2001-10-22 EC Agenda PktAGENDA
GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Conference Room
Monday, October 22, 2001
7:00 P.M.
Call to Order
11. Approval of Minutes — September 24, 2001
III. Natural Resource Inventory Scope - Guest Speaker, Hannah Dunevitz, MnDNR
IV. Natural Resource Inventory Grant Discussion
V. Joint Meeting with Open Space & Recreation Commission Discussion
V1. Other Business
VII. Adjourn
GAEnvironmental Commission\Agendas\102201.doc
Tracy Pharr - Re: Question for Allen Barnard Page 1
From: Jeff Oliver
To: Tracy Pharr
Date: 10/19/01 8:28AM
Subject: Re: Question for Allen Barnard
I talked to Allen. He said there is not really a simple answer for selling city property. The title/deed for
each parcel must be examined, and the property can only be used for specific purposes (ie: parks, flood
storage) if there are deed restrictions. For tax forfeit parcels, each agency (school, state, county) must
concur with the sale, and it usually must be used for the purpose for which the city first acquired it (flood
storage, drainage). The process for selling tax forfeit land is very complicated and costly, and therefore it
does not occur very often.
Jeff Oliver, PE
Golden Valley City Engineer
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Phone: 763.593.8034
Fax: 763.593.3988
joliver@ci.golden-valley.mn.us
>>> Tracy Pharr 10/18/01 12:31 PM >>>
In EC minutes -
You will check with Allen on restrictions of tax forfeiture property (including if the City can "turn around and
sell the property").
Draft # 2b - 12/19/00
City or County Scale Natural Resource Inventory and Analysis Checklist
[Prepared by Meredith Cornett & Peggy Sand with input from Larry Westerberg and ideas
from a Mn Planning draft document]
Note: This checklist is for a Natural Resource Inventory and Analysis, which may be done by a
city or county covering a fairly large land area (e.g., the whole city or county). This kind of
inventory is useful to the local unit in developing policies, informing land use decisions, and
identifying areas for natural resource conservation and management. Once a particular site is
identified for a specific use, a more detailed inventory and management plan tailored to that use
is needed. This finer scale is addressed in the "Site based management plan checklist for
natural areas. "
❑ Purpose— What is the intended purpose or use for this natural resource inventory and
analysis? How will specific inventory methods and products be chosen to help the
community answer its questions, address its issues, and lead �owards sound decision
making?
/ N
❑ Methodoloay— The methods used should be based on a standard protocol suitable for the
scale and purpose of the inventory. One such inventory method which is useful in
providing land cover information for land use decision making is the Minnesota Land
Cover Classification System (MLCCS).
❑ The best inventory methods involve a combination of delineating land cover on
infrared aerial photos/digital orthoquads (DOQs) and field checking and/or
developing other data layers which are geo-referenced to DOQs.
❑ The information is then digitized and incorporated into a geographic information
system (GIS).
❑ The inventory should be done by trained natural resource professionals and ecologists
familiar with Minnesota's natural resources.
❑ Natural resources to be inventoried— Has the community developed a list of the types of
natural resources whose locations and characteristics should be identified and mapped in
the natural resource inventory? Decide which natural resources are most important to
inventory through this process. This may be based upon which ones are most important
to the local economy and its citizens and/or it may be ones most unique and/or threatened.
Natural resources which may be inventoried are:
❑ existing land cover, including the types of forests, wetlands, other types of vegetation,
agricultural lands, impervious surface, etc.
❑ significant or sensitive native plant communities
❑ forest plantations (e.g., managed for timber, Christmas trees, orchards, etc.); historic
or champion trees
❑ species that are endangered, threatened or of concern
❑ game and non -game wildlife
❑ ecological communities (e.g., using the Ecological Classification System of
subsection, land type associations, etc. - see below)
City or County Scale Natural Resource Inventory and Analysis Checklist (cklst inv #2a.wpd)
Draft # 2b - 12/19/00
❑ wetlands, rivers, streams, lakes
❑ soil types and suitabilities
❑ landforms, such as hills, streams, and watersheds
❑ geological hazards, such as floodplains, highly erodible soils, and areas of karst
geological formations
❑ aggregate resources, such as sand and gravel deposits
❑ mineral resources, including precious and ferrous minerals
❑ surface and groundwater quantity and quality
❑ local energy sources
❑ linear greenways and connections between sensitive areas
❑ status of land conservatoin (e.g., public ownership as protected open space and/or as
park or playground, enrollment in CRP, etc.)
❑ existing trails and public accesses and their distribution relative to human populations
❑ Special concerns— In addition to examir}ing particular naturat resource characteristics, the
community may want to investigate issues of special concern that may be affecting or
impacting natural resources. Some of these can only be assessed through field survey
work and ground-truthing. ;:Depending on the purpose of the inventory they might
include:
❑ e.g., invasive -exotic species
❑
e.g.,
canopy cover
❑
e.g.,
impervious surface
❑
e.g.,
forest health problems
❑
e.g.,
fire -prone property
❑
e.g.,
water management
❑ Existing information— Design the inventory to gather missing information or improve the
usefulness of existing data (e.g., National Wetlands Inventory, soil data, etc.). Then,
consider all the new natural resource information in the context of these other data layers.
Give some thought about how the format of newly -collected information will be
integrated with existing information and how both will be used.
❑ Native planjcommunities— Does the inventory identify significant native plant
communities in both upland and lowland areas? (Definition of native plant community:
A group of native plants that interact with each other and their abiotic environment in
ways not greatly altered by modem human activity or by introduced organisms).
❑ This portion of the inventory should make use of Minnesota County Biological
Survey (MCBS) data. New information should be incorporated using an adapted
version of their methodology.
❑ Terminology— Standard names for plant communities, etc. should be used (see
Minnesota's Native Vegetation: A Key to Natural Communities).
❑ An ecological quality ranking, such as that described in the MLCCS handbook,
should also be assigned to each polygon.
City or County Scale Natural Resource Inventory and Analysis Checklist (cklst inv #2a.wpd)
Draft # 2b - 12/19/00
❑ Rare species— Does the inventory identify locations of state listed species (endangered,
threatened and special concern)?
❑ Conducting analyses on inventory data— Once the inventory data is collected, it is used for
conducting various analyses based upon the intended purpose for this work. Analysis
could be done on the following:
❑ E.g., existing habitat for particular wildlife,
❑ E.g., potential greenway connections (for natural habitat and/or recreation purposes),
❑ E.g., opportunities for native plant community or habitat restoration,
❑ E.g., wildfire risk assessment,
❑ E.g., overall state of natural resource health (e.g., including insect and disease
problems, invasive exotic species, etc.)
❑ E.g., threats to unique plant communities
❑ Maintaining, conservation/preservation areas— Does the analysis include identifying areas
which the community would like to conserve and protect from' -development? These areas
may include commercial forest lands, agricultural lands, and/or significant natural areas
❑ Specific sites may be identified for different types of conservation or protection.
❑ Specific land protection tools, such as conservation easements, conservation overlay
districts, etc. may be identified for each parcel.
