65 10 1368 https://religionsmn.carleton.edu/files/original/abc4eeab66fc863cbd993c3f5f56ac71.jpg 7380d294202a49c90f81c783314bee89 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Pipestone Hiawatha Pageant Subject The topic of the resource Hiawatha Pageant Description An account of the resource Dramatic Final Scene from Pipestone Hiawatha Pageant, where hero Hiawatha departs towards the setting sun in an Enchanted Canoe, leaving his people in the hands of the "Black Robe" missionaries. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Pipestone Hiawatha Pageant Brochure Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Early 1960s Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource .jpg Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource Still Image Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Pipestone, MN Hiawatha Pageant Pipestone Pipestone National Monument https://religionsmn.carleton.edu/files/original/d05cd0c3407a19ab5b81d933119737e3.jpg 9904538c076dc0abcecd01e5dcf1f3f4 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Map of the 1851 Treaties with the Dakota Description An account of the resource Map showing the boundaries of the 1851 Treaty of Traverse des Sioux land cession area (Royce Area 289) Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Bureau of American Ethnology Indian Land Cessions series maps for Iowa, Minnesota and the Dakotas by Charles Royce. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Wikimedia Commons Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1851 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource CJLippert at English Wikipedia Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Public Domain Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Still Image Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource .jpg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context TraversedesSiouxTreaty1851_PK.jpg Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Minnesota Indian treaty NARF Sioux treaty https://religionsmn.carleton.edu/files/original/e9c41137443d321fc8245dd1b3a02c92.pdf 4ef8a6d2d2f94b7c297d2f2b246ed5ca PDF Text Text SECTION FIVE: PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN PARKS, OPEN SPACES, AND TRAILS PLAN The City of Mendota Heights enjoys a park, open space, and trail system with over 290 acres of City parkland and 21 miles of trails. The City also has Fort Snelling State Park, Big Rivers Regional Trail, North Urban Regional Trail (Mendota-Kaposia Trail), and other park facilities located within or near its boundaries. The park system is recognized as an important asset to the community because it provides opportunities for residents to relax, recreate, and enjoy nature, while also enhancing the physical landscape and improving property values. Previous Comprehensive Plans (1959 & 1979) and Park Plans (1971 & 1985) have guided the City in the development of its park system. As development has occurred, parkland has been dedicated to provide residents with recreational opportunities. Since the adoption of the 1979 Comprehensive Plan, the City has made improvements to all parks and has developed the following new parks: Copperfield Ponds, Hagstrom-King, Kensington, Mendakota, Sibley, Valley View Heights, and Victoria Highlands. The location of these new parks closely resemble Plan recommendations and reflect the City’s commitment to providing park services to all residents as opportunities arise. Not only has the City made improvements and developed new parks, it has also made efforts to retain existing open space. The City purchased the 17-acre Mendota Heights Par 3 Golf Course after the private owners proposed to develop the property into approximately 30 single family lots. The City also joined with other public entities and purchased the 25.5-acre Pilot Knob area, which will be retained as open space. The City of Mendota Heights currently has sufficient park acreage to serve its residents, although not all residents have equal access to those facilities. Future improvements will focus on updating existing facilities, adding trail facilities to neighborhoods that lack access to parks, and increasing the amount of open space. This may be accomplished through either park dedications or purchasing land. Trails are also an important component and focus of this plan because they connect neighborhoods to one another and the community to regional recreational opportunities. The Parks and Recreation Commission is an appointed citizen body responsible for evaluating park facility needs. The needs are determined based upon the adequacy and accessibility of existing facilities, the availability of a desired piece of land, and budget considerations. Recommendations are forwarded to the City Council during the City’s annual budget and Capital Improvements Program (CIP) process. City of Mendota Heights 2030 Comprehensive Plan 95 �SECTION FIVE: PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN RECREATION PROGRAMMING The City of Mendota Heights currently has one part-time recreation programmer. This person is responsible for coordinating adult and senior activities, non-athletic youth activities, and youth recreation activities not provided by the Mendota Heights Athletic Association (golf, tennis, fishing, etc). The Mendota Heights Athletic Association coordinates youth athletic activities within the City. GOALS AND POLICIES Goals: 1. To provide the optimum amount of active and passive open space for the enjoyment of all Mendota Heights residents. 2. To provide a park system that assures the quality of facilities will match residents’ desires and standards of living. 3. To use the park system as a means to enhance the environment of each neighborhood and the City as a whole. 4. To support the Dakota County 2030 Greenway Corridors Plan/Vision. Policies: 1. Encourage the preservation of open space by private property owners and the City. 2. Maximize the use of existing park facilities and consider establishment of additional facilities for all age groups when necessary, including facilities for the handicapped. 3. Explore new opportunities and continue to work cooperatively with School District #197, St. Thomas, Visitation, Fort Snelling State Park, and other entities to provide maximum recreational opportunities and avoid duplication of services. 4. Improve and expand bicycle and pedestrian connections to City parks and other community destinations. 5. Provide neighborhoods of the City with trails, open space, and quality park facilities and amenities. City of Mendota Heights 2030 Comprehensive Plan 96 �SECTION FIVE: PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN EXISTING CITY PARKS AND OPEN SPACES Mendota Heights now has 295.7 acres of City parks and open space. A brief discussion of the three types of parks that typically comprise a local park system is provided below. The descriptions and standards should serve as a guide. Other factors, such as proximity to regional or county parks, financing, or major trends in recreation, will also influence the evolution of the City’s park system. 