottonwood 5E
Prunus serotina Black cherry 6E
Quercus alba White oak 6E
Quercus macrocarpa Bur oak 6W, 7, 8W
Quercus rubra Red oak 5E, 6E, 7
Salix nigra Black willow 1, 4E
Salix sp Willow tree 6E
Thuja occidentalis White cedar 6W, 7, 8E
Tilia americana American basswood 4W, 5W, 5E, 6W, 6E, 7, 8W
Ulmus americana American elm 3, 4W, 4E
Scientific name Common Name Management Units
Shrubs Artemisia absinthum Absinthe wormwood 8E
Lonicera tartarica Tatarian honeysuckle 1, 6W, 6E, 7
Morus rubra Red mulberry 8E
Rhamnus cathartica Common buckthorn 3, 4E, 5E, 6W, 6E, 7
Ribes missouriense Missouri gooseberry 1, 3, 5W, 5E, 6W, 6E, 7, 8E
Rubus occidentalis Black raspberry 1, 3, 5W, 6E, 7
Sambucus racemosa ssp.
pubens Red -berried elder 1, 5E, 6E
Ulmus pumila Siberian elm 8W, 8E
Zanthoxylum americana Prickly ash 1, 4W, 5E, 6W, 6E, 7, 8W
78
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
Scientific name Common Name Management Units
Forbs and
Graminoids Ageratina altissima White snakeroot 1, 4W, 5W
Allium canadense Garlic mustard 1, 4W, 5W, 5E, 6E, 7
Am b ro s ia artemisiifolia Common ragweed 8W, 8E
Amphicarpaea bracteata Hog peanut 4W, 6E
Andropogon gerardii Big bluestem 8W, 8E
Aquilegia canadensis Columbine 6W, 6E
Arctium minus Common burdock 4W, 6E
Arisaema triphyllum Jack-in -the-pulpit 4W, 5W, 5E, 6E
Asarum canadense Wild ginger 6E
Asclepias syriaca Common milkweed 4W, 8W, 8E
Asclepias verticillata Whorled milkweed 8W, 8E
Asparagus officinalis Aspara gus 8E
Athryrium filix-femina Lady fern 5W, 6W, 6E
Beckmannia syzigachne American slough grass 3, 4E
Berteroa incana Hoary alys sum 8E
Bidens cernua Nodding bur marigold 4E
Bouteloua curtipendula Side -oats grama 8W, 8E
Brassica rapa Field mustard 8E
Bromus inermis Smooth brome 1, 7, 8W, 8E
Campanula rotundifolia Harebell 6E
Carex hirtifolia Hairy-leaved sedge 6E, 7
Carex lupulina Common hop sedge 4W
Carex pensylvanica Pennsylvania sedge 5W, 6E, 7
Carex rosea Rosy sedge/ starry
edge 6E
Centaurea maculosa Spotted knapweed 8W, 8E
Cerastium vulgatum Mouse-ear chickweed 3,
Chenopodium album Lamb's quarters 7, 8E
Circaea leutetiana Enchanter's
nightshade 4E
Cirsium arvense Canada thistle 8W
Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle 8E
Conyza canadensis Horseweed 8E
Dalea purpureum Purple p rairie clover 8W
Dicentra cucullaria Dutchman's breeches 6E
Elymus canadensis Canada wild rye 3
Elymus villosus Silky wild rye 6E
Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye 4W
Equisetum arvense Horsetail 6E
Eragrostis spectabilis Purple lovegrass 8W, 8E
79
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
Scientific name Common Name Management Units
Erigeron annuus daisy fleabane 8W, 8E
Galium boreale Northern bedstraw 4W, 5E, 6E, 8E
Geranium maculatum Wild geranium 4W, 6W
Geum canadense Whit e avens 6E
