Pictures of a win/lose situation

UPDATE: (Summer 2017)

Rats.  Back in business.  Roll to the bottom of this post for a description of the Army Corps of Engineers 40-year plan to haul dredge-sand in trucks through our river towns and dump it on prime farmland.  Our latest sand-in-trucks puzzler.

UPDATE: (Spring 2016)

Sand-mine fever is abating here in Buffalo County, mostly due to the prices of oil, gas and thus frac sand — coupled with a lack of local rail lines.  A sand mine that doesn’t have a rail spur into the mine has always been at a huge competitive disadvantage.  That problem was masked by extremely high prices during the early years of the sand boom.  But since the boom has ended, the only mines that stand a chance of surviving the cost pressure are the ones that have direct rail access.

Original version of this post: (2010 through 2016):

Buffalo County (like many others in this region) is locked in a win/lose battle where either mining interests are going to win or the people who oppose them will win.  As long as we continue to frame the discussion the way we have, somebody has to lose.

Here are three maps to describe what is happening.  I used to lobby that we should try to figure out a way to turn this into a win/win conversation where opportunities and way of life are preserved for all of us rather than those of us who win.  I’ve given up on that, and now focus on supporting county and region-wide efforts to stop these projects.  I still believe there’s a path to win/win but the miners aren’t listening.

Our county: Divided by incompatible land-uses

In the southeastern two thirds of the county lies the unique river and coulee country (a part of the unique and fragile “Driftless Area” habitat) where the focus is on recreation and tourism.  In the northeast are the rolling sand hills that actually extend across much of central Wisconsin all the way up into the northwestern lakes region where the economic emphasis is more on agriculture and small industry.

_____

A bad idea: Turning the Coulee Country into a transportation corridor

This is a representation of the situation that will develop as sand trucks from mining sites are routed through the Driftless Area Coulee Country on their way to destinations in Minnesota.  This is a classic “win/lose” situation where one side will prevail at the expense of the other.

Each side of this win/lose conversation is afraid of losing the battle.  That fear is turning into anger, the anger has split our communities.  This, in my view, is a Bad Thing.

Many of the mines depicted in this drawing have been denied or are being opposed in court.  And the two Minnesota loading destinations are at capacity and no longer accepting additional traffic.  This, in my view, is a Good Thing.

_____

A really bad idea: Turning the Coulee Country into a transportation hub

But the stakes in the win/lose conversation get even higher if the Driftless Area Coulee Country becomes a transportation hub.  Permits have been repeatedly sought to build a rail spur and frac sand loading facility at the intersection of Wisconsin highways 88 and 35.  If that (or a similar) facility gets built along the Great River Road we not only become the transit provider for local sand, but regional sand will start flowing into the county as well.  Winona’s processing facility has been closed to Wisconsin sand trucks, with Wabasha probably not far behind.  What happens to the Coulee Country in a scenario like this?  It’s not surprising that people are frightened.

Two separate attempts to build this facility have been turned back through concerted community effort.  Over 2500 people participated directly or indirectly in the latest round.  This, in my view, is a Good Thing.

Yet another really bad idea: Turning the Coulee Region into a transportation corridor and dredge sand dump

The Corps of Engineers has come up with a plan that will transform three pieces of prime farmland into dredge-sand dumps and transport the sand to those dumps with trucks through the three river towns that surround Pool 4 of the Mississippi River.  The most-recent posts are about this issue.

 

 

Posted in General | Comments Off on Pictures of a win/lose situation

Comments – Submitted June 23rd, 2017

This is the series of slides that I submitted as my testimony today.  My goal was to pose questions that the Corps could consider and respond to.  Click on the slides for bigger versions.

Since the deadline has been extended, feel free to steal any of these ideas and use them in your own testimony.

Slide 1 — you’ll see in later slides that I’ve revised my calculation for truck trips after a phone conversation I had with folks at the Corps.  I realized afterward that there’s still a puzzler because during the phone call they said that all the dredge sand is either going to the Carrel’s site or the Alma Marina site, depending on which half of the pool the sand comes from.  So I’m wondering how much sand actually goes through the Southside Fitzgerald location.

Slide 2 — the big news on this slide is that the Corps is also working on a plan for Pool 5 and there may be more sand moving to shore around Buffalo City.  Buffalo City folks will want to keep an eye out when that plan is published.  I have a few questions here that you may want to ask too.