1) Neighborhood Park Neighborhood parks are the basic unit of the park system and serve as the recreational and social focus of the neighborhood. They accommodate a wide variety of age and user groups, including children and adults. They create a sense of place by bringing together the unique character of the site with that of the neighborhood. Mendota Heights should seek to achieve a balance between active and passive neighborhood parks. Neighborhood parks range from 5-30 acres and serve a ½ mile area. Communities often will operate a joint neighborhood park with the school district and elementary schools. The City’s neighborhood parks include Friendly Hills, Hagstrom-King, Ivy Hills, Marie, Valley, Valley View Heights, Victoria Highlands, and Wentworth. 2) Community Park Community parks are designed to meet the recreational needs of several neighborhoods or larger segments of the community. They are intended for lit ballfields and larger athletic facilities or community gatherings. They can also be designed to preserve unique landscapes and open spaces. They serve a ½ mile to 5-mile radius. The City’s community parks include Kensington, Valley, Roger’s Lake, Mendakota, and Sibley Athletic Complex. 3) Natural Resource Area Natural resource areas are areas set aside to preserve significant or unique landscapes. They are often, but not always, properties unsuitable for development with steep slopes, drainageways, and ravines or wetlands. In addition, there may be locations where local tree protection, shoreland and critical area ordinances, or state and local wetland ordinances restrict development in some way. Natural Resource areas include Friendly Marsh, Copperfield Ponds, Valley Park, and Pilot Knob. The table on the following page identifies the City’s Parks and Open Spaces, their locations, and facilities offered: City of Mendota Heights 2030 Comprehensive Plan 97 �• • Toilet Portable Boats Bandshell Parking Skating Rink Hockey Rink Shelter(s) Picnic Area Equipment Play Volleyball Basketball Tennis Soccer Baseball Softball/ Trail Nature Area 4 C Court Civic Center Acres City of Mendota Heights Parks & Facilities • • • • • • Lexington & Hwy 110 Copperfield Ponds 24.9 •P • 15.5 •P • 33.4 •P • 9.6 •P • • • 9.3 •P • 14.6 •P • 6.2 •P • • • • East of Huber Dr at Cheyenne Ln Friendly Hills Park • •YO • •3 • • • • • •5 Pueblo Ln & Decorah Ln Friendly Marsh Park North of Cheyenne Ln & Apache St Hagstrom-King Park • •3 • Mendota Heights Rd, East of Huber Historic Pilot Knob 25.5 • Just off Mendota Bridge, Between Acacia Cem & TH 55 Ivy Hills Park • •YO • •3 • • • • • • • • •C • • Butler & Maple Park Dr Kensington Park •F •E Concord Wa, South of Mendota Heights Rd Marie Park • •3 • • • • • • • • • •E • •3 •4 • • •E • North of Marie Ave, Between Victoria & Lexington Mendakota Park 19.7 •Y • •C Dodd Rd & Mendakota Dr Roger's Lake Park 9.2 • • • • • Wagon Wheel Tr, East of I-35E Sibely Athletic Complex 11 • • •F •2 • •C Marie & Delaware Town Center 0.5 • • NE Corner Dodd Rd @ Hwy 110; within "The Village" Valley Park 94.4 • • • • •3 • •3 • •3 • • • • • • • • • Marie Ave, East of I-35E Valley View Heights 0.7 • 6.7 • • •YO • • •YO Cullen & Timmy Victoria Highlands Park Victoria Rd & Douglas RD Wentworth Park 10.5 •P • •3 • • • • • • Wentworth Ave, West of Dodd Rd Total 1. Sibley Athletic Complex is a joint use facility owned and operated by School District 197 (Additional fields not included in above table) 2. School District 197 maintains 12 tennis courts at Sibley High School. 295.7 3. Half-court only. 6. The city has no lighted ball fields. 4. Sand volleyball court – all others on grass. 7. All hockey rinks contain lights – rinks close at 10:00 p.m. 5. Paved rink for inline skating (summer). C. Comfort station – Permanent toilet facility – Open seasonally. E. Electrical service. F. Full size soccer field(s). O. Overlay. P. Pond/Natural areas. Y. Youth soccer fields. �SECTION FIVE: PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN EXISTING STATE, REGIONAL, AND PRIVATE PARKS AND OPEN SPACES There are also a number of regional, county and private facilities within or near the City’s borders. Fort Snelling State Park The largest park with 611 of its 2,642 acres located in the City. It provides outdoor recreation opportunities and natural resource conservation for the public and is considered part of the regional recreational open space system. Fort Snelling State Park is a recreational state park offering swimming, large group and family picnic grounds, a boat launch, interpretive center and historical areas, trails, and scenic overlooks. Most of the park’s active facilities are located on the Bloomington side of the River, requiring most Mendota Heights residents to drive or bike across the I-494, I-35E and Mendota bridges. The Mendota Heights portion of the park is left primarily as a natural area as it contains extensive floodplain marsh habitat. Facilities located in Mendota Heights support less intensive uses, such as biking, hiking, cross country skiing, and fishing. The Sibley and Faribault historic sites are also located on the Mendota Heights side of the River. Harriet Island-Lilydale Regional Park Located just north of Mendota Heights, this park is managed by the City of St. Paul. The lower portion of the park in the City of Lilydale is planned to remain passive open space. A beach and concessions area is planned, but highly unlikely due to wetland issues. The area also has a ramp for boat access to the River. A trail through the park, separate from the roadway, is planned to link St. Paul to the Big Rivers Regional Trail. Dodge Nature Center A 170-acre private facility dedicated to the restoration of native plant and animal communities. The nature preserve provides excellent educational programs and events. School District 197 The City and School District work cooperatively to provide for joint use of facilities and recreation programs within the community. Play equipment, two softball fields, soccer and T-ball are provided at the Mendota and Somerset Elementary Schools. Friendly Hills Middle School is utilized for soccer, two softball fields and fitness programs. Tennis, baseball, softball, track, football, lacrosse, and soccer are all accommodated at Sibley High School. Big Rivers Regional Trail Developed in 1996 by Dakota County along the old Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way, this trail enables residents to bike, walk, and roller blade along the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers. This trail serves as an important link to other communities and has greatly improved the awareness and accessibility of the River. City of Mendota Heights 2030 Comprehensive Plan 99 �SECTION FIVE: PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN North Urban Regional Trail (Mendota-Kaposia Trail) This trail serves as a link from Big Rivers Valley Park to West St. Paul and to South St. Paul. Other Private Facilities / Open Space: • Mendakota Country Club (18 hole private golf course) • Somerset Country Club (18 hole private golf course) • Acacia Park Cemetery • Resurrection Cemetery • St. Thomas Academy • Visitation School • St. Peter’s Cemetery • St. Peter’s Church Other Public Facilities / Open Space: • Mendota Heights Par 3 Golf Course (9 hole public golf course) City of Mendota Heights 2030 Comprehensive Plan 100 �SECTION FIVE: PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN REGIONAL PARK AND TRAIL NEEDS The Metropolitan Council’s 2030 Regional Parks Policy Plan is the metropolitan system plan for regional recreation open space with which local