❑ Preliminary management recommendations may be assigned to each parcel.
❑ Management goals and objectives section (see Site Based Management Plan Checklist
for Natural Areas for more detailed suggestions)
❑ Landscape approach— Some natural resource issues are best addressed in the context of
the larger landscape, often across jurisdictional boundaries. What needs and
opportunities exist to address key issues at a larger scale?
❑ E.g., what are the potential connections among natural areas, commercial forestry
lands, and agricultural lands, both within the municipality and among municipalities
and counties?
❑ Have larger landscape patterns been addressed (e.g. using the Ecological
Classification System to identify the ecological province, section, subsections and
land type associations) and how might that information be used to suggest
opportunities and needs to coordinate with other communities in the same zones?
❑ Community values— What is known about local values and concerns regarding natural
resources? Is this inventory process coordinated with a community participation or
visioning process in which local people are identifying the importance they place on
natural resources? Are such processes being used to help give direction or identify
priorities for natural resource conservation?
❑ Products What types of products are needed to make the results of this inventory and
analysis most useful to the local unit? Typically, the most useful products of a natural
resource inventory and analysis are coordinated sets of computer databases and GIS map
City or County Scale Natural Resource Inventory and Analysis Checklist (cklst inv #2a.wpd)
Draft # 2b - 12/19/00
layers which are compatible with the tools used by the local unit for other planning and
management purposes. This allows for the natural resource information (data layers) to
be readily brought up, frequently used, and as needed updated by various local staff.
Typical products may include:
❑ a series of GIS data layers and maps (and related databases), e.g. on:
— land cover type (with each polygon mapped and referenced to a table of attributes)
— soils, by type
— wetlands, by type and jurisdiction
— lakes, by state shoreland management classification,
— agricultural land, by productivity class
— lands enrolled in a conservation reserve program
— forest cover, by type, age and condition
— steep slopes (greater than 12 percent)
— flood plains
— important plant and animal habit4ts
❑ a description (written narrative) on the community's maj of and most unique natural
features
❑ brief lists of key elements, e.g. dominant species or rare species found in community
❑ a discussion (written narrative) of issues, problems, threats, etc. related to natural
resources
❑ optional: recommendations, priorities, or next steps (see below)
❑ Using the results— Depending on the purpose of the inventory and analysis, the final
report or product may suggest additional ways in which this information will be used. It
could include:
❑ E.g., developing an overall set of goals and strategies for resource conservation and
management by the local unit, as well as some specific goals and strategies for key
natural resource areas.
❑ E.g., identifying priorities for natural resource management, conservation, and/or
protection (For example, this could involve rating or ranking conservation of areas or
features with consideration given to factors, such as, how imminent loss or
destruction of the resource is, relative rarity of the resource, community values,
economic or commodity value of the resource, etc.)
❑ E.g., evaluating current development patterns and practices (For example, how well
are natural systems and the services they provide being maintained or restored? Are
renewable resources being managed in a sustainable way?)
❑ E.g., guiding local policy development (For example, how would the information be
used in land use policies and decision making, comprehensive planning, development
review, recommendations for future growth patterns, etc.?)
❑ E.g., providing information for parks, open space, trails, and greenway planning.
City or County Scale Natural Resource Inventory and Analysis Checklist (cklst inv #2a.wpd) 4
uestions
& X
swers
Minnesota Land over Classification System
Q: What is the Minnesota Land Cover
Classification System?
A: A vegetation oriented classification system de-
signed to identify natural and cultural land cover
types using a standardized methodology.
Q: Why was it created?
A: During efforts to inventory and map remaining
habitat in the Twin Cities metro Mississippi River
corridor, it became evident that no existing classifi-
cation system could supply the detailed land
cover information needed to develop sound natural
resource protection and restoration plans. The
MLCCS was created to meet this specific need,
then refined to make it applicable elsewhere in the
metro region and Minnesota.
Q: What does MLCCS do that other systems
don t?
A: The MLCCS is the only classification system in
Minnesota that allows for true land cover classifi-
cation of all lands within a project area.
The MLCCS provides the ability to identify all
lands in true land cover terms (rather than land
use), regardless of ecological quality or function.
Built-up areas are classified according to type and
2000 aerial photograph
amount of vegetation, as well as the percentage of
the area that consists of impervious surfaces.
Q: What has it been used for?
A: The MLCCS is flexible and can be customized
through the use of modifiers, leading to its use for
a variety of applications, including: greenways and
open space planning, municipal comprehensive
plans, natural resource inventories, hydrological
and non -point source pollution calculations.
Q: Who besides the DNR is using the MLCCS?
A: The MLCCS is being used by a growing number
of agencies and organizations, including: the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, soil and water conserva-
tion districts, watershed districts, parks depart-
ments, counties, and cities.
Q: Is the MLCCS a state standard?
A: It s not currently an official state standard, but it s
gaining popularity among land managers. Mini-
mum mapping methodologies have been developed
for applications within the seven -county metro
region.
Land use inventory
Metropolitan Casicil, 1997
MLCCS inventory
National Park Service Mississippi National
River & Recreation Area. DNR Metro Region
and Great River Greening, 1999 - 2000
Mapping out the future of'resouree management
The Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS)
he Minnesota Land Cover Classification System is a relatively new tool that fills an important informa-
tional niche for natural resource managers and planners. Developed by the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources - Metro Region, in cooperation with other state, federal and local agencies, the
system is unique in that it categorizes urban and built up areas in terms of land cover, rather than land
use
Development of the MLCCS began in 1998 during efforts to conduct a natural resource inventory and manage-
ment plan for a portion of the Mississippi River corridor in the metro region. Existing data from aerial and satellite
photos was too coarse and it was presented in terms of land use -- such as industrial, commercial, residential --
rather than land cover. Land use data offered little information about the amount or type of vegetation or the
amount of artificial surfaces such as pavement covering a parcel of property. To address these shortcomings, the
DNR convened a steering committee comprised of representatives from the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, the Corps of Engineers, the Dakota Soil and Water Conservation District, Ramsey County
Parks, Friends of the Mississippi River and Great River Greening. The group created a hybrid system incorporat-
ing the National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS) and the Minnesota Natural Heritage native plant
community types, along with a cultural classification system to distinguish among different types and amounts of
land cover, vegetation and impervious surfaces.
The classification system consists of five hierarchical levels. At the most general level, land cover is divided into
either Natural/Semi-Natural cover types or Cultural cover types. The Natural/Semi-Natural classification system
is a hybrid of the NVCS and the Minnesota Natural Heritage plant communities. The NVCS is used for Levels 1,
2 and 3 of the system (the coarser levels), while Levels 4 and 5 use the Minnesota Natural Heritage system to
more explicitly identify plant community types.
Level 1 - General growth patterns (e.g. forest, woodland, shrubland, etc.)
Level 2 - Plant types (e.g. deciduous, coniferous, grasslands, forbs, etc.)
Level 3 - Soil hydrology (e.g. upland, seasonally flooded, saturated, etc.)