Slide 3 — Nelson folks will want to pay attention to this one.  During the phone conversation the Corps mentioned that the sand headed for Weisenbeck (and thus, through Nelson) will be hauled one year out of four.  More on that in later slides, but again the Southside Fitzgerald route puzzled me.

Slide 4 — The Corps mentioned that there will be an operational plan that is where questions of hauling and scheduling will be resolved.  This slide captures some of the highlights of that conversation (especially the possibility that it may be possible to schedule Alma to Flury hauling in a way that avoids the peak tourism months in Alma).

Slide 5 — the Corps folks and I agreed that my original calculations, based on averages of averages weren’t really much use in predicting truck trips through towns.  These next few slides are hopefully a better approximation.  This one is the same as my last attempt — but I left the phone conversation with a couple unanswered questions.

Slide 6 — this is a new analysis, based on dredging production estimates rather than storage location capacity.  I like this approach better.  I have a few questions about how Beef Slough sand is handled.

Slide 7 — Here’s the payday slide.  Given my better understanding of what’s going to happen, Nelson is going to have a “burst” of heavy truck traffic one year in four, Alma and Wabasha are going to have roughly the same annual traffic as my last analysis.  Again, a few new questions came to me.

Slide 8 — now it’s time to step back and spend a couple slides on broader issues.  This one is about the 40-year planning time horizon which seems awfully long to me.

Slide 9 — final slide.  I, like many, wonder whether the Corps is really looking broadly enough at the true value of the sand that they’re processing.

 

 

Posted in General | Comments Off on Comments – Submitted June 23rd, 2017

Dredge sand: Nelson Public Meeting

The Buffalo County Board of Supervisors held a special meeting in Nelson last night to take testimony about the Corps of Engineers dredge-sand proposal for our area.  I recorded the meeting (all 3 hours and 13 minutes of it) and you can listen to the recording by clicking HERE.

I took a couple pictures about 10 minutes before the meeting started.  It was a standing-room only crowd by the end.

 

Posted in General | Comments Off on Dredge sand: Nelson Public Meeting

Dredge sand disposal in Buffalo County – proposal highlights

UPDATE:  There’s a special meeting of the Buffalo County Board on Tuesday, June 6th at 7pm in the Nelson Community Hall (S105 N Main Street, Nelson, WI 54756) to discuss this plan.  Representatives from the COE will be there.

UPDATE:  I’ve revised and corrected the slides in this post in anticipation of the meeting.  Click HERE to download the updated slides in PDF format.  Especially aimed at those of you planning to attend the public hearing in Nelson.

UPDATE:  I’ve revised this post to stitch in the new version of the slides

The Army Corps of Engineers has released a report describing their proposed 40-year plan for disposing of dredge sand in our area.

Here’s a link to the planning document.

Lower Pool 4 Dredged Material Management Plan

Note that public comments are due by June 9th  [UPDATE] June 23rd.  Instructions for submitting them are on the site as well.

I decided to focus on truck trips through our one-street river towns.  I want to be clear, there are other issues with this study (e.g. the unsustainable model of converting farm land into dumps for river sand — 200 years of that and we’ll look like the Sahara Desert around here) but I’m leaving those conversations to others.  Truck trips, that’s my bag.  This report was confusing me, so I made some pictures to understand it better.  I’m hoping they will help you too.

This first one summarizes the dredging activity in Pool 4 — which is the focus of this plan.  I’ve added little boxes that show where the dredging locations on the river, how much sand they typically produce every year and how often that sand is hauled from the pile of sand on shore to a storage location.

Note my questions.  This report has a lot of holes in it, so I can’t trace where the sand goes from end to end, nor can I tell how often those projects happen.  The questions down the side are partly documenting those puzzlers as I encountered them and partly advocating things to do.

As with all these slides, click on it to get a full-sized version.

The next slide is my attempt to create a similar picture for the pool to the south — but that information isn’t in the report.  I’m very interested in promoting and protecting the Great River Road and wanted to see a traffic impact study of the trips through Alma.  But the scope of this study is only Pool 4, not Pool 5 and so they didn’t develop a lot of the activity information shown in the first map.  I gently disagree with that approach, since that information is really important to evaluate what happens to Alma and the Great River Road.

This slide highlight the haul routes proposed/preferred to move sand in and around Pool 4.  They’re pretty well documented in the report, but the information is scattered and I just pull it together.  Note that I think there’s an error, however.