comprehensive plans must conform. Needs of the metropolitan region were identified, and changes have therefore been indicated that need to be implemented in order to meet the needs of the region. The following Regional Park System Plan considerations would specifically affect the City of Mendota Heights: 1. Dakota County North Urban Regional Trail – This trail is proposed to connect the Dakota County Mississippi River Regional Trail to the Big Rivers Regional Greenway in northern Dakota County. A master plan for the trail has been completed and a portion of the trail is complete on the east end. 2. Dakota North/South Regional Trail Search Area – This is a proposed regional trail that will connect the “Empire Wetlands” Regional Park to the proposed Chub Lake Regional Park, the proposed Dakota South Cannon River Regional Trail, and Lake Byllesby Regional Park. The regional trail does not have an approved master plan yet. Dakota County will conduct a master planning process in the future to determine the trail alignment. LOCAL PARK and TRAIL NEEDS Parks City park needs can be determined by evaluating the number, size, and accessibility of parks. It is often recommended a park system contain 25 acres of park for each 1,000 population, which is equal to 1,089 square feet per person. To meet this standard, the City would need to provide 302.5 acres of parkland (based on the projected year 2030 population of 12,100 persons when fully developed). The City currently has 295.7 acres of parkland and open space, and essentially meets the standard. Some additional parkland may be obtained as the few remaining larger parcels develop. It is also important to evaluate residents’ access to parks. Residents are typically willing to walk ¼ to ½ mile to reach a neighborhood park. Major roads, wetlands, drainageways, and bodies of water also restrict access. The Park and Trails Plan Map identifies the existing parks, open spaces, nature preserves, cemeteries, and golf courses within the City. The following three areas of the City are under served by the City’s park system: 1. North of Somerset Country Club and east of Dodd Road. This neighborhood is lacking a City Park facility. However, most of these residents are within walking distance of Cherokee Regional Park in West St. Paul. City of Mendota Heights 2030 Comprehensive Plan 101 �SECTION FIVE: PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN 2. North of Highway 110, east of Dodd Road and south of Wentworth Avenue (Somerset). Although the Sibley Athletic Complex is located in this area, it does not serve a neighborhood function. A new neighborhood park should be considered as some of the larger lots re-subdivide. 3. North of Highway 110 and west of Lexington Avenue, there is a ball field at the Civic Center site. Marie Park is the nearest permanent park facility (aside from the aforementioned ball field) and for many residents is more than ½ mile away on the other side of Lexington Avenue. There are limited opportunities for a larger neighborhood park because the area is nearly fully developed. However, a mini-neighborhood park should be developed to serve the residents. The City has identified several sites for additional park, open space, or trail connecting segments. The sites are identified as follows: Areas of Interest: • • • • • Resurrection Cemetery “Break-Off” area Visitation School property St. Thomas property off Mendota Heights Road Foss homestead by Wentworth Park Somerset area Mendota Heights will pursue additional park, open space land, and trail connections to the extent it becomes available and is within the resources of the City. Trails Trails for biking, walking, and roller blading have become very popular in recent years. Twenty-one (21) miles of trails currently extend through portions of the City’s neighborhoods. These trails are both off- and on-road and serve as important connections for recreational opportunities and travel. Improved trail connections are important because many residential areas are divided by highways and arterial roads. The recent construction of the Big Rivers Regional Trail along the Minnesota River and the trail connection to the I-35E Bridge trailway have also heightened the awareness and demand for improved access to the river valley. Access to the Big Rivers Regional Trail is difficult due to the significant elevation changes. As a result, many areas of the community cannot be easily accessed on bikes, roller blades or foot from other areas of the community. Additional or improved trail connections are needed to provide residents access to City parks and other recreational opportunities in the region. Trail connections and improvements planned by the City are shown on the following map and are listed below. City of Mendota Heights 2030 Comprehensive Plan 102 �SECTION FIVE: PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN Planned Trail Connections and Improvements: • • • • • • • • Delaware Avenue/TH 110 Lexington Avenue south of TH 110 Valley Park/Par 3 Golf Course/Wachtler/Wentworth Highway 13 west of Opus Dodd Road: TH 110 to Marie Avenue Augusta Shores/Resurrection/Lexington Wagon Wheel Trail MRCA/MNRRA Plan Trail Connections – MRCA/MNRRA trail improvements and who will be responsible for their development are listed below. • • • • • Huber/Friendly Marsh to Dodd/TH 110 TH 110/Delaware to Huber Dodge Nature (Dakota County Greenway Corridor) Future Upgrade through Valley Park (City of Mendota Heights) Highway 13 from Victoria Avenue to Lilydale Road – 6 ‘ Trail on the north side (Lilydale side) (Mn/DOT) City of Mendota Heights 2030 Comprehensive Plan 103 �2030 ST. PAUL LA KE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PI CK ER I E R Parks State Park City Park Nature Preserve HW Y1 49 Par 3 Golf Course x Dakota County Big Rivers Trail County Trail Sibley Park Cemetery STA TE MIN Park and Trails Plan Sommerset Golf Course Marie Park ER R IV TA ESO N Y Open Space Victoria Highlands Park VE R MISSISSIPPI RI HW Wentworth Park Valley Park LI LY D AL I PP SI IS S IS M AL RI O EM M Ivy Hills Park WEST SAINT PAUL EY BL SI VE R ¬ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EL DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA Golf Course Dakota County North Urban Regional Trail MENDOTA Center Civic Regional & State Trails Ball Park Existing STATE HWY 110 City Trail Copperfield Ponds Park Y MA Rogers Lake Park Po nd LE s Mendakota Park Friendly Hills Park ROGERS LAKE RD DO DD 55 Hagstrom King Park Existing SUNFISH LAKE Resurrection Cemetery ld KE LA WY Proposed ie A UST HW Y Planned FRIENDLY MARSH A ST TE 13 Friendly Marsh Park AUG Fort Snelling State Park GUN CLUB LAKE § ¨ ¦ 35E Dodge Nature Center Co pp erf E LAK Acacia Park Cemetary Valley View Heights Park Mendakota Golf Course Major River Roads City Boundary ST AT EH Water Kensington Park § ¨ ¦ 494 EAGAN 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles Source: City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Metropolitan Council, and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. July 2008. � SECTION FIVE: PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN PARKS, OPEN SPACES, AND TRAILS PLAN The City of Mendota Heights enjoys a park, open space, and trail system with over 290 acres of City parkland and 21 miles of trails. The City also has Fort Snelling State