Level 4 - Plant species composition, (e.g. floodplain forest, rich fen sedge, jack pine barrens, etc.)
Level 5 -
The Cultural classification system is designed to identify built-up / vegetation patterns and an area s impervious-
ness to water infiltration. Most other land inventory classification systems, such as the USGS Anderson system,
employ land use terminology (e.g. urban, commercial, residential). This system distinguishes among land cover
types at the following levels of detail:
Level 1 - Presence of built-up elements (i.e. built-up vs. cultivated land)
Level 2 - Dominant vegetation (trees, shrubs, herbaceous)
Level 3 - Plant type (deciduous, coniferous, etc.)
Level 4 - Percent of impervious surface or soil hydrology
Level 5 - Specific plant species
This cultural classification is unique in that it emphasizes vegetation land cover instead of land use, thus creating a
land cover inventory especially useful for resource managers and planners.
For more information contact:
Bart Richardson, DNR -Metro GIS Coordinator, 651-772-6150
�d
OF MINIyFSOT -9
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
v cn
mw
'a U
Metro DNR
Fy�oF NATURP�"P
1200 Warner Road
St. Paul, MN 55106
7 September 2001
Greetings:
The Department of Natural Resources, Metro Region, is pleased to announce its
request for proposals for the FY2001 Metro Greenways Planning Grant Program. This
grant program provides matching grants to implementing agencies to conduct natural
resource inventories, land cover mapping, and/or natural resource and greenway
planning.
Since the first grant round in 1998, the Metro Greenways Planning Grant
Program has funded 40 natural resource inventory and planning projects throughout the
7 -county Metro area, totaling over $750,000. The enclosed packet contains examples
of the types of projects funded by the Metro Greenways Planning Grant Program.
Additionally, I have enclosed a brief with some information about an important new tool
for use in natural resource inventories and planning - the Minnesota Land Cover
Classification system.
We strongly encourage all implementing agencies to review the planning grant
brochure and the potential benefits this program might bring to the natural amenities in
your local community. If you are interested in applying for a Metro Greenway planning
grant, please phone Sharon Pfeifer (651-772-7982), Metro Regional Planner, or check
the DNR website (http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/greenprint/metro-green.html) for further
information and/or application materials.
Sincerely,
Sharon Pfeifer
Metro DNR Regional Planner
DNR Information: 651-296-6157 - 1-888-646-6367 - TTY: 651-296-5484 - 1-800-657-3929
An Equal Opportunity Employer Is Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a
Who Values Diversity i� Minimum of 20% Post -Consumer Waste
t
METRO GREENWAYS PLANNING GRANTS
FY 2001 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
DEADLINE: 25 January 2002
• Please refer to the Metro Greenways Planning Grants brochure before completing this
application.
• Direct any pre -application questions to Sharon Pfeifer, Metro DNR (651-772-7982).
• Submit the completed application form and attachments in triplicate to:
Metro Greenways Planning Grants Program
Metro DNR, Attention: Sharon Pfeifer
1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106
1 . Project Title
2. Lead Implementing Agency
3. Lead Project Person (Name/Title)
4. Address
5. Phone Fax Email
6. Total Project Cost $
7. Amount of Funding Requested $
(Cannot exceed 50% of #6)
PROJECT SUMMARY
8. Proiect Objectives - Explain the overall goal and list the major objectives of your
project in fewer than 150 words.
9. Project Location (this information must be filled out)
County0es)
Township(s) and Section(s)
Municipality(ies)
Required Attachment #1: Maps provided must clearly show the project area
boundaries, known Mn County Biological Survey sites in project area, major
roads to reach the project area, scale, and directional orientation.
10. Project Size - Actual or Estimated (acres)
11 . Proposed Time line: Start Date
Completion Date
12. Proposed Activities - list key activities that will enable you to attain your project
objectives
Required Attachment #2: A one to two page draft work plan that identifies the time
frame for carrying out key proposed project activities and products
13. Adherence to Grant Program Criteria - Briefly, how does the project meet each of
the selection criteria of this planning grant program (see brochure)?
I
14. Proiect Participants - List principal partners (i.e., other governmental units,
consulting firm(s), support groups) involved with the applicant in project
implementation and production of deliverables. One page resumes of all principals are
required.
Required Attachment #3: A minimum of two support letters from project partners
(excluding consulting firms) must accompany this application.
Principal Partners
Proposed Key
Activities
(see #12)
Principal
Deliverables
Lead
Person(s)
Phone/Fax
15. Official Support - Please attach appropriate dated and signed resolution identifying
the source(s) of matching funds for this project.
Required Attachment #4: Signed and dated resolution (example provided)
16. Application and/or Dissemination of Project Outputs
Required Attachment #5: As explicitly as possible describe how the results of this
project (inventory and/or plan) will be stored (e.g., report, GIS), disseminated
(e.g., publication, videos), and applied to future decisions about greenways or
natural resource management.
17. Budget - 50:50 match required
18. Are you or a project partner applying through the DNR for any of the following
FY2000 grants?
Conservation Partners?
Community Environmental Partnership?
Natural and Scenic Areas?
MnReLeaf?
Cooperative Trail Linkages?
Yes—No—Amount
$
Yes
No
Amount
$
Yes—No—Amount
$
Yes—No—Amount
$
Yes—No—Amount
$
19. Who have you contacted at the DNR to receive technical information about the
proposed project site?
Staff person contacted
When
k
Greenways 1999 Planning Grant Summary
Project Title: Linwood Community Park and School Forestry Inventory Grant Amount: $10,250
Grantee: Linwood Township
Partners: Linwood Township, Linwood School Forest Committee, Linwood Elementary School, MNDNR
Project: Complete a comprehensive vegetation and habitat type inventory; prepare management recommendations for 170
acre site; prepare final report and maps; share findings with township residents.
Project Title: Cedar Creek Greenway Corridor Study Grant Amount: $25,000
Grantee: Anoka County Parks and Recreation Department
Partners: MNDNR, Oak Grove Twp., Anoka Conservation District, Upper Rum River Watershed Management Org.,
Minnesota Land Trust, University of Minnesota College of Natural Resource, City of Andover, BIKO Associates, Inc.
Project: Develop a natural resources master plan for the Oak Grove Township and Andover portions of Cedar Creek which
will include vision and goals; history and existing conditions; issues and analysis; greenway project boundaries; site selection
criteria and standards; resource management recommendations and implementation strategies.
Project Title: Creek Corridors Conservation Area Management Plan -Phase 1 Grant Amount: $25,000
Grantee: City of Eden Prairie
Partners: Riley/Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District
Project: Develop a detailed natural resource inventory and plant community classification of Riley Creek and seven
designated conservation areas in Eden Prairie including assessment methodology; digitized information; map and concept
outline natural area and greenway master plan.
Project Title: Sand Creek Corridor Management Plan Grant Amount: $19,000
Grantee: Scott County Public Works and Lands
Partners: Scott County, City of Jordan, City of New Prague
Project: Conduct baseline data collection; identify and inventory natural communities and wetlands within a 300' corridor and
the floodplain; identify critical concern sites based on ecological considerations; hold public input meetings, and prepare final
report and digitized maps.