Here’s a slide to document my conclusion that they got the distance between Alma Marina and the Weisenbeck farm wrong.  It’s a pretty substantial difference, but as far as I can tell I don’t think they’re planning to use that route much.  Unfortunately there are inconsistencies in the report — some places state that sand will only go south out of Alma Marina, other places state it will go both ways.  And sketchy documentation of frequency and volume.

This second haul-route slide creates information by guessing a few things, because this route is not as well documented in the report (especially painful is the lack of a Traffic Impact Study).  This is my best guess, given what’s there.

The next series of slides is trying to arrive at the answer to my main question — which is “how many truck trips and when will they happen?”  As you’ll see, the methodology used in the study makes this question impossible to answer accurately.  The best I can do is to document yearly averages, which isn’t satisfactory because it’s possible that a town will see huge swings from year to year.

Unfortunately the report splits the analysis between total production and destination-capacity in a way that contributes to the difficulty in arriving at an accurate projection of traffic on routes.  And the numbers are also spread throughout the report.  Here is where we start.

Here’s a discussion of our old friends “loads” and “trips” which I stuck in because there’s an error in the report that confuses those two terms and I wanted to make sure that their “90 seconds between trucks” estimate was right.  It is.

Here is my calculation of the total trips per year (by looking at the amount that will get hauled in an average year, the capacities of the trucks and where the sand is going).  Note that top table of numbers is based on estimates of annual production but the trips are spread across the locations based on location capacity.  I’m not happy using two different measures, but that’s the way the report did it.  Again, these numbers are averages and will vary wildly from year to year depending on where dredging needs to be done.

I’ve color-coded the numbers to point out the difference the size of the trucks makes in number of trips.  This will matter to the people along the haul routes.

This slide documents how many of trucking-days a given town is going to experience.  This is where things really start to get shaky, because of the heavy use of averages in the report.  The reality in a given town will differ wildly from these numbers in any given year, because of the way the Corps of Engineers schedules and manages their work.  So these numbers should be treated with great skepticism.  Note: Wabasha has three haul routes which run through it, that’s why the three numbers are added together.

And finally, here’s my rant.  After spending all that time digging pieces of information out of various places in the report, I realized that I was producing bogus conclusions about traffic volume and making this plan sound more manageable than it really is.  In reality, the Corps makes absolutely no promises about the maximum number of truck trips through a town, or when those trips will happen.  So businesses along the route are at risk of very unpleasant surprises all summer.

 

 

 

 

Posted in General | Comments Off on Dredge sand disposal in Buffalo County – proposal highlights

Mike O’Connor testimony opposing the Breezy Point mine

Here’s a slide deck that I just submitted to the Board of Adjustment when they consider the Breezy Point mine.  The engineer that designed the reclamation plan did some interesting stuff when they did their drawings.  I rearrange them a bit and comment…

Slide1


 

Slide2


 

Slide3


 

Slide4


 

Slide5


 

Slide6


 

Slide7


 

Slide8

 

 

Posted in General | Comments Off on Mike O’Connor testimony opposing the Breezy Point mine

UPDATED: Breezy Point Reclamation Plan

Updated October 28th, 2015:  The County has issued the reclamation plan for the Breezy Point mine.  Click HERE to read it — pay special attention to the conditions that they have specified.

… and here’s the memo I wrote requesting that they deny the permit.  All of the slope issues that I’m complaining about still exist, so we still have some work to do peepul.

PETITION TO DENY MEMO

To:    Brooke Muhlack – Buffalo County, Land Conservation Director

CC:     Douglas Kane – County Board, Chair
Nettie Rosenow – County Board, Land Conservation Committee Chair
Sonya Hansen – County Administrative Coordinator

From:    Marcie and Mike O’Connor

Re:    Breezy Point Mine Reclamation Plan – petition to deny

Date:    August 14, 2015

There is a fundamental and substantive error in the analysis that underlies the reclamation plan proposed for the Breezy Point mine.  The first part of this memo will demonstrate this error and explain why the plan as written must be rejected.

We follow that analysis with detailed comments describing additional deficiencies in the plan. At no time should these comments be viewed as support for the CUP Application (which is included in the reclamation plan by attachment).

Replacing 30 acres of rare Driftless Area bluff-prairie and oak-savanna habitat with low-diversity prairie plantings described as a “bluff trail” that will not be visible to anyone except the property owners is completely incompatible with surrounding land use and should not be permitted.  In addition, this plan proposes at least 1.25 miles of sheer 100+ foot rock faces in the Steep Soils district that will be visible for miles.