Park, Big Rivers Regional Trail, North Urban Regional Trail (Mendota-Kaposia Trail), and other park facilities located within or near its boundaries. The park system is recognized as an important asset to the community because it provides opportunities for residents to relax, recreate, and enjoy nature, while also enhancing the physical landscape and improving property values. Previous Comprehensive Plans (1959 & 1979) and Park Plans (1971 & 1985) have guided the City in the development of its park system. As development has occurred, parkland has been dedicated to provide residents with recreational opportunities. Since the adoption of the 1979 Comprehensive Plan, the City has made improvements to all parks and has developed the following new parks: Copperfield Ponds, Hagstrom-King, Kensington, Mendakota, Sibley, Valley View Heights, and Victoria Highlands. The location of these new parks closely resemble Plan recommendations and reflect the City’s commitment to providing park services to all residents as opportunities arise. Not only has the City made improvements and developed new parks, it has also made efforts to retain existing open space. The City purchased the 17-acre Mendota Heights Par 3 Golf Course after the private owners proposed to develop the property into approximately 30 single family lots. The City also joined with other public entities and purchased the 25.5-acre Pilot Knob area, which will be retained as open space. The City of Mendota Heights currently has sufficient park acreage to serve its residents, although not all residents have equal access to those facilities. Future improvements will focus on updating existing facilities, adding trail facilities to neighborhoods that lack access to parks, and increasing the amount of open space. This may be accomplished through either park dedications or purchasing land. Trails are also an important component and focus of this plan because they connect neighborhoods to one another and the community to regional recreational opportunities. The Parks and Recreation Commission is an appointed citizen body responsible for evaluating park facility needs. The needs are determined based upon the adequacy and accessibility of existing facilities, the availability of a desired piece of land, and budget considerations. Recommendations are forwarded to the City Council during the City’s annual budget and Capital Improvements Program (CIP) process. City of Mendota Heights 2030 Comprehensive Plan 95 �SECTION FIVE: PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN RECREATION PROGRAMMING The City of Mendota Heights currently has one part-time recreation programmer. This person is responsible for coordinating adult and senior activities, non-athletic youth activities, and youth recreation activities not provided by the Mendota Heights Athletic Association (golf, tennis, fishing, etc). The Mendota Heights Athletic Association coordinates youth athletic activities within the City. GOALS AND POLICIES Goals: 1. To provide the optimum amount of active and passive open space for the enjoyment of all Mendota Heights residents. 2. To provide a park system that assures the quality of facilities will match residents’ desires and standards of living. 3. To use the park system as a means to enhance the environment of each neighborhood and the City as a whole. 4. To support the Dakota County 2030 Greenway Corridors Plan/Vision. Policies: 1. Encourage the preservation of open space by private property owners and the City. 2. Maximize the use of existing park facilities and consider establishment of additional facilities for all age groups when necessary, including facilities for the handicapped. 3. Explore new opportunities and continue to work cooperatively with School District #197, St. Thomas, Visitation, Fort Snelling State Park, and other entities to provide maximum recreational opportunities and avoid duplication of services. 4. Improve and expand bicycle and pedestrian connections to City parks and other community destinations. 5. Provide neighborhoods of the City with trails, open space, and quality park facilities and amenities. City of Mendota Heights 2030 Comprehensive Plan 96 �SECTION FIVE: PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN EXISTING CITY PARKS AND OPEN SPACES Mendota Heights now has 295.7 acres of City parks and open space. A brief discussion of the three types of parks that typically comprise a local park system is provided below. The descriptions and standards should serve as a guide. Other factors, such as proximity to regional or county parks, financing, or major trends in recreation, will also influence the evolution of the City’s park system. 1) Neighborhood Park Neighborhood parks are the basic unit of the park system and serve as the recreational and social focus of the neighborhood. They accommodate a wide variety of age and user groups, including children and adults. They create a sense of place by bringing together the unique character of the site with that of the neighborhood. Mendota Heights should seek to achieve a balance between active and passive neighborhood parks. Neighborhood parks range from 5-30 acres and serve a ½ mile area. Communities often will operate a joint neighborhood park with the school district and elementary schools. The City’s neighborhood parks include Friendly Hills, Hagstrom-King, Ivy Hills, Marie, Valley, Valley View Heights, Victoria Highlands, and Wentworth. 2) Community Park Community parks are designed to meet the recreational needs of several neighborhoods or larger segments of the community. They are intended for lit ballfields and larger athletic facilities or community gatherings. They can also be designed to preserve unique landscapes and open spaces. They serve a ½ mile to 5-mile radius. The City’s community parks include Kensington, Valley, Roger’s Lake, Mendakota, and Sibley Athletic Complex. 3) Natural Resource Area Natural resource areas are areas set aside to preserve significant or unique landscapes. They are often, but not always, properties unsuitable for development with steep slopes, drainageways, and ravines or wetlands. In addition, there may be locations where local tree protection, shoreland and critical area ordinances, or state and local wetland ordinances restrict development in some way. Natural Resource areas include Friendly Marsh, Copperfield Ponds, Valley Park, and Pilot Knob. The table on the following page identifies the City’s Parks and Open Spaces, their locations, and facilities offered: City of Mendota Heights 2030 Comprehensive Plan 97 �• • Toilet Portable Boats Bandshell Parking Skating Rink Hockey Rink Shelter(s) Picnic Area Equipment Play Volleyball Basketball Tennis Soccer Baseball Softball/ Trail Nature Area 4 C Court Civic Center Acres City of Mendota Heights Parks & Facilities • • • • • • Lexington & Hwy 110 Copperfield Ponds 24.9 •P • 15.5 •P • 33.4 •P • 9.6 •P • • • 9.3 •P • 14.6 •P • 6.2 •P • • • • East of Huber Dr at Cheyenne Ln Friendly Hills Park • •YO • •3 • • • • • •5 Pueblo Ln & Decorah Ln Friendly Marsh Park North of Cheyenne Ln & Apache St Hagstrom-King Park • •3 • Mendota Heights Rd, East of Huber Historic Pilot Knob 25.5 • Just off Mendota Bridge, Between Acacia Cem & TH 55 Ivy Hills Park • •YO • •3 • • • • • • • • •C • • Butler & Maple Park Dr Kensington Park •F •E Concord Wa, South of Mendota Heights Rd Marie Park • •3 • • • • • • • • • •E • •3 •4 • • •E • North of Marie Ave, Between Victoria & Lexington Mendakota Park 19.7 •Y • •C Dodd Rd & Mendakota Dr Roger's Lake Park 9.2 • • • • • Wagon Wheel Tr, East of I-35E Sibely Athletic Complex 11 • • •F •2 • •C Marie & Delaware Town Center 0.5 • • NE Corner Dodd Rd @ Hwy 110; within "The Village" Valley Park 94.4 • • • • •3 • •3 • •3 • • • • • • • • • Marie Ave, East of I-35E Valley View Heights 0.7 • 6.7 • • •YO • • •YO Cullen & Timmy Victoria Highlands Park Victoria Rd & Douglas RD Wentworth Park 10.5 •P • •3 • • • • • • Wentworth Ave, West of Dodd Rd Total 1. Sibley Athletic Complex is a joint use facility owned and operated by School District 197 (Additional fields not included in above table) 2. School District 197 maintains 12 tennis courts at Sibley High School. 