****Project Title: Vermillion/Mississippi River Greenway Corridor Initiative Grant Amount:$14,733
Grantee: Dakota Soil and Water Conservation District
Partners: Friends of the Mississippi River, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Vermillion River Watershed Management
Organization, MNDNR
Project: Conduct riparian habitat assessments within a 300' corridor and floodplain, develop an individual landowner
resource inventory and problem identification report and ascertain landowner interest in restoration / protection options.
Project Title: Physical /Ecological Classification of Pioneer -Sarah Creek and Tributaries Grant Amount:$15,000
Grantee: Pioneer -Sarah Creek Watershed Management Commission
Partners: Hennepin Conservation District, Hennepin Parks, City of Greenfield, City of Independence, City of Minnetrista and
Watertown Township.
Project: Conduct an inventory of the major streams in the watershed; survey natural areas within the stream corridor; make
recommendations for restoration, preservation and land use management and identify potential areas for greenways and
buffers on Pioneer -Sarah Creek and its tributaries.
Project Title: Physical and Ecological Classification of Elm Creek and Tributaries Grant Amount: $20,000
Grantee: Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission
Partners: Hennepin Conservation District, Hennepin Parks, City of Maple Grove, City of Plymouth, City of Dayton,
City of Corcoran, City of Champlin, City of Medina and Hassan Township
Project: Conduct an inventory of the major streams in the watershed; survey natural areas within the stream corridor; make
recommendations for restoration, preservation and land use management and identify potential areas for greenways and
buffers on Elm Creek and its tributaries.
Project Title: Natural Resource Inventory for City of Blaine Grant Amount: $20,000
Grantee: City of Blaine
Partners: City of Blaine Open Space Committee, Citizens Environmental Committee, Blaine Citizens
Project: Delineate natural areas and features and digitize to city GIS; conduct site assessment to prioritize Natural Areas and
Rare Features; conduct detailed biological field surveys for high priority natural areas and produce a final reports with site
evaluations and conservation recommendations based upon a series of public input meetings.
r
Project Title: Carver County Ravine and Bluff Greenways Grant Amount:$15,000
Grantee: Carver County
Partners: Carver County Planning and Zoning, Carver County Parks, City of Carver, City of Chaska
Project: Inventory specific site data within project area; develop criteria for identifying areas of importance involving public
participation; identify ecologically significant areas and development of site management options; prepare final report and GIS
natural resource inventory map.
Project Title: Natural Resources Inventory - Medina Grant Amount:$20,000
Grantee: City of Medina
Partners: Hennepin Conservation District, MNDNR, City of Independence, Elm Creek, Pioneer -Sarah and Minnehaha Creek
Watershed Districts and Hennepin Parks
Project: Identifying highest quality natural community sites; field inventory work; develop database and GIS mapping of
natural resources and disseminate project findings via public meetings and informational meeting with key elected officials.
Project Title: South Washington's Watershed District's Greenway Corridor Plan urani Nmoum;,p 1 t,uvv
Grantee: South Washington Watershed District
Partners: City of Woodbury, City of Oakdale, City of Afton, City of Cottage Grove and City of Lake Elmo
Project: Information on important natural areas as well as occurrence of threatened/endangered species will be gathered;
workshops given to district, city and county staff and Citizens Advisory Committee; potential connections between natural
areas will be investigated and prioritized for future implementation; map components of greenway corridor plan and prepare
final plan, including an implementation plan; map and plan to be presented at public meetings in each of the key cities in the
Watershed District.
Project Title: Mill Stream Resource Protection Plan Grant Amount: $6,250
Grantee: Marine on St. Croix Watershed Management Organization
Partners: Mill Stream Association, City of Marine on St. Croix, St. Croix Watershed Research Station, Washington Soil and
Water Conservation District and MNDNR
Project: Collect existing information and photo type map identified natural habitats; field check plant communities and
conduct a stream habitat assessment; analyze field inventory information and prepare a land cover map; develop stewardship
plan to assist in future management and protection of the Mill Stream.
Project Title: St. Lawrence Township Natural Resource Inventory and Management Plan Grant Amount:$7,500
Grantee: St. Lawrence Township
Partners: Scott County, Scott Soil and Water Conservation District, Citizens for Sensible Land Use
Project: Collect existing data; inventory township's natural communities and key disturbance indicators, analysis and ranking
of natural communities and mapping; final report, including identified natural communities and management
recommendations.
Project Title: Northeastern Anoka County Greenways Project Grant Amount: $15,000
Grantee: Anoka Conservation Watershed District
Partners: Sunrise River Water Management Organization, Upper Rum River Watershed Management Organization,
City of East Bethel, Anoka County Department of Parks and Recreation
Project: Delineate landuse/landcover of project area and digitize this information to produce an inventory to identify existing
and potential greenways and threatened natural communities; concurrently, a technical advisory committee and citizen survey
will guide the development of a natural resource plan; final report to include inventory, survey results, growth management
strategies and land protection options.
Project Title: Pigs Eye Greenway Management Plan """"
Grantee: Ramsey -Washington Watershed District
Partners: Greening the Great River Park, Ramsey County Park and Recreation Department, Upper Swede Hollow
Neighborhood Association, City of St. Paul, District 1 Community Council, MNDNR, Ramsey -Washington Metro Watershed
District
Project: Develop information base for project area; GIS mapping of field checked information; review of existing management
plans; develop restoration and management plan for project area including residential, public and commercial lands; obtain
public input as part of the planning process; develop outreach materials about project and management plan.
Project Title: Minnehaha Corridor Management Plan
Grantee: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board
Partners: Greening the Great River
Project: Form citizens advisory committee to assist in developing an integrated corridor plan, including management plans
for natural area sites; conduct stream analysis; conduct vegetation community analysis and assess restoration opportunities
and management approaches; final report: comprehensive vegetation management plan for Minnehaha Creek.
Greenways 2000 Planning Grant Summary
Project Title: Hassan Wildlife Corridor / Natural Resources Inventory Grant Amount: $23,500
Grantee: Hassan Township
Partners: Hassan Township, Hennepin Conservation District, MNDNR
Project: Identifying highest quality natural community sites; field inventory work; develop database and GIS
mapping of natural resources and rank priority sites. Develop ordinances and policies to protect priority sites.
Project Title: City of Blaine Greenway Planning Grant Amount: $12,400
Grantee: City of Blaine
Partners: City of Blaine Open Space Committee, Citizens Environmental Committee, Blaine Citizens
Project: Develop a greenway plan for the City, Educate citizens about Blaine's natural resources, Develop
funding mechanisms for preservation of high quality sites as ranked in the 1999 Natural Resources Inventory
Project Title: Savage Natural Resources Inventory Grant Amount: $11,375
Grantee: City of Savage
Partners: City of Savage, Hennepin Parks
Project: Conduct a Natural Resources inventory of Credit River and southern Savage. Identify areas for
protection and greenway linkages.