Glechoma hederacea Creeping Charlie 1, 3, 4W, 6W, 6E, 7
Glyceria striata Fowl manna-grass 4W, 6E
Hackelia virginiana Virginia stickseed 4W, 5E, 6W, 7
Helenium autumnale Sneezeweed 4W
Heliopsis helianthoides Early Sunflower 1
Heracleum lanatum Cow parsnip 4W
Hydrophyllum virginianum Virginia waterleaf 4W, 5W, 6W, 6E
Impatiens capensis Spotted touch-me-not 4W
Laportea canadensis Wood nettle 1, 3, 4W, 5W, 5E, 6E
Leersia oryzoides Rice cut grass 4W
Lemna sp Duckweed 4E
Leonurus cardiaca Motherwort 3, 6W, 7, 8E
Linaria vulgaris Butter and eggs 4W, 7, 8W, 8E
Maianthemum racemosa False Solomon’s seal 6E
Medicago lupulina Black medick 8W, 8E
Melilotus alba White sweet clover 8E
Me n isp e rm um canadense Moonseed 6E
Mentha arvensis Common mint 4W
Mimulus ringens Monkey flower 4W
Myosotis scorpioides True forget -me-not 4W
Nepeta cataria Catmint 6W, 6E
Osmorhiza claytonii Sweet cicely 4W, 6E
Oxalis stricta Wood sorrel 5E, 7, 8E
Panicum virgatum Switch Grass 8W
Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia creeper 1, 3, 6W, 6E, 7, 8E
Phalaris arundinaceae Reed canary grass 4W, 6E, 8W, 8E
Physallis virginiana Clammy ground-
cherry 8W, 8E
Physostegia virginiana Obedient plant 4W, 4E
Pilea pumila Clearweed 4W, 4E
Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass 6E, 8W, 8E
Polygonum saggitatum Arrow-leaved
tearthumb 4W
Rudbeckia laciniata Cut leaf coneflower 1, 5E
Rumex crispus Curly dock 8W, 8E
Sagittaria latifolia Broad -leaved
arrowhead 4W
80
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
Scientific name Common Name Management Units
Sanguinaria canadensis Bloodroot 5W
Schizachrium scoparium Little bluestem 8W
Scirpus atrovirens Dark -green bulrush 4W
Scutellaria lateriflora Ma d -dog skullcap 4W, 4E
Silene latifolia White campion 6E, 7, 8E
Smilax tamnoides Bristly greenbrier 4W
Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod 3, 8W, 8E
Solidago canadensis Canada goldenrod 6E
Solidago flexicaulis Zigzag goldenrod 5E, 6E
Solidago gigantea Late goldenrod 4W
Symphyotricum novae -
angliae New England Aster 6E
Symphyotricum cordifolium Blue wood aster 6E
Symphyotricum drummondii Drummond's aster 4E
Symphyotricum lateriflorum Calico aster 4E
Thalictrum dasycarpum Tall meadowrue 4W
Toxicodendron rydbergii Poison ivy 6E
Tragopogon dubius Goat’s beard 8E
Trifolium arvense Rabbit-foot clover 8E
Urtica dioica Stinging nettle 3, 8E
Verbascum thapsus Common mullein 7, 8W
Verbena stricta Hairy vervain 8W
Vicia villosa Hairy vetch 8E
Vio la s p . Violet 4W
Vitis riparia Wild grape vine 1, 7, 8E
81
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
APPENDIX B: PLANT SPECIES FOR RESTORATION AT DAVIS FARM PARK
Plant species recommended for restoration of Davis Farm Park are based on MNDNR Native
Plant Communities of Minnesota: Ecological System Summaries and Class Fact Sheets which
are linked below.