295.7 3. Half-court only. 6. The city has no lighted ball fields. 4. Sand volleyball court – all others on grass. 7. All hockey rinks contain lights – rinks close at 10:00 p.m. 5. Paved rink for inline skating (summer). C. Comfort station – Permanent toilet facility – Open seasonally. E. Electrical service. F. Full size soccer field(s). O. Overlay. P. Pond/Natural areas. Y. Youth soccer fields. �SECTION FIVE: PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN EXISTING STATE, REGIONAL, AND PRIVATE PARKS AND OPEN SPACES There are also a number of regional, county and private facilities within or near the City’s borders. Fort Snelling State Park The largest park with 611 of its 2,642 acres located in the City. It provides outdoor recreation opportunities and natural resource conservation for the public and is considered part of the regional recreational open space system. Fort Snelling State Park is a recreational state park offering swimming, large group and family picnic grounds, a boat launch, interpretive center and historical areas, trails, and scenic overlooks. Most of the park’s active facilities are located on the Bloomington side of the River, requiring most Mendota Heights residents to drive or bike across the I-494, I-35E and Mendota bridges. The Mendota Heights portion of the park is left primarily as a natural area as it contains extensive floodplain marsh habitat. Facilities located in Mendota Heights support less intensive uses, such as biking, hiking, cross country skiing, and fishing. The Sibley and Faribault historic sites are also located on the Mendota Heights side of the River. Harriet Island-Lilydale Regional Park Located just north of Mendota Heights, this park is managed by the City of St. Paul. The lower portion of the park in the City of Lilydale is planned to remain passive open space. A beach and concessions area is planned, but highly unlikely due to wetland issues. The area also has a ramp for boat access to the River. A trail through the park, separate from the roadway, is planned to link St. Paul to the Big Rivers Regional Trail. Dodge Nature Center A 170-acre private facility dedicated to the restoration of native plant and animal communities. The nature preserve provides excellent educational programs and events. School District 197 The City and School District work cooperatively to provide for joint use of facilities and recreation programs within the community. Play equipment, two softball fields, soccer and T-ball are provided at the Mendota and Somerset Elementary Schools. Friendly Hills Middle School is utilized for soccer, two softball fields and fitness programs. Tennis, baseball, softball, track, football, lacrosse, and soccer are all accommodated at Sibley High School. Big Rivers Regional Trail Developed in 1996 by Dakota County along the old Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way, this trail enables residents to bike, walk, and roller blade along the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers. This trail serves as an important link to other communities and has greatly improved the awareness and accessibility of the River. City of Mendota Heights 2030 Comprehensive Plan 99 �SECTION FIVE: PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN North Urban Regional Trail (Mendota-Kaposia Trail) This trail serves as a link from Big Rivers Valley Park to West St. Paul and to South St. Paul. Other Private Facilities / Open Space: • Mendakota Country Club (18 hole private golf course) • Somerset Country Club (18 hole private golf course) • Acacia Park Cemetery • Resurrection Cemetery • St. Thomas Academy • Visitation School • St. Peter’s Cemetery • St. Peter’s Church Other Public Facilities / Open Space: • Mendota Heights Par 3 Golf Course (9 hole public golf course) City of Mendota Heights 2030 Comprehensive Plan 100 �SECTION FIVE: PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN REGIONAL PARK AND TRAIL NEEDS The Metropolitan Council’s 2030 Regional Parks Policy Plan is the metropolitan system plan for regional recreation open space with which local comprehensive plans must conform. Needs of the metropolitan region were identified, and changes have therefore been indicated that need to be implemented in order to meet the needs of the region. The following Regional Park System Plan considerations would specifically affect the City of Mendota Heights: 1. Dakota County North Urban Regional Trail – This trail is proposed to connect the Dakota County Mississippi River Regional Trail to the Big Rivers Regional Greenway in northern Dakota County. A master plan for the trail has been completed and a portion of the trail is complete on the east end. 2. Dakota North/South Regional Trail Search Area – This is a proposed regional trail that will connect the “Empire Wetlands” Regional Park to the proposed Chub Lake Regional Park, the proposed Dakota South Cannon River Regional Trail, and Lake Byllesby Regional Park. The regional trail does not have an approved master plan yet. Dakota County will conduct a master planning process in the future to determine the trail alignment. LOCAL PARK and TRAIL NEEDS Parks City park needs can be determined by evaluating the number, size, and accessibility of parks. It is often recommended a park system contain 25 acres of park for each 1,000 population, which is equal to 1,089 square feet per person. To meet this standard, the City would need to provide 302.5 acres of parkland (based on the projected year 2030 population of 12,100 persons when fully developed). The City currently has 295.7 acres of parkland and open space, and essentially meets the standard. Some additional parkland may be obtained as the few remaining larger parcels develop. It is also important to evaluate residents’ access to parks. Residents are typically willing to walk ¼ to ½ mile to reach a neighborhood park. Major roads, wetlands, drainageways, and bodies of water also restrict access. The Park and Trails Plan Map identifies the existing parks, open spaces, nature preserves, cemeteries, and golf courses within the City. The following three areas of the City are under served by the City’s park system: 1. North of Somerset Country Club and east of Dodd Road. This neighborhood is lacking a City Park facility. However, most of these residents are within walking distance of Cherokee Regional Park in West St. Paul. City of Mendota Heights 2030 Comprehensive Plan 101 �SECTION FIVE: PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN 2. North of Highway 110, east of Dodd Road and south of Wentworth Avenue (Somerset). Although the Sibley Athletic Complex is located in this area, it does not serve a neighborhood function. A new neighborhood park should be considered as some of the larger lots re-subdivide. 