Project Title: Physical and Ecological Classification of Elm Creek and Tributaries Grant Amount: $5,000
Grantee: Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission
Partners: Hennepin Conservation District, Hennepin Parks, City of Maple Grove, City of Plymouth, City of
Dayton,
City of Corcoran, City of Champlin, City of Medina and Hassan Township
Project: Conduct an inventory of the major streams in the watershed; survey natural areas within the stream
corridor; make recommendations for restoration, preservation and land use management and identify potential
areas for greenways and buffers on Elm Creek and its tributaries. Phase II of 1999 project.
Project Title: Physical /Ecological Classification of Pioneer -Sarah Creek and Tributaries Grant Amount: $5,000
Grantee: Pioneer -Sarah Creek Watershed Management Commission
Partners: Hennepin Conservation District, Hennepin Parks, City of Greenfield, City of Independence, City of
Minnetrista and Watertown Township.
Project: Conduct an inventory of the major streams in the watershed; survey natural areas within the stream
corridor; make recommendations for restoration, preservation and land use management and identify potential
areas for greenways and buffers on Pioneer -Sarah Creek and its tributaries. Phase II of 1999 project.
Project Title: Afton Natural Resources Inventory and Stewardship Plan Grant Amount: $30,700
Grantee: City of Afton
Partners: City of Afton, Washington county Soil & Water Conservation Service, Valley Branch Watershed
District, Belwin Foundation, Denmark Township, MNDNR
Project: Conduct a Natural Resources Inventory using the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System and
develop a Stewardship Plan to enhance existing open space sites and preserve a connected network of open
space for habitat, recreation, and solitude.
Project Title: Mississippi River Greenway Strategic Plan Grant Amount: $40,250
Grantee: City of Hastings
Partners: City of Hastings, City of Rosemount, Marshan Township, Ravenna Township, Dakota County, Friends
of the Mississippi River, MNDNR
Project: Create a multi -jurisdictional implementation strategy for proposed greenways in Hastings, Rosemount,
Ravenna, Marshan and Nininger.
Project Title:St. Anthony Park Natural Resources Inventory and Planning Grant Amount: $15,000
Grantee: St. Anthony Park Community Council
Partners: Neighborhood Energy Consortium, Community Residents, SAP Community Council
Project: Community based natural resource inventory and planning activities to re-connect and protect
fragmented habitats and green spaces in the urban core.
Project Title: Rice Creek Corridor Expansion Grant Amount: $15,500
Grantee: Anoka Conservation District
Partners: Anoka Conservation District, Rice Creek Watershed District, Coon Creek Watershed District, Anoka
County Parks, MNDNR
Project: Conduct MN Land Cover Classification System through out project area, educate local officials on
MLCCS and its uses, acquire data so that large scale landscape analysis can begin„ contribute toward the
completion of the Anoka County land cover GIS data layer, Inventory natural communities to compliment
biological data collection that is currently occurring.
Project Title: Trout Brook - Lower Phalen Creek Greenway Grant Amount: $20,000
Grantee: City of St. Paul
Partners: City of St. Paul, Tri Area Block Club, Upper Swede Hollow Neighborhood Association, Dayton's Bluff
Community Council, Capitol Region Watershed District, District 6 Planning Council, MNDNR
Project: Prepare a master plan for the corridor as identified in the Metro Greenprint and incorporate it into the St.
Paul Land Use Plan
Project Title: Mill Stream Resource Protection Plan Grant Amount: $15,710
Grantee: Marine on St. Croix Watershed Management Organization
Partners: Mill Stream Association, City of Marine on St. Croix, St. Croix Watershed Research Station,
Washington Soil and Water Conservation District and MNDNR
Project: Collect existing information and photo type map identified natural habitats; field check plant
communities and conduct a stream habitat assessment; analyze field inventory information and prepare a land
cover map; develop stewardship plan to assist in future management and protection of the Mill Stream.
Project Title: Vermillion/Mississippi River Greenway Corridor Initiative Grant Amount: $24,104
Grantee: Dakota Soil and Water Conservation District
Partners: Friends of the Mississippi River, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Vermillion River Watershed
Management Organization, MNDNR
Project: Conduct riparian habitat assessments within a 300' corridor and floodplain, develop an individual
landowner resource inventory and problem identification report and ascertain landowner interest in restoration
/protection options.
IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ BEFORE FILLING OUT APPLICATION MATERIALS
1. FY 2001 Grant Program Time Line
7 September 2001
25 January 2002
February to mid-March 2002
Late March 2002
April 2002
December 2003
2. Grant Application - General Requirements:
Request for proposals
Proposal deadline
Review of proposals
Review panel selects finalists
Award notification; execution of grant
agreements
FY 2001 grant agreements completed
• The project lead must be an eligible applicant.
• Each attachment must be clearly identified by the proposed project
title and attachment number (1-6):
Attachment #1: Map showing project location and natural areas
Attachment #2: Draft work plan indicating time frame for
proposed key activities
Attachment #3: Support letters (2) and resumes of those
conducting natural resource inventories
Attachment #4: Resolution
Attachment #5: Specific future application of project results
Attachment #6: Project budget
• The application and all labeled attachments must be submitted in
triplicate. This is necessary for external review.
• Applications must be postmarked no later than midnight of 25 January
2002. No faxes or walk-in applications will be accepted.
• Proposals that are postmarked after the deadline, incomplete, or
sponsored by an ineligible applicant will not be considered.
3. Grant Proposal Review
After Metro DNR reviews proposals for eligibility, proposals will be distributed to
an external technical review panel. This panel will recommend a list of highest
ranking proposals for final consideration.
4. Grant Agreement
All grantees will be required to execute a grant agreement with a detailed work
plan as part of that agreement.
SAMPLE RESOLUTION
WHEREAS the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has matching funds
available for natural resource inventories and natural resource and/or greenways plans
through the Metro Greenways Planning Grant Program, and
WHEREAS a need has been identified to conduct a comprehensive natural resources
inventory or natural resources plan for local planning purposes,
BE IT RESOLVED that (eligible le applicant) is applying for a Metro Greenways Planning
Grant and has the legal authority to apply for financial assistance, and has the
institutional, managerial, and financial capability to ensure that all aspects of the
proposed project will be completed;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that .(eligible applicant) and its partner(s) will share in the
costs of the proposed project with the DNR by providing a cash or in-kind match
totaling at least 50% of the proposed project cost;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon approval of its application, (eligible applicant)
may enter into agreement with the State of Minnesota for the above project and that the
(eligible applicant) certifies that it will comply with all aspects of the grant agreement.
NOW BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the (grants administration representative) is
hereby authorized to execute the grant agreement as necessary to implement the
project on behalf of the eligible applicant.
I CERTIFY THAT the above resolution was adopted by
on
SIGNED:
(Signature)
(Date)
Natural Vegetation
A -IX A/1-10, " " Arx 4- "
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources ■ Biological Report No. 1
Dresettlement Minnesota.
Imagine. ``...rolling prairies...
undulation upon undulation as
far as the eye can reach ...a view
of peculiar sublimity..." wrote H.D.