Respectfully submitted,

Marcie and Mike O’Connor

 

Petition to deny the Breezy Point reclamation plan

The reclamation plan provides drawings that imply that the vertical rock faces behind the trail will total no more than 50 feet – a 35-foot lower section and a 15-foot section that is set back by 15 feet.

The following diagrams demonstrate that this is an error and show that the vertical rock faces will more than likely range from 70 to 130 feet high or more, depending on trail width and terrain.  We presume this is merely a mistake on the part of the consultants preparing the plan and not a deliberate attempt to mislead county citizens and decision makers.

Here is the fundamental error.  Trail designers did not account for the actual contour of the land when describing the rock face.  Rather, they shifted that contour back so that in all cases the height of the rock face is the same 35 plus 15 feet.  We used basic trigonometry to demonstrate that error on the following pages.

An additional error compounds the first.  Trail designers used a constant 28% grade to describe the underlying terrain.  This is wrong in two ways.  A 28% grade is more typical on the “high side” of pastures in the centers of Driftless Area valleys as we will demonstrate with pictures of a pasture from our farm.  Secondly, the contours of the land are not a constant slope.  Slopes generally increase closer to the ridge-tops where mining will take place.

The final error is the presumption that sheer vertical rock-faces can be successfully planted.  We will use pictures of a very small rock face on our property to demonstrate that plants don’t grow in vertical bare rock; they grow in horizontal terraces, nooks and crannies.  Yet this design specifies two sheer vertical rock faces, with no slope whatsoever, behind the mined area.

Taken together, this means that the rock face will be much higher than is implied, and it will be bare.  For this reason, the plan must be denied and these errors corrected before proceeding with the application process.

We request a written justification from the Land Conservation office if this reclamation is approved as drafted.

Slide1————————–

Slide2———————————

Slide3——————————————Slide4———————————

Slide5—————————————–

Slide6—————————————

Slide7

 Detailed commentary on the Breezy Point reclamation plan

Financial Assurance

The reclamation plan states on Page 1, “the current and projected price of the sand beneath the mined area makes this project possible.”   We suggest that those words may have been written some time ago.  The need for proper financial assurances for this project is crucial and that without them, there is substantial risk that this plan will not be completed.

Most of the permitted frac sand mines in Buffalo County are either in bankruptcy or shut down, primarily due to the fact that there is no market for commodity sand that carries a substantial non value added trucking cost penalty.  Buffalo County citizens and residents are already facing the prospect of unreclaimed mines.

The most recent example is the Bechel mine in Pepin County, which recently closed and left the township with a crushing financial burden.

Given the high probability that this mine will also fail financially, the financial assurances for this project need to be ironclad and funded up front.  “Pay as you go” financial-assurance instruments, as provided for by DNR regulations, must not be allowed.

Project Goals

The application also states on Page 1 that the goal is to “restore the terrace to pre-settlement vegetation consisting primarily of dry prairie species, oak openings, and wet- and dry-cliff plantings.”

Change the goal of restoration from “pre-settlement vegetation” to “pre-settlement habitat.”  Pre-settlement vegetation can be accomplished by simply planting a small number of species that were here in pre-settlement times.  By changing the focus to “habitat”, we recognize that the goal is to reconstruct a rare ecosystem that has been destroyed.

A list of existing (pre-restoration) species that have been identified in the bluff prairies and savannas of our nearby farm is included in Appendix A.  It is very likely that a survey of the Breezy Point site would find many, if not all, of these species in the degraded savanna that is being proposed for mining.

Appendix B is a much more representative sampling of the DNR “Wisconsin Natural Heritage Working List” than the one provided by the applicant.  Note that we have found many of those species on our farm a few miles away.  Also note that we have found those species in places very similar to the ones that are proposed for destruction by this mining project.

Once again, note that the applicant proposes to destroy rare, unique, diverse habitat that may support well over 100 species of plants and the soil that underlies them.  This is why we request changing the project goal from merely planting a few plants that existed here to attempting to restore a diverse habitat that roughly approximates that which is being destroyed.

Project Methods

These comments are derived from lessons we’ve learned from the 500-acre native habitat restoration and reconstruction project we are doing on our nearby farm.  Our land shares many of the same featuresof the land that is being proposed for mining – degraded savanna woodlands, bluff prairie points, wetlands, etc.

While these suggestions will not result in habitat quality comparable to that which is being destroyed, the result will at least be better than the office-park landscaping that is being proposed.

Increase the diversity and density of the plantings to improve the probability of establishing the plant species that are found in comparable environments in the county.  

The reclamation plan specifies mixes according to NRCS Critical Planting Code 342 and Wisconsin Agronomy Technical note 5.  These mixes are in no way representative of the habitat that is being destroyed by mining Driftless Area bluff prairies and savannas found in Buffalo County.

Appendix 3 is an example of the seed mix we used when “reconstructing” prairies by planting into old crop fields.  Here is a photo of the field that was planted using this mix – 8 years after planting.  Note that while there are many prairie plants, there are still invasive plants that we need to manage.

IMG_3476 copy

Specific recommendations on seed mix:

–    Increase the density of plantings from 60 seeds per square foot to a minimum of 80 seeds per square foot.  100-120 seeds per square foot would be preferable given the budget resources available.

–    Increase the seeds-per-square-foot ratio of forbs to grass

o    Current plan:  equal number forbs and grass per square foot
o    Recommended: 75 forbs seeds per square foot, 15 grass seeds per square foot

Heavy-grass mixes like the one proposed will result in a prairie with very few forbs because the grasses are more aggressive and will crowd out the slower-developing forbs.

–    Increase the pounds-per-acres ratio of grass seeds to forbs seeds in the mix

o    Current Plan: 80% grass to 20% forbs by weight
o    Recommended:  50% grass to 50% forbs by weight

Again, roadside and office-park erosion-control plantings that are heavy on grass are a fine thing.  But Buffalo County savannas are known for the predominance of forbs and the mix that is proposed in no way resembles the diversity of the plants being destroyed.

–    Increase the number of species being planted from the proposed 20-25 to 80-100 (as seen in our mix)

–    Increase the number of forbs species being planted, again along the lines of the mix that we used on this prairie.

–    Use local seeds (originating no more than 75 miles from the site, preferably within 25 miles of the site).

Cliff Face

Cliff face

The high wall must be graded and terraced, rather than vertical, in order to provide footholds for plantings.

We planted this 30-foot high post construction cliff-face about 15 years ago on our property.  Note that the vertical portions of the cliff are still bare after all that time.  This is why the proposal to leave a sheer vertical high wall behind the mined area is unacceptable.  A 1.25-mile long vertical bare-rock scar on the landscape, visible for miles around, will never heal no matter how many seeds are planted on it.

The high wall must have slope and terraces where cliff-plantings can take hold.  This photo shows that the vast majority of the plants are finding flat places to take root.

Top Soil

Do not use topsoil in areas of native plantings.  The proposed reclamation plan mentions that topsoil that is removed during mining operations will not be used in areas of native plantings.  We commend this approach.  The degraded savanna soil now has a large seed bank of invasive species that will completely dominate the plantings if used in native-habitat restoration areas.  This is exacerbated because the soil will be radically disturbed, which encourages the growth of weeds.

Using this disturbed soil as the basis for native plantings will dramatically reduce the quality of the restoration and increase the difficulty of controlling invasive plants to near impossible.  Rather, use removed topsoil in other areas of the restoration and use near-sterile overburden and non-specification sand for the native-habitat restoration area.

Invasive Species Control

Dramatically extend the period of invasive-species control.  A minimum of 10 years should be required, 15 is preferred, in order for native species to be able to withstand encroachment by invaders.  Provide resources for periodic review and repair for an additional 5 to 15 years.

Specify A Qualified Contractor To Do the Restoration

An independent contractor, with a proven track record of native habitat restoration, should be hired to perform the restoration.  Prairie Restorations (http://www.prairieresto.com/) is an example of such a company.  Native habitat restoration is a skill claimed by many and mastered by few — thus the need for a proven record of accomplishment of success at such restorations.

Annual Review and Course-Correction

Specify that an annual audit of restoration activities be performed by independent organization (not the mine operator, nor the restoration contractor) and that the recommendations made during this audit are binding on the operator and the contractor.  

 

Appendix 1 – Existing Prairie and Savanna Species Observed on the O’Connor Farm

Agalinis aspera      Rough False Foxglove
Amelanchier laevis      Smooth Serviceberry
Amorpha canescens      Leadplant
Andropogon gerardii      Big Bluestem
Anemone cylindrica      Thimbleweed
Anemone quinquefolia      Wood Anemone
Anemone virginiana      Tall Thimbleweed
Antennaria neglecta      Field Pussytoes
Antennaria plantaginifolia      Plantain-leaved Pussytoes
Apocynum androsaemifolium      Dogbane
Apocynum cannabinum      Indian Hemp
Aquilegia canadensis      Wild Columbine
Arabis lyrata      Sand Cress
Artemisia campestris      Wormwood
Asplenium platyneuron      Ebony Spleenwort
Asclepias exaltata      Poke Milkweed
Asclepias syriaca      Common Milkweed
Asclepias tuberosa      Butterfly Milkweed
Asclepias verticillata      Whorled Milkweed
Asclepias viridiflora      Green-flowered Milkweed
Aster ericoides      Heath Aster
Aster laevis      Smooth Aster
Aster lateriflorus      Calico Aster
Aster oblongifolius      Aromatic Aster
Aster oolentangiensis      Sky-blue Aster
Aster sagittifolius      Arrow-leaved Aster
Aster sericeus      Silky Aster
Astragalus canadensis      Canada Milk-vetch
Botrychium dissectum      Dissected Grape-fern
Bouteloua curtipendula      Side-oats Grama
Bouteloua hirsuta      Hairy Grama
Bromus kalmii      Prairie Brome
Bromus latiglumis      Ear-leafed Brome
Calystegia spithamaea      Low Bindweed
Campanula rotundifolia      Harebell
Carex pensylvanica      Pennsylvania Sedge
Castilleja sessiliflora      Downy Yellow Painted Cup
Ceanothus americana      New Jersey Tea
Cirsium altissimum      Tall Thistle
Cirsium discolor      Field Thistle
Commandra umbellata      Bastard Toadflax
Corallorhiza odontorhiza      Autumn Coralroot
Coreopsis palmata      Prairie Coreopsis
Crataegus sp.      Hawthorn
Cypripedium parviflorum      Yellow Lady’s Slipper
Dalea purpurea      Purple Prairie Clover
Desmodium canadense      Showy Tick-trefoil
Elymus canadensis      Wild Rye
Elymus hystrix      Bottlebrush Grass
Elymus trachycaulus      Slender Wheat Grass
Eragrostis spectabilis      Purple Lovegrass
Erigeron pulchellus      Robin’s Plantain
Eupatorium purpureum      Purple Joe-pye Weed
Euphorbia corollata      Flowering Spurge
Fragaria virginiana      Wild Strawberry
Gallium boreale      Northern Bedstraw
Gentiana alba      Cream Gentian
Gentiana quinquefolia      Stiff Gentian
Geranium maculatum      Wild Geranium
Geum aleppicum      Yellow Avens
Geum canadense      White Avens
Geum triflorum      Prairie Smoke
Gnaphalium obtusifolium      Sweet Everlasting
Hedeoma hispida      Rough Pennyroyal
Helianthemum bicknellii      Hoary Frostweed
Helianthus occidentalis      Western Sunflower
Heliopsis helianthoides      False Sunflower
Heuchera richardsonii      Prairie Alumroot
Hieracium kalmii      Canada Hawkweed
Hieracium scabrum      Rough Hawkweed
Hypericum pyramidatum      Great St. John’s Wort
Hypoxis hirsuta      Yellow Star Grass
Krigia biflora      False Dandelion
Kuhnia eupatorioides      False Boneset
Lathyrus venosus      Veiny Pea
Lechea intermedia      Pinweed
Lechea stricta      Prairie Pinweed
Lespedeza capitata      Round-headed Bush Clover
Liatris aspera      Rough Blazing Star
Liatris cylindracea      Cylindrical Blazing Star
Linum sulcatum      Yellow Flax
Lithospermum canescens      Hoary Puccoon
Lithospermum incisum      Fringed Puccoon
Lobelia spicata      Spiked Lobelia
Monarda fistulosa      Monarda
Muhlenbergia cuspidata      Prairie Satin Grass
Muhlenbergia racemosa      Upland Wild Timothy
Oenothera biennis      Evening Primrose
Oxalis violacea      Violet Wood-sorrel
Packera paupercula      Balsam Ragwort
Panicum oligosanthes      Few-flowered Panic Grass
Pedicularis canadensis      Wood Betony
Physalis heterophylla      Clammy Ground Cherry
Physalis virginiana      Virginia Ground Cherry
Polemonium reptans      Jacob’s Ladder
Polygala sanguinea      Field Milkwort
Polygala polygama      Purple Milkwort
Polygala verticillata      Whorled Milkwort
Potentilla arguta      Prairie Cinquefoil
Prenanthes alba      Lion’s Foot
Prunus americana      Wild Plum
Prunus pumila      Sand cherry
Pycnanthemum virginianum      Mountain Mint
Ratibida pinnata      Yellow Coneflower
Rosa sp.      Wild Rose
Schizachyrium scoparium      Little Bluestem
Scrophularia lanceolata      Figwort
Sisyrinchium campestre      Blue-eyed Grass
Solidago flexicaulis      Zig-zag Goldenrod
Solidago missouriensis      Missouri Goldenrod
Solidago nemoralis      Gray Goldenrod
Solidago ptarmicoides      White Goldenrod
Solidago rigida      Stiff Goldenrod
Solidago speciosa      Showy Goldenrod
Solidago ulmifolia      Elm-leaved Goldenrod
Sorghastrum nutans      Indian Grass
Spiranthes magnicamporum      Great Plains Lady’s Tresses
Sporobolus heterolepis      Prairie Dropseed
Stipa spartea      Needle Grass
Taenidia integerrima      Yellow Pimpernel
Thalictrum thalictroides      Rue Anemone
Tradescantia ohiensis      Common Spiderwort
Veronicastrum virginicum      Culver’s Root
Viola x palmata      Early Blue Violet
Viola pedata      Birds Foot Violet
Viola pedatifida      Prairie Violet
Viola pubescens      Yellow Violet
Zigadenus elegans      White Camas
Zizia aurea      Golden Alexanders

 

Appendix 2 – Rare Plants and Animals Found in Prairies and Savannas of Western Wisconsin (Wisconsin Natural Heritage Working List and Watch List)

These are species found in prairies and savannas of western Wisconsin, that are included by the Wisconsin DNR in the Wisconsin Natural Heritage Working List – a list of species known or suspected to be rare in the state.

The DNR Natural Heritage Inventory also has a watch list – of species they’re concerned about that have experienced a decline numbers either in the state or in their entire range.

Amphibians & Reptiles

Pickerel Frog –Special Concern
Timber Rattlesnake – Special Concern
Eastern Hog-nosed Snake – Watch List
Northern Leopard Frog –Watch List

Birds

Henslow’s Sparrow – Threatened
Yellow-breasted Chat – Special Concern
Grasshopper Sparrow – Watch List
Veery – Watch List
Black-billed Cuckoo – Watch List
Yellow-billed Cuckoo – Watch List
Bobolink – Watch List
Red-headed Woodpecker – Watch List
Vesper Sparrow – Watch List
Dickcissel – Watch List
Field Sparrow – Watch List
Eastern Meadowlark – Watch List
Blue-winged Warbler – Watch List

Butterflies & Moths

Ottoe Skipper – Endangered
Phlox Moth – Endangered
Juniper Hairstreak – Special Concern
Dusted Skipper – Special Concern
Gorgone Checkerspot – Special Concern
Columbine Duskywing – Special Concern
Leadplant Flower Moth – Special Concern
Pink Streak Moth – Watch List
Wild Indigo Duskywing – Watch List
Harvester – Watch List
Leonard’s Skipper – Watch List
Eyed Brown – Watch List
Cross-line Skipper – Watch List
Little Glassy-wing – Watch List
Hickory Hairstreak – Watch List

Plants

Dragon Wormwood – Special Concern
Kitten Tails – Threatened
Hill’s Thistle – Threatened
Arrowhead Rattlebox – Special Concern
Prairie Bush-clover – Endangered
Dotted Blazing Star – Endangered
Brittle Prickly-pear – Threatened
Clustered Broomrape – Threatened
One-flowered Broomrape – Special Concern
Prairie Ragwort – Special Concern
Prairie Fame-flower – Special Concern
Small Skullcap – Endangered
White Camas – Special Concern
Autumn Coral-root – Watch List
Solidago sciaphila – Watch List

 

Appendix 3 – Example prairie mix (showing both species diversity and seed density) from the O’Connor farm

[Deleted from the web version of this document — too dang hard to reformat.  Sorry about that.]

 

Posted in General | Comments Off on UPDATED: Breezy Point Reclamation Plan