Management Unit 1: Southern Floodplain Forest FFs68 or Southern Terrace Forest FFs59
Management Units 2, 3: Southern Wet-Mesic Hardwood Forest MHs49
Management Unit 4: Southern Floodplain Forest FFs68
Management Unit 5: Southern Terrace Forest FFs59
Management Unit 6: Central Mesic Hardwood Forest MHc36
Management Unit 7: Southern Dry Savanna UPs14
Management Unit 8: Southern Dry Prairie UPs13
APPENDIX C: METHODS FOR CONTROLLING INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES
TREES AND SHRUBS
Common b uckthorn, Tatarian h oneysuckle, Siberian e lm, and Black locust are some of the
most common non-native, invasive woody species likely to establish in woodlands or prairies
in Minnesota. Buckthorn and honeysuckle are European species that escaped and became
abundant in woodlands in many parts of the country. They are highly aggressive and, lacking
natural diseases and predators, can out-compete native species. They remain
photosynthetically active longer than most other native shrubs and trees, which gives them a
competitive advantage. The seeds are spread by birds , which make the species especially
problematic in open woodlands, savannas, and overgrown prairies. They also benefit from
the net actions of invasive earthworms, fire suppression, and high deer populations, forming
a synergy that helps set the stage for their establishment and dominance. Invasions
eventually result in dense, impenetrable brush thickets that greatly reduce ground-level light
availability and can cause declines in native species abundance and diversity.
Siberian elm, native to eastern Asia, grows vigorously, especially in disturbed and low-
nutrient soils with low moisture, such as prairies. Seed germination is high , and seedlings
establish quickly in sparse vegetation. It can invade and dominate disturbed areas in a few
years. Black locust is native to the southeastern United States and the very southeastern
corner of Minnesota. It has been planted outside its natural range (it was promoted as an
erosion control species and a soil stabilizer partly because it was falsely assumed to be a
nitrogen fixer, and since it quickly colonizes bare slopes), and readily invades disturbed areas.
It reproduces vigorously by root suckering and can form monotypic stands.
Biological Control
Currently there are no biological control agents for non-native woody plants in Minnesota.
Recently, an 11-year study conducted by the DNR and University of MN resulted in the
conclusion that there were no viable biological control agents for common or glossy
82
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
buckthorn, based in part on the lack of damage to the host plants and a lack of host
specificity
(http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialplants/woody/buckthorn/biocontrol.html).
Chemical Control
The most efficient way to remove woody plants that are 1/2 inch or more in diameter is to cut
the stems close to the ground and treat the cut stumps with herbicide immediately after they
are cut, when the stumps are fresh, and the chemicals are most readily absorbed. Failure to
treat the stumps will result in resprouting, creating the need for future management
interventions.
In non-freezing temperatures, a glyphosate herbicide can be used for most woody species. It
is important to obtain the concentrated formula and dilute it with water to achieve 10%
glyphosate concentration. Adding a marker dye helps to make treated stumps more visible,
improving accuracy and overall efficiency. In winter months, an herbicide with the active
ingredient triclopyr must be used. Ga rlon 4 is a common brand name, and it must be mixed
with a penetrating oil, such as diluent blue. Ga rlon 4 will als o work throughout the year.
Diesel fuel should not be used as it is much more toxic in the environment and to humans.
Brush removal work can be done at any time of year except during spring sap flow, but fall is
often ideal because buckthorn retains its leaves longer than other species and is more readily
identified. Moreover, once native plants have senesced, herbicide will have fewer non-target
effects on native vegetation. Cutting can be accomplished with loppers or handsaws in many
cases. Larger shrubs may require brush cutters and chainsaws, used only by properly trained
professionals.
For plants in the pea family, such as black locust, an herbicide with the active ingredient
clopyralid can be more effective than glyphosate. Common brand names for clopyralid
herbicides are Transline, Stinger, and Reclaim.
In the year following initial cutting and stump treatment, there will be a flush of new
seedlings as well as possible resprouting from some of the cut plants. Herbicide can be
applied to the foliage of these plants. Fall is the best time to do this, when desirable native
plants are dormant and when the plant is pulling resources from the leaves down into the
roots. Glyphosate, triclopyr and Krenite (active ingredient – fosamine ammonium) are the
most used herbicides for foliar application. Krenite prevents bud formation, so the plants do
not grow in the spring. This herbicide can be effective, but results are highly variable.
Glyphosate or a triclopyr herbicide such as Garlon 3A can also be used. Glyphosate is non-
specific, while triclopyr targets broadleaf plants and does not harm graminoids. All herbicides
should be applied by licensed applicators and should not be applied on windy days. Care
should be taken to avoid application to other plants. “Weed Wands” or other devices that
allow dabbing of the product can be used rather than spraying, especially for stump
treatment.
83
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
Basal bark herbicide treatment is another effective control method. A triclopyr herbicide such
as Garlon 4, mixed with a penetrating oil, is applied all around the lower 6-12 inches of the
tree or shrub, taking care so that it does not run off. If the herbicide runs off it can kill other
plants nearby. More herbicide is needed for effective treatment of plants that are four inches
or more in diameter.
Undesirable trees and shrubs can also be destroyed without cutting them down. Girdling is a
method suitable for small numbers of large trees. Bark is removed in a band around the tree,
just to the outside of the wood. If girdled too deeply, the tree will respond by resprouting
from the roots. Girdled trees die slowly over the course of one to two years. Girdling should be
done in late spring to mid-summer when sap is flowing, and the bark easily peels away from
the sapwood. Herbicide can also be used in combination with girdling for a more effective
treatment. Girdling has the added benefit of creating snags for wildlife habitat. While girdling
many trees is not feasible, girdling the occasional large tree will provide a matrix of habitat
for species that depend on standing dead trees for food or nesting opportunities.
Mechanical Control
Three mechanical methods for woody plant removal are hand pulling (only useful on small
seedlings and only if few), weed wrenching (using a weed wrench tool to pull stems of one to
two inches diameter), and repeated or “critical” cutting. Pulling and weed wrenching can be
done any time when the soil is moist and not frozen. The disadvantage to both methods is
that they are somewhat time-consuming, as the soil from each stem should be shaken off.
Weed wrenching also creates a great deal of soil disturbance and should not be used on steep
slopes or anywhere that desirable native forbs are growing. The soil disturbance also creates
opportunities for colonization by other non-native plants. This method is the least preferable
and is probably best used in areas that have hardly any desirable native plant cover.
Repeated cutting consists of cutting the plants (by hand or with a brush cutter) at critical
stages in its growth cycle , typically twice per growing season. Cutting in mid spring (late May)
intercepts the flow of nutrients from the roots to the leaves and cutting in fall (about mid-
October) intercepts the flow of nutrients from the leaves to the roots. Depending on the size
of the stem, the plants typically die within three years, with two cuttings per year.
Prescribed Fire
Prescribed burning is the most efficient, cost effective, and least harmful way to control very
small stems, seedlings, and resprouts of all woody plants. It also restores an important
natural process to fire-dependent natural communities (oak forests, for example). Burning
can only be accomplished if adequate fuel (leaf litter) is present and can be done in late fall or
early spring, depending on site conditions.
Prickly Ash (Native)
A common native shrub, prickly ash can become excessively abundant, especially in areas
that have been disturbed or grazed. Complete eradication may not be necessary, but
management may target reducing the extent of a population. Removal is most easily
84
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
accomplished in the same manner as for buckthorn – cutting shrubs and treating cut stumps
with glyphosate herbicide. Cutting can be completed at any time of the year.
Smooth Sumac (Native)
Like prickly ash, smooth sumac can become excessively abundant, especially in areas where
fire has been suppressed for long periods of time. It can form dense, clonal stands that
dominate other vegetation. Unlike prickly ash or buckthorn, however, controlling smooth
sumac does not require herbicide applications, since that would require a tremendous
amount of herbicide, be quite labor intensive, and probably cause heavy damage to
surrounding plants. Control of smooth sumac can be easily accomplished by cutting and
burning, or a combination of these two methods. To be effective, the sumac must be burned
or cut twice a year: the first time in the late spring, just after it has fully leafed out (expended
maximum energy), and the second time in late summer, after it has re -sprouted. Repeat this
method annually for two to five years to deplete the clone of its energy, working back at the
edges of the clone and reducing cover from the outside of the area towards the center. If
cutting or burning is performed only once a season, the clone will persist, since this will not
be enough to drain the root system of stored energy. Cutting twice a year without burning will
be effective, but burning is doubly so, since fire tends to benefit herbaceous plants and
suppress woody ones.
Disposal
The easiest and most cost-effective method to handle large amounts of woody brush is
usually t o stack it and burn it. This is mo st typically done during winter to lessen the impacts
to soil (compaction, erosion, rutting, etc.), though often brush will be piled soon after the
removal and burned during the winter. In areas where brush is not dense, it can be cut up
into smaller pieces , scattered, and left on the ground where it will decompose in one to three
years (this method is especially useful on slopes to reduce erosion potential). Small brush
piles can also be left in the woods as wildlife cover. Where there is an abundance of larger
trees, cut trees may be hauled and chipped and used for mulch or as a biofuel. Alternatively,
the wood can be cut and used for firewood, if a recipient can be found, or perhaps saved to be
used later as water bars for slope stabilization.
FORBS
Spotted knapweed
Knapweed is a perennial species that has become a troublesome prairie invader. Of all the
typical prairie weeds, spotted knapweed is probably the most difficult to manage . It cannot
be controlled with burning—like sweet clover it increases with fire. Hand-pulling individuals
or small groups of individuals can be effective for small infestations and is often a good
volunteer group task. However, knapweed has a large tap root and can be difficult to pull.
Pulling is typically more difficult when soil is hard (dry), clayey, or compacted, but easier
when soil is wet (following a rain), sa ndy, and friable. If knapweed populations are large, a
biocontrol (knapweed weevils) is recommended. Knapweed beetles (weevils) are released
85
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
during the summer. Weevils can be purchased online, and they are sent via the mail.
Knapweed populations should be monitored each year to keep a record of the effectiveness
of the biocontrol.
Weevils are effective for long-term control, but not a good short-term control option. Spot
treatment with a systemic herbicide such as Milestone or Transline can be effective for short-
term control. Applying herbicide to prairie restoration areas should be done with care.
Remnants with high diversity should be spot treated, not broadcast-treated. It is
recommended to treat first with the least impactful chemical, monitor to see if that works,
and then try another if it does not work. Degraded and highly disturbed areas can be treated
a little less gently, perhaps using broadcast applications. Always follow the product label
when using any chemical for weed control. Treatment should be done before the target
plants form seed, so late spring and early summer are best. Professional pesticide applicators
are required for herbicide treatment.
Canada thistle
While native thistles are not generally problematic, non-native thistles like Canada thistle are
clone -forming perennials that can greatly reduce species diversity in old fields and
restoration areas (Hoffman and Kearns 1997). A combination of chemical and mechanical
control methods may be needed. Chemical control is most effective when the plants are in
the rosette stage and least effective when the plants are flowering. Where native grasses and
sedges are present, use of a broadleaf herbicide such as 2,4-D is recommended, since 2,4-D
only affects dicots. 2,4-D is most effective when applied 10-14 days be fore the flowering
stems bolt. It is applied at a rate of 2-4 lb/acre using a backpack or tractor-mounted sprayer
or in granular form. Dicamba could also be used, with the advantages that it can be applied
earlier in the spring at a rate of 1 lb/acre. Another chemical that has been used for thistles is
aminopyralid (“Milestone”), whic h can be applied at bud stage. Am in o p yr alid will affect other
species and it has longer residual activity than some other chemicals, so use with caution—
typically use it on large patches/clones of thistles and avoid areas of higher diversity. Plants
that do not respond to treatment or that are more widely dispersed could be controlled
mechanically.
Mechanical control, involving several cuttings per year for three or four years, can reduce an
infestation if timed correctly. The best time to cut is when the plants are just beginning to bud
because their food reserves are at their lowest. If plants are cut after flowers have opened, the
cut plants should be removed because the seed may be viable. Plants should be cut at least
thre e times throughout the season. Late spring burns can also discourage this species, but
early spring burns can encourage it. Burning may be more effective in an established prairie,
where competition from other species is strong, rather than in an old field, where
competition is likely to be weaker .
86
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
Sweet clover
White and yellow sweet clover are very aggressive biennial species that increase with fire.
Where sweet clover is found, it should be controlled in conjunction with treatment that
attempts to eliminate smooth brome , if prairie restoration occurs. Sweet clovers are common
plant s in agricultural areas, so if restoration is implemented, the project area should be
surveyed for this species on an annual basis. Often , following initial brush removal and/or
burning, a flush of weedy annuals and biennials such as sweet clover can occur. We ll -timed
mows and burnings are usually adequate to control these species. Mowing the site, as is
typically prescribed for prairie restoration maintenance, should occur when all plants on the
site (including sweet clovers) are approximately 12 inches in height. Sweet clover can bloom
even at a height of 6 inches, but if it is burned or mowed in the following year in the late
spring, it should be controlled. On steep sites, brush cutting can be substituted for mowing.
Individual plants or small populations can be removed by hand-pulling. If seed production
occurs, prodigious amounts of seed can be produced and spread, so pull before seeds appear
or bag seed producing plants. Competition from native species also helps control sweet
clovers and other weedy annuals and biennials.
To some extent, Common burdock and common mullein can be treated similarly to sweet
clover, since they are both non-native , biennial forbs that are typically found in disturbed
areas or restoration projects.
Garlic mustard
Garlic mustard is a non-native, biennial forb of woodlands and woodland edges that is very
invasive and aggressive. Following the introduction of just a few plants, populations can
rapidly increase, and a dramatic “explosion” of garlic mustard plants can occur. In some
areas it can form monotypic stands that crowd out other species, while recent studies have
shown that in other locations it may simply occupy open ecological niche s . Nevertheless,
garlic mustard can be very invasive in woodlands, and it is re commended to monitor and
remove it as soon as it is detected (early detection and rapid response). Garlic mustard also
produces a flavonoid (root exudate) that suppresses mycorrhizal inoculation. Thus, species
that are mycorrhizae dependent, like oaks, will become stunted and easily outcompeted by
garlic mustard. The flavinoid persists in the soil years after garlic mustard plants are
removed, which is a good reason to keep woodlands garlic mustard-free.
Probably the best way to control garlic mustard is to closely monitor your site, and if garlic
mustard is found, hand pull it before it spreads. Hand-pulling should occur before siliques
(seed pods) form. Once siliques form, removed plants should be bagged and transported
from the site, since the plant may have enough energy in the stem and root to make viable
seeds, even though it is not growing in the ground. If bagging and transporting are not an
option, making weed piles is an option, but prepare to deal with garlic mustard plants in the
future at each pile. Garlic mustard plants produce hundreds of seeds per plant—they are very
prolific. When pulling garlic mustard plants, take care to remove the entire root, since they
87
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
may re -sprout if part of the root is left in the ground. This can be difficult since roots are “S-
shaped” and tend to break off at ground level.
Chemical control is not recommended except in cases where garlic mustard is growing in
large monoculture patches. In such cases, a systemic herbicide may be appropriate.
Glyphosate is non-specific and will kill any actively growing plant. One technique that has
been effective is applying a water-soluble herbicide during warm days in the winter, when no
snow cover or only a thin snow cover exists. Garlic mustard rosettes (first year plants) remain
green mostly all year round and can be killed during the winter when nearly all other plants
are dormant. Another successful technique is to use an herbicide specific to broadleaved
plants, like triclopyr (“Garlon”), but one that is water soluble, which can be dispensed with a
backpack sprayer or the like; this will not kill grasses or sedges.
There are studies underway by the Minnesota DNR and University of Minnesota that show
good potential for biocontrol of garlic mustard via a weevil:
(http://www.legacy.leg.mn/projects/biological-control-european-buckthorn-and-garlic -
mustard ). The testing phase is complete, but the approval process still needs to be
performed. If approved , this method could revolutionize garlic mustard control. However,
whether it will be effective or not on a landscape scale is yet to be determined.
GRASSES
Smooth brome
Smooth brome is a cool season grass —active early in the growing season in southern
Minnesota (April-Ma y -June) and then going semi-dormant in July-September. It reproduces
by means of underground stems (stolons and rhizomes) called “tillers”. The most effective
treatment is timed to occur at the same time as the brome is “tillering”—mid to late May in
southern Minnesota. Burning two years in a row (late-season burns in June) followed by
seeding has been shown to be effective in controlling smooth brome. Consider that this
timing may be a week or two earlier on steep south-facing slopes or in ve ry sandy or sand -
gravel soils. Following this method will usually be sufficient to control smooth brome.
Seeding followin g burns, preferably with native seed collected on -site , or purchased from a
seller that provides local ecotypes, is important for restoring cover at the site. Evaluation can
occur each year, and especially after two years. If this is not working, perhaps try a cool-
season overspray of a grass-specific herbicide either in the spring (April) or in the fall
(October). Using glyphosate as a cool-season overspray herbicide application is a last resort
since it is non -specific .
Kentucky bluegrass and creeping fescue can be treated similarly to smooth brome, since like
smooth brome, they are both non-native , stoloniferous, cool-season grasses. Spring burns
are the most effective tool against all these species.
88
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
Reed canary grass
This species is extremely difficult to eradicate and requires repeated treatment over a period
of one to three years. A combination of burning, chemical treatment and mowing can be used
in accessible areas, or chemical treatment alone in inaccessible areas. The combination
method starts by burning in late spring to remove dead vegetation and to stimulate new
growth. When new sprouts have reached a height of 4 to 6 inches, the site can be sprayed
with a 5% solution of a glyphosate herbicide appropriate for wetland habitat (e.g., Rodeo).
The site is then mowed in late summer, followed by chemical application after re-growth.
This treatment will stimulate new growth and germination to deplete the seed bank. The
sequence of chemical treatment and mowing are repeated for at least a second season, and
possibly a third until the grass is completely eradicated. Then native grass and forb seed can
be broadcast or drilled.
If reed canary grass is eradicated from an area, future management of the grassland, namely
burning, will likely keep the reed canary in check. Monitoring and mapping new individuals or
clumps should continue, however, and those individuals should be treated if burning is not
adequately controlling them . If the plants are small, they can be removed by digging out the
entire root. Generally, chemica l treatment is more feasible. If plants are clumped, they can be
treated by tying them together, cutting the blades, and treating the cut surface with
herbicide. Otherwise , herbicide should only be applied in native planted areas on very calm
days to avoid drift to non-target plants.
89
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
APPENDIX D: ECOLOGICAL CONTRACTORS
Friends of the Mississippi River (FMR) has extensive experience working with landowners to
implement natural resource management plans. FMR can assist landowners with obtaining
funding for restoration and management projects and providing project management,
including contractor negotiations, coordinating restoration and management work, and site
monitoring and evaluation.
Following is a list of contractors to consider for implementing the management plans. While
this is not an exhaustive list, it does include firms with ecologists who are very knowledgeable
in natural resource management. Unless otherwise noted, all firms perform prescribed
burning.
Conservation Corps Minnesota
60 Plato Blvd E Ste 210
Saint Paul, MN 55107
(651) 209-9900
www.conservationcorps.org
Great River Greening
251 Starkey St #2200
St Paul, MN 55107
(651) 665-9500
www.greatrivergreening.org
Minnesota Native Landscapes (MNL)
8740 77th St NE
Otsego, MN 55362
(763) 295-0010
www.mnlcorp.com
Prairie Restorations, Inc.
31646 128th St.,
Princeton, MN 55371
(763) 389-4342
www.prairieresto.com
Stantec
733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1000
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 712-2000
www.stantec.com
90
Friends of the Mississippi River Davis Farm Park NRMP
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC (RES)
20276 Delaware Avenue
Jordan, MN 55352
(217) 979-2415
www.res.us
Native Resource Preservation
260 Wentworth Ave E Suite 155
West St Paul, MN 55118
(320) 413-0015
www.nativeresourcepreservation.com
Natural Resource Services, Inc.
PO Box 544
Cambridge, MN 55008
(763) 656-8587
www.naturalresourceservice.com
Landbridge Ecological, Inc.
670 Vandalia St.
St Paul, MN 55114
(612) 503-4420
www.landbridge.eco