Ruggles of the western Minnesota
landscape in 1835. Early ac unts of the
towering pines in the north abounded
with equally vivid impressions. And in
the south, French explorers extolled the
vast forests of maple, basswood, and elm,
calling them the "Big Woods "
The early -European settlers d de-
scribed, in astonished detail, he three
major biomes that meet inMinnesota:
tallgrass prairie, northern coin iferous
forest, and eastern deciduous forest.
-Northern
Conrferous Forest
Eastern
Dedduous Forest
Tallgrass Prairie
The vegetation types that def ned these
biomes were distributed on the landscape
according to climate, soil, and landform
patterns. Natural disturbances such as
fire, severe drought, windstorm, and
insect outbreaks modified the vegetation
on a local and regional scale. Of these,
fire was the most important disturbance
agent.
Frequent fires—started by lightning and
by Indians for hunting and other pur-
poses—helped to maintain the species
composition and treeless structure of the
tallgrass prairie. Where fires were less
frequent or intense, trees invaded the
prairie in scattered groves to form
woodland and parkland communities.
This created a vegetational ecotone
known as the prairie/forest border.
Within the deciduous forest biome, where
firebreaks such as rivers, lakes, and rough
topography prevented the spread of fires,
a dense forest of maple, basswood, and
elm developed. Within the coniferous
forest biome, fires created a mosaic of
forest types from young postfire stands of
aspen -birch and jack pine, to old-
growth stands of white and red pine,
spruce -fir, northern white cedar, and
maple -basswood -yellow birch forest.
This complex interaction of fire with
climate, soils, and topography created a
dynamic landscape—a constantly shifting
mosaic of vegetation types.
Vegetation Types of the Prairie
and Deciduous Forest
Upland Prairie and Prairie Wetland
Tallgrass prairie, at the time of the public
land survey in the 1850s, covered one-
third of the state. It occupied a wide
variety of landforms, including beach
Prairie Coteau Scientific and Natural Area,
Pipestone County
ridges and swales, glacial lake beds,
morainic hills, steep bluffs, and rolling
till plains. Along these landforms,
important differences occurred in the
plants and animals that compose the
prairie ecosystem. The most striking
indicator was the predictable change in
dominance of a few major prairie grasses.
The distribution pattern of these grasses
coincided with differences in soil
moisture levels related to topography. In
general, prairie cordgrass and bluejoint
dominated the wet lowlands; big
bluestem and Indian grass occupied the
deep fertile soils of the moist uplands;
and little bluestem and sideoats grama
occurred on the thin soils of dry uplands.
Throughout the prairie biome, numerous
wetland communities dominated by
sedges and rushes, rather than grasses,
were interspersed with upland prairie.
The glacial moraine landforms of the
prairie region were ideally suited for
wetland formation; their hilly knob and
kettle -type topography abounded with
prairie pothole marshes.
Aspen Parkland
The aspen parkland formed an ecotone
between the prairie and coniferous forest
of extreme northwest Minnesota and
IVIMMvmcu %_Uunty
adjacent Canada. It covered vast
acreages within the poorly drained
flatlands left by Glacial Lake Agassiz.
Sometimes referred to as brush prairie,
the aspen parkland was a fire -maintained
mosaic of wet prairie, sedge meadow,
shrub thicket, and aspen groves.
Oak Woodland and Brushland
The oak woodland and brushland was a
common ecotonal type between the
prairie and deciduous forest. Fire, more
than landform type or climate, was the
significant factor influencing the position
and extent of this community.
The oak woodland and brushland
vegetation type has often been referred to
as savanna. However, in Minnesota the
image of a tallgrass prairie dotted with
trees to create an orchard -like appearance
is more myth than fact. Careful study of
the original public land survey records
has led to a new interpretation. The oak
woodland and brushland ranged from
small groves of trees intermixed with
open prairie to a chaparral -like commu-
Cedar Creek Natural History Area, Anoka County
nity of scrub forest and dense shrub
thicket. The structure of the community
was largely determined by soil conditions
and fire frequency. The oaks, especially
bur oak and northern pin oak, were the
dominant trees. In the southeast, white
oak and black oak were also common.
Floodplain Forest
Floodplain forests occupy both major and
minor water courses throughout the state.
They are especially well developed in the
valleys of the Mississippi, Minnesota,
and Red rivers. The lowland sites
occupied by these forests are subjected to
periodic flood and drought. Spring
St. Croix River, Chisago County
floodwaters enrich the soil as they
deposit silt over the forest floor. Silver
maple, American elm, green ash, black
willow, and cottonwood are the dominant
trees and poison ivy and stinging nettle
the characteristic understory plants.
Maple -Basswood Forest
Minnesota's maple -basswood forests,
dominated by elm, basswood, sugar
maple, and red oak, occur at the western
^dge of the deciduous forest biome of
stern North America. The largest
.;ontinuous area of maple -basswood
forest in Minnesota at the time of the
original public land survey covered over
3,000 square miles in the south-central
part of the state. The early settlers called
this area the "Big Woods." Smaller areas
of maple -basswood occurred in the
rugged, stream -dissected lands of
southeastern Minnesota and in the west -
central part of the state. The boundaries
of this forest were in large part controlled
by the frequency of fire. The dominant
Wolsfeld Woods Scientific and Natural
Area, Hennepin County
trees are highly fire -sensitive and were
restricted to areas where natural fire-
breaks such as rivers, lakes, and rough
topography prevented the spread of fire
from the adjacent prairie lands.
Vegetation Types
of the Conifer Forest
Northern Hardwood Forest
In Minnesota, the northern hardwood
forest is dominated by sugar maple,
basswood, yellow birch, and red oak.
Conifers, particularly white pine,
northern white cedar, and balsam fir are
often found scattered through the forest.
Due to the fire -sensitivity of the domi-
nant trees, this forest association was
Tettegouche State Park, Lake County
relatively rare in the state. It was
generally restricted to rich, morainic soils
where fire frequencies were low. The
most conspicuous area of northern
hardwoods was the narrow belt along the
North Shore Highlands that stretches
from Duluth to the Canadian border. It
was also found in fire -protected pockets
across north -central Minnesota, as far
west as Cass Lake.
Great Lakes Pine Forest
The Great Lakes pine forest occurs in
Minnesota primarily on thin glacial till
Boundary Waters Canoe Area, Cook County
over bedrock in the Canadian -Minnesota
border lakes area and in the gravelly
moraines and sandy outwash plains in the
north -central part of the state. This forest
is defined by its characteristic trees—
eastern white pine and red pine.
Historically, tree composition and age
structure of the pine forest were largely
determined by natural fire cycles. Fires
of varying frequency and intensity
created a dynamic ecosystem composed
of early postfire stands of jack pine and
red pine and mature old-growth stands of
white pine. In general, red pine was
more abundant than white pine and
occurred on coarsely -textured, dry sites
prone to fires. White pine stands
occurred on the mesic sites of lake
margins and lower slopes less subject to
fires.
Jack Pine Forest
This forest community occurs on the
driest, least fertile soils of the pine
region. It is especially prevalent on
sandy outwash plains in north -central
Minnesota and on bedrock outcrops north
of Lake Superior. Jack pine grows in
Notes on the History
of the Map
The map presented here is a modification
of the 1974 published version of F.J.
Marschner's map, The Original Vegeta-
tion of Minnesota. Marschner, a research
assistant in the Office of Agricultural
Economics, U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, Washington, D.C. compiled a
vegetation map of Minnesota in 1929-30
from the U.S. General Land Office
Survey Notes. M.L. Heinselman in his
Interpretation of Francis J. Marschner's
Map of the Original Vegetation of
Minnesota, published by the U.S. Forest
Service, North Central Forest Experiment
Station, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1974,
describes the sources of information
available to Marschner and the methods
of mapping he employed.
Unfortunately, as Heinselm
points out
in his description of the 197
published
version, Marschner did not leave detailed
notes on the methods he usei
I to construct
this map. According to Heir
selman:
"The information available to
Marschner included brief written
descriptions of the soils, land -
forms, and vegetation of each
township: the township plat maps;
and location notes for each
section corner, meander corner,
quarter corner, or other
monumented point on survey
lines. Where trees were available,
corners were usually identified by
inscribing the corner's legal
description on a deep axe -blaze
on three `witness trees' facing the
actual monumented corner.
Where witness trees wete used,
their species, diameters and
compass bearings, and distances
from the corner are given in the
notes. The plat maps also may
show lakes, streams, wetlands,
etc. There may also be notes on
the terrain and vegetation along
section lines."
This 1988 version of Marschner's map is
a direct generalization of the map
published in 1974. It was determined
that a vegetation map of Minnesota that
could be produced in smaller format than
the existing 1:500,000 scale map would
be useful to many. In order to accom-
plish this, the intricate detail of the
original map had to be simplified.
In generalizing the vegetation types and
simplifying boundaries, a new classifica-
tion was developed (see cross-reference
chart). Many of the decisions to combine
types or to eliminate a geographically
small occurrence of a type are not
significant because this detail would be
Marschner's Map
1974 Version
Grassland
Prnir;a
Wet Prairies, Marshes & Sloughs
Brushland
Brush Prairie
Aspen -Oak Land
Oak Openings and Barrens
Hardwood Forest
lost in such a major reduction of
Marschner's original map. However, a
few changes were made to reflect new
understanding of the distribution and
composition of Minnesota vegetation
types. ■
We gratefully acknowledge the critical
review of this 1988 version of the map by
Drs. M.L. Heinselman, J.C. Almendinger,
E.J. Cushing, E.C. Grimm, D.B.
Lawrence, and L.F. Ohmann.
Marschner's Map
Adapted 1988
Vegetation Types of the
Prairie & Deciduous Forest
Upland Prairie
Prairie Wetland
Aspen Parkland
Oak Wookland and Brushland
Big Woods
Maple -Basswood Forest
River Bottom Forest
Floodplain Forest
Aspen -Birch (Hardwoods)
Vegetation Types
of the Conifer Forest
Pineries
Aspen -Birch (Conifer)
Boreal Hardwood -Conifer Forest
Mixed Hardwood and Pine
Northern Hardwood Forest
Pine Groves:
White Pine
White and Norway Pine
Great Lakes Pine Forest
Pine Flats
Jack Pine Barrens and Openings
Jack Pine Forest
Bogs and Swamps
Conifer Bogs and Swamps
Open Muskeg -, Peatland
Text by Keith M. Wendt and Barbara A Coffin of the Natural
Heritage Program, Section of Wildlife, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources,
Designed by Linda J. McNary
December 1988.
The photographs in this publication are
of remnant natural vegetation types that
have escaped significant human alteration.
Photo credits: .
Richard Hamilton Smith, cover photos and 1, 3, 4, 7, 8;
Keith Wendt, photos 2, 5, 6, 9; Barbara Coffin, photo 10.
Boundary Waters Canoe Area, Lake County
pure stands or in mixtures with aspen,
northern red oak, and red pine. Most
natural stands originate following fire.
Fire opens the habitat to direct sunlight
and exposes a mineral soil seedbed—both
requirements for jack pine reproduction.
The dry, open conditions under the jack
pine canopy allow for a variety of
understory plants. Ericaceous shrubs
such as wintergreen and blueberry are
especially common. On deeper soils,
hazel may form impenetrable thickets,
whereas on rocky balds, a dense blanket
of feather mosses may be the only
understory.
Boreal Hardwood -Conifer Forest
The boreal hardwood -conifer forest in
Minnesota is a southern extension of the
large boreal forest of Canada. This forest
type occupies much of northern Minne-
Suzy Island Preserve, Cook County
sota—a region characterized by a short,
moist growing season and deep snow.
The dominant tree species, balsam fir,
white spruce, black spruce, trembling
aspen, and white birch occur in pure or
mixed stands.
Species composition varies considerably
in response to differences in site condi-
tions and natural fire cycles. Balsam fir,
owing to its great shade tolerance, tends
to form extensive stands in the absence of
frequent fires. Natural disturbances,
including fire, wind, and spruce budworm
epidemics often result in extensive areas
of even -aged stands of spruce -fir or
aspen -birch forest. Far less extensive,
and found mainly in extreme northeast
Minnesota, old-growth white cedar
forests occur on fire -protected uplands.
Peatland
Extensive peatlands blanket the nearly
flat landscape left when the waters
drained from the ancient glacial lakes of
north -central Minnesota. Scattered
throughout northern Minnesota, smaller
Winter Road Lake Peatland, Beltrami County
peatlands occur in the basins of glacial
moraines. Although there were several
attempts—mostly unsuccessful—to drain
the largest peatlands, the vegetation
mosaic of these areas is relatively
unchanged since presettlement times.
The extensive peatlands that developed in
ancient glacial lake plains exhibit a
variety of bog, fen, and swamp vegeta-
tion. Bogs are forested with black spruce
or tamarack, or are open and dominated
by spaghnum mosses, sedges, and low
ericaceous shrubs. They occur on
nutrient -poor, acid peat deposits. In
contrast, fens and swamps develop on
mildly acid to highly alkaline peat
deposits affected by mineral -rich ground
water. Fens are composed of grasses anG
sedges, while swamps are dominated by
woody plants—either coniferous trees
(e.g., northern white cedar) or deciduous
trees (e.g., black ash).
Changes in the Natural
Vegetation Since Settlement
After more than a century of European
settlement, nearly all the natural commu-
nities composing the three major biomes
have been substantially altered. The vast
tallgrass prairie that once covered one-
third of the state has been reduced to less
than one percent of its original expanse.
The largest continuous area of climax
deciduous forest—the "Big Woods"—is
now restricted to small, scattered islands
of forest surrounded by cropland. The
great stands of virgin pine that once
defined the North Woods have been
replaced by essentially pure forests of
aspen and birch. And throughout the
state more than nine million acres of
wetlands have been lost to agriculture.
Examples of the above vegetation types
that still maintain their characteristic
natural features are now uncommon on
the Minnesota landscape.
Interest in protecting these natural
environments as part of the state's
historical and biological heritage began in
1891 when Itasca State Park was estab-
lished to preserve remnants of the
primeval pine forest. Today, public
resource agencies and private conserva-
tion organizations are cooperating to
establish a network of preserves that
represents Minnesota's extant natural
ecosystems.
Developing such a network depends on
accurate ecological information. Com-
prehensive data on the distribution and
status of intact biotic communities is now
being compiled by the Minnesota County
Biological Survey. Initiated in 1987, and
conducted in cooperation with the
Natural Heritage and Nongame Wildlife
Programs, the survey systematically
gathers, county -by -county, information
on Minnesota's rare natural habitats and
the plants and animals they shelter. ■
I •'
0
lk
IMINN NAN
v
t -C
��✓/ l �n .NS's �
0
Vegetation Types of the
i Prairie and Deciduous Forest
Upland Prairie—Bluestems, Indian Grass, Needle and
Grama grasses; Composites and other forts
Prairie Wetland—Bluejoint Grass, Cordgrass, Cattails,
Rushes, Sedges
Aspen Parkland—Aspen Groves with Prairie and Sedge
Meadow openings
Oak Woodland and Brushland—Bur Oak and Pin Oak,
Aspen and Hazel thickets, and Prairie openings
Floodplain Forest —Silver Maple, Elm, Cottonwood,
Willow
Maple -Basswood Forest—Elm, Basswood, Sugar
Maple, Red Oak, White Oak
Vegetation Types of the Conifer Forest
Northern Hardwood Forest—Sugar Maple, Yellow
Birch, Basswood, and occasional White Pine
Great Lakes Pine Forest—White Pine, Red Pine with
Paper Birch, and Aspen
Jack Pine Forest Jack Pine with Red Pine, Oak and
Hazel
Boreal Hardwood -Conifer Forest—Aspen, Birch,
Balsam Fir, White Spruce, White Cedar
Peatland--Sedge Fen, Black Spruce -Sphagnum Bog,
White Cedar -Black Ash Swamp
0 20 40
I I I miles
IF I�I I km
0 20 40 60
The Natural Vegetation of Minnesota at the Time of the Public Land Survey: 1847-1907
This map was adapted by Barbara Coffin of the DNR, Natural Heritage Program from The Original Vegetation of Minnesota, a map
mpiled in 1930 by F. J. Marschner from the U. S. General Land Office Survey Notes and published in 1974 under the direction of
A L. Heinselman of the U. S. Forest Service. It was produced by the Cartography Laboratory of the Department of Geography,
University of Minnesota.
Published by the Natural Heritage Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 19880
Ln
o p acs° o
'° >_
o �-�
00 0
4.s
0a
W
CD
a.�C`Q
0
'CDDon
0
° o "
CDCD
O�
CD
� y O
�-
•,
.,
C
a*
eD
r o
tr1
0 tTjCD
,
00
O vn A
D+
p
a
�
O p
c CD p A<
aOro
`<
CD °
CI.
•O
CD
0
a
SID
CD CD
ID
►� CD
I'D
=
Sao
w
040
&0
C
i
CD CD
o bAD
CDW
°
r. o o
'o
...
° C9 � 0
...
�ii
o°
p A
ACD
o
C7
(D A�
CIOM ... �. .�
CDD A
A
L b°
F
A
CD
� �
a
�
p-
n
a s �'
o
I; CD
� �'
a
N• 0
o 0
0<
N
CD
cnA
QO
°
CD'�
.�D�
.
°'°
°
O A n
W
n
°
S °
0 CD
CD
N C
C
CDD CD
�
w C
(0)O O O
ooro n
00CD
O
o
S
CD
o
CD CD
GCDCD
CD
CD
CD
CD
F
Po
CD
o�.
o° ru
o
° CD
CDA, �. a
�o
0
CD CD
CD
0
CD
CD
CD,
CD
CD O
„o
N
C.
N Q. —N
0
CD
Cro• :�
u_Q
N
O
'Cy
,y
C CD <
0 (D
b
°
..R CD
N A�
A
<
W. VQ ty
fD �C
`tz
,W..
C
<D
CD
CD
0 10
CD
'
-
o p
n 0Oo,<CD.,
w
o
ftrjQ
0
CD
0
0 ,�
a
Ln
o p acs° o
'° >_
o �-�
00 0
4.s
0a
W
CD
a.�C`Q
0
'CDDon
0
° o "
CDCD
O�
CD
� y O
�
CD
O w �r
C
CD
O
aro
0 CDN
A �} .'3.. ,"Y
D+
a
�
O p
c CD p A<
aOro
`<
CD °
CI.
•O
CD
0
a
SID
CD CD
ID
►� CD
I'D
=
Sao
w
040
&0
C
i
CD CD
o bAD
CDW
UQ
CD CD
y
° C9 � 0
CD uo
�ii
CD
... A O O
co
tD
C7
(D A�
CIOM ... �. .�
CDD A
A
L b°
A
� �
a
�
I; CD
� �'
a
° Q
N
CD
cnA
CCD
AD A °.
�.
.�D�
.
CD
O A n
W
n
°
S °
0 CD
CD
N C
w C
(0)O O O
ooro n
00CD
O
Cr
m
r+
O
_.0
r+
❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b
A C sv
CD CD CD
o ...
N p p C
°� t p C R A pi CDD C,N n w
A n a o
mr
C1 p A N _ CD
.b UO C ".SR N L= `C O O
.. O
CD
rA
F.zs
N CD N CD �. O a• R° A A fD
t4liacs o• !. p= o o IT CD
Z o CD
UQ 10
arA Ln0 0 00 0
°= o ?* -- i o o
a a0 CD
0 0 � .0^.. 5, �. cADCD
• D CD ��n �
0 n O IDCD
O R O N
p� CD
..•
CND
O
o too
00 0
4.s
0a
W
CD
a.�C`Q
0
onO
CD
° o "
CDCD
..
� y O
�
CD
�• O
--
aro
CD CDCDO
a
�
Q-
y
Q
aOro
`<
CD °
O 0D
O
0
a
C
mCD
o
O
►� CD
I'D
a�
C
i
CD CD
rA 0
UQ
O
UQ
00
CD
a
A
Cr
m
r+
O
_.0
r+
❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b
A C sv
CD CD CD
o ...
N p p C
°� t p C R A pi CDD C,N n w
A n a o
mr
C1 p A N _ CD
.b UO C ".SR N L= `C O O
.. O
CD
rA
F.zs
N CD N CD �. O a• R° A A fD
t4liacs o• !. p= o o IT CD
Z o CD
UQ 10
arA Ln0 0 00 0
°= o ?* -- i o o
a a0 CD
0 0 � .0^.. 5, �. cADCD
• D CD ��n �
0 n O IDCD
O R O N
p� CD
..•
CND
O
D
•
JAL
a
O
w
00
;J
m
rz
1010
a°.�oc�a,
to7E
Z
z
L
•�
co)
:.f
a
_Q
_�
�' r•M
'ti
CQ
0
0
_12
o
o��aui
_
onas
CJ
JAL