3. North of Highway 110 and west of Lexington Avenue, there is a ball field at the Civic Center site. Marie Park is the nearest permanent park facility (aside from the aforementioned ball field) and for many residents is more than ½ mile away on the other side of Lexington Avenue. There are limited opportunities for a larger neighborhood park because the area is nearly fully developed. However, a mini-neighborhood park should be developed to serve the residents. The City has identified several sites for additional park, open space, or trail connecting segments. The sites are identified as follows: Areas of Interest: • • • • • Resurrection Cemetery “Break-Off” area Visitation School property St. Thomas property off Mendota Heights Road Foss homestead by Wentworth Park Somerset area Mendota Heights will pursue additional park, open space land, and trail connections to the extent it becomes available and is within the resources of the City. Trails Trails for biking, walking, and roller blading have become very popular in recent years. Twenty-one (21) miles of trails currently extend through portions of the City’s neighborhoods. These trails are both off- and on-road and serve as important connections for recreational opportunities and travel. Improved trail connections are important because many residential areas are divided by highways and arterial roads. The recent construction of the Big Rivers Regional Trail along the Minnesota River and the trail connection to the I-35E Bridge trailway have also heightened the awareness and demand for improved access to the river valley. Access to the Big Rivers Regional Trail is difficult due to the significant elevation changes. As a result, many areas of the community cannot be easily accessed on bikes, roller blades or foot from other areas of the community. Additional or improved trail connections are needed to provide residents access to City parks and other recreational opportunities in the region. Trail connections and improvements planned by the City are shown on the following map and are listed below. City of Mendota Heights 2030 Comprehensive Plan 102 �SECTION FIVE: PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN Planned Trail Connections and Improvements: • • • • • • • • Delaware Avenue/TH 110 Lexington Avenue south of TH 110 Valley Park/Par 3 Golf Course/Wachtler/Wentworth Highway 13 west of Opus Dodd Road: TH 110 to Marie Avenue Augusta Shores/Resurrection/Lexington Wagon Wheel Trail MRCA/MNRRA Plan Trail Connections – MRCA/MNRRA trail improvements and who will be responsible for their development are listed below. • • • • • Huber/Friendly Marsh to Dodd/TH 110 TH 110/Delaware to Huber Dodge Nature (Dakota County Greenway Corridor) Future Upgrade through Valley Park (City of Mendota Heights) Highway 13 from Victoria Avenue to Lilydale Road – 6 ‘ Trail on the north side (Lilydale side) (Mn/DOT) City of Mendota Heights 2030 Comprehensive Plan 103 �2030 ST. PAUL LA KE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PI CK ER I E R Parks State Park City Park Nature Preserve HW Y1 49 Par 3 Golf Course x Dakota County Big Rivers Trail County Trail Sibley Park Cemetery STA TE MIN Park and Trails Plan Sommerset Golf Course Marie Park ER R IV TA ESO N Y Open Space Victoria Highlands Park VE R MISSISSIPPI RI HW Wentworth Park Valley Park LI LY D AL I PP SI IS S IS M AL RI O EM M Ivy Hills Park WEST SAINT PAUL EY BL SI VE R ¬ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EL DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA Golf Course Dakota County North Urban Regional Trail MENDOTA Center Civic Regional & State Trails Ball Park Existing STATE HWY 110 City Trail Copperfield Ponds Park Y MA Rogers Lake Park Po nd LE s Mendakota Park Friendly Hills Park ROGERS LAKE RD DO DD 55 Hagstrom King Park Existing SUNFISH LAKE Resurrection Cemetery ld KE LA WY Proposed ie A UST HW Y Planned FRIENDLY MARSH A ST TE 13 Friendly Marsh Park AUG Fort Snelling State Park GUN CLUB LAKE § ¨ ¦ 35E Dodge Nature Center Co pp erf E LAK Acacia Park Cemetary Valley View Heights Park Mendakota Golf Course Major River Roads City Boundary ST AT EH Water Kensington Park § ¨ ¦ 494 EAGAN 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles Source: City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Metropolitan Council, and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. July 2008. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Mendota Heights Parks and Open Space Plan Description An account of the resource Mendota Heights Parks and Open Space Plan lists the parks in the Mendota Heights area and describes the goals of the Parks and Open Space plan for this area outside of Minneapolis, MN. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource City of Mendota Heights Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived City of Mendota Heights Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available City of Mendota Heights Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Public Domain Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Document Language A language of the resource English Type The nature or genre of the resource .pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Mendota Heights Parks and Open Space Plan.pdf Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota Mendota Heights NARF pilot knob https://religionsmn.carleton.edu/files/original/b815128db465db36e364af9ab03d94d3.pdf 58648d01ab22af735ffba197cfb80c8c PDF Text Text ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS THE BLUFFS CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY MINNESOTA DATE : August 26, 2003 �LIST OF E.A.W. CONTRIBUTORS Dalhgren Shardlow and Uban Inc. 300 First Avenue North, Suite 210 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Hedlund Planning Engineering Surveying 2005 Pin Oak Drive Eagan, MN 55122 City Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 �Revised 08/03 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Note to preparers: This form is available at www.mnplan.state.mn.us. EAW Guidelines will be available in Spring 1999 at the web site. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW is prepared by the Responsible Governmental Unit or its agents to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared. The project proposer must supply any reasonably accessible data for — but should not complete — the final worksheet. If a complete answer does not fit in the space allotted, attach additional sheets as necessary. The complete question as well as the answer must be included if the EAW is prepared electronically. Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30-day comment period following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an EIS. 1. Project title The Bluffs of Mendota Heights 2. Proposer Minnstar Builders Contact person: Ron Clark Title: President, Minnstar Builders Address: 7500 West 78th Street City, state, ZIP: Edina, Minnesota 55439 Phone: ( 952) 947-3003 Fax : (952) 947-3030 E-mail 4. Reason for EAW preparation (check one) EIS scoping Mandatory EAW Proposer volunteered 3. RGU City of Mendota Heights Contact person: Cari Lindberg Title: City Administrator Address: 1101 Victoria Curve City, state, ZIP Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Phone: (651) 452-1850 Fax: (651)452-8940 E-mail: caril@mendota-heights.com X Citizen petition If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number 5. Project location County: Dakota SE¼ Sec. 28 SW¼ Sec. 27 Township: 28 Township: 28 X RGU discretion and subpart name City/Township: Mendota Heights Range: 23 Range: 23 Attach each of the following to the EAW: • County map showing the general location of the project; See exhibit A, appendix 1 • U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (photocopy acceptable); See exhibit B, appendix 1 • Site plan showing all significant project and natural features. See exhibits C through I, appendix 1 6. Description a. Provide a project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor. The proposed development consists of 25 acres to be developed as a mixed density residential development with 31 single-level classic townhomes and 126 two-story veranda style townhomes. The development plan also provides open spaces with naturalized plantings, a commemorative open space, and an overlook providing views of the Minnesota River Valley. �b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction. Attach additional sheets as necessary. Emphasize construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes. Include modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes and significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures. Indicate the timing and duration of construction activities. The housing types proposed on the plat are the classic townhomes, which are two and three unit buildings. These units are terraced on the west facing slopes and are accessed primarily by a public street with connecting driveways. The units use a mix of front and side loaded garages, which give a variety of approaches and a certain amount of dexterity needed for the sloping terrain. Townhomes on the Acacia property, east of Pilot Knob Road, are arranged along a curvilinear roadway in four, six, eight and ten unit structures. These veranda townhomes are two-story with a basement and access is gained through a combined driveway into a motor court area. All the buildings are accessed through a public road system. An internal street network will be built along with sanitary sewer, storm sewer, watermain connections and utility connections as detailed on the preliminary site, grading and utility plans in Appendix 1. The installation of these utilities and the street system will involve grading but there are no significant natural features within the project area that will be impacted. Sanitary sewer will generally be ten feet deep and separated from the watermain by ten feet. When necessary, unified trenches will be used to install small utilities such as gas, electric, telephone and cable, in order to minimize repeated site disturbances. These utilities will generally be located three feet behind the curb at a depth of three feet. The existing farmhouse on the Acacia property section of the subject property will be demolished during site grading. No other structures remain elsewhere on the subject property. Proposed Mitigation The plan being considered by the City of Mendota Heights and studied and detailed in this EAW incorporates a number of mitigation aspects. The City has requested changes to the plan through the review process that offers potential mitigation for the impacts on the historic setting of the area. • The edge of right-of-way along Highway 52 and 110 is proposed to be bermed and landscaped to screen portions of the views to the development. • The development does not significantly alter the grades or elevation of the landform, and instead carefully terraces the townhomes into the existing landform. • Commemorative settings and overlooks have been placed at the lower portion of the development, creating a trail head off the Dakota County Regional Trail System to connect with the proposed local trail that winds through the development. • The proposed development on the slopes facing the river valley consists of one story buildings with the larger buildings placed out of site to the east without impact to river valley views. • The entire project is fully landscaped with over story trees, which will over time emulate a wooded site similar to Acacia Cemetery. All of the above aspects of this development have been specifically tailored to help mitigate the visual affects on the historic area. c. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the need for the project and identify its beneficiaries. To accommodate the infill¹ growth of the Twin Cities and the demand for lifecycle housing² options in the City of Mendota Heights by creating a new cohesive neighborhood of homes nestled into the bluffs with a focus on panoramic views of the Twin Cities as well as a variety of housing choices. ¹Metropolitan Council’s definition of “infill”: Development or redevelopment of land that has been bypassed, remained vacant, and/or is underused as a result of the continuing urban-development process. ²Metropolitan Council’s definition of “lifecycle housing”: Varied housing options that meet people’s preferences and circumstances at all of life’s stages, and in particular, options other than the predominant larger-lot, detached, singlefamily home. For example, smaller homes, apartments, townhomes, condominiums senior housing for independent living or with a range of assisted-living services. �d. Are future stages of this development including development on any outlots planned or likely to happen? __Yes X No If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for environmental review. The infrastructure is designed to integrate adjacent parcels (under separate ownership). e. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? __Yes X No If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review. 7. Project magnitude data Total project acreage 25.4 acres Number of residential units: unattached NA attached 157 maximum units per building: 2 – 10 units/building Commercial, industrial or institutional building area (gross floor space): total square feet NA Indicate areas of specific uses (in square feet): Office NA Manufacturing NA Retail NA Other industrial NA Warehouse NA Institutional NA Light industrial NA Agricultural NA Other commercial (specify) Building height 2 stories If over 2 stories, compare to heights of nearby buildings 8. Permits and approvals required. List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals and financial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental review of plans and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure. Unit of government Type of application Status City of Mendota Heights Preliminary plat, final plat in process City of Mendota Heights Grading to be applied for City of Mendota Heights Demolition of existing structure to be applied for City of Mendota Heights Building permits to be applied for Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Sanitary Sewer Extension & NPDES General Permit to be applied for Minnesota Department of Health Watermain Extension to be applied for Minnesota Department of Transportation Drainage & Utility permit to be applied for Dakota County Plat Commission Final plat to be applied for Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District Wetland exemption in process �9. Land use. Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss project compatibility with adjacent and nearby land uses. Indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify any potential environmental hazards due to past site uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks, or proximity to nearby hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. The Acacia Cemetery part of the site is currently vacant land, and in the past ten years a hotel and residential structure were removed from the site. The other portion of the site, owned by John Allen, currently has an existing farmhouse on it. The area has been disturbed over the years by the hotel site, farming practices, and highway construction for the realignment improvements of TH 13,TH 55 and TH 110 (Historical aerial photographs of site from 1937 to 1997 and MnDOT right-of-way maps located in Appendix 3). There are no environmental hazards from previous site uses. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report previously prepared by MnDOT for the TH 13, TH 55 and TH 110 Interchange project supports this (see summary from this report in Appendix 2). Previous uses on the Acacia property, as also documented on the historical photographs located in Appendix 3, supports that past of the site would not have generated any environmentally hazardous conditions or products. The remaining farmhouse will be tested for asbestos and other incidental domestic hazardous materials before it is removed during site preparation and grading. If any hazardous materials are discovered, steps will be taken to dispose of these materials according to State law. Existing wells located on the property well be capped. Adjacent land uses include a cemetery (Acacia Cemetery), dog kennel, single family home and highways. The site will be buffered from the highway, as shown on the preliminary landscape plan (Exhibit I, Appendix 1). Plantings will also create a buffer between the townhomes and the cemetery. 10. Cover types. Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development: Before After Types 1-8 wetlands 0 0 Oak forest 0.1 0 Boxelder – green ash disturbed native forest 2.7 0 Medium tall grassland non-native 15.1 0 Short grasses on upland soils 2.1 0 Short grasses and mixed trees with 4-10% impervious surface 1.3 0 Short grasses and mixed trees with 11-25% impervious surface 4.1 0 Lawn/landscaping 0 11.1 Native grasses 0 1.6 Impervious surfaces 0 12.7 TOTAL 25.4 25.4 If Before and After totals are not equal, explain why: Brush and grassland character of the vacant land will convert to development, landscaped yards and naturalized areas. �11. Fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources a. Identify fish and wildlife resources and habitats on or near the site and describe how they would be affected by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid impacts. There are no fish or wildlife resources on the site. The Minnesota River Valley is near the site, but the project will have no impact on the fish and wildlife communities present there. b. Are any state-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, rare plant communities or other sensitive ecological resources such as native prairie habitat, colonial waterbird nesting colonies or regionally rare plant communities on or near the site? X Yes __No If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the project. Indicate if a site survey of the resources has been conducted and describe the results. If the DNR Natural Heritage and Nongame Research program has been contacted give the correspondence reference number: A search of the Minnesota Natural Heritage database conducted by the DNR that encompassed a onemile radius of the area, indicated and provided information showing there are 50 known occurrences of rare species or natural communities in the area searched. The DNR stated that Standard construction practices (i.e. erosion control devices such as silt fence) should ensure that these features remain unaffected by the proposed project and related activity. Known occurrences of rare species or natural communities were based upon observations in the Minnesota National Wildlife Refuge and other nearby parkland. None of the occurrences were within the proposed project’s boundaries. Please review response letter from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources located in Appendix 2. The MnDNR Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program Contact Number is ERDB 20030623. Describe measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. Install, maintain and repair silt fencing, rock construction entrance and sediment filters until construction is complete and new vegetation and surfacing is established. 12. Physical impacts on water resources. Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration — dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, and impoundment — of any surface waters such as a lake, pond, wetland, stream or drainage ditch? __Yes X No If yes, identify water resource affected and give the DNR Protected Waters Inventory number(s) if the water resources affected are on the PWI: . Describe alternatives considered and proposed mitigation measures to minimize impacts. A small type 3 wetland (2,000 sq.ft.) was identified on the site. The wetland does not appear to be natural and was likely created due to soil excavation (See Aquatic EcoSolutions report in Appendix 2.). This wetland is in the northwesterly corner of the site where the retention pond is proposed (for location see Exhibit C, Appendix 1) this wetland would in turn become part of the retention pond. The wetland does not show up on any wetland inventories. An exemption from the Wetland Conservation Act through Dakota County Board of Soil and Water Resources is in process. 13. Water use. Will the project involve installation or abandonment of any water wells, connection to or changes in any public water supply or appropriation of any ground or surface water (including dewatering)? X Yes __No If yes, as applicable, give location and purpose of any new wells; public supply affected, changes to be made, and water quantities to be used; the source, duration, quantity and purpose of any appropriations; and unique well numbers and DNR appropriation permit numbers, if known. Identify any existing and new wells on the site map. If there are no wells known on site, explain methodology used to determine. There are likely to be wells associated with the two existing residences that will need to be capped as shown on the well location maps in Appendix 3. The City’s wells along Acacia Boulevard have been capped according to the City Engineer. The existing 6” watermain that runs through Pilot Knob Road will be the connection used for the proposed development. According to the City Engineer, the watermain connection has adequate capacity to support this proposed development. No dewatering will be necessary during construction (Preliminary utility plan is Exhibit G, Appendix 1). �14. Water-related land use management district. Does any part of the project involve a shoreland zoning district, a delineated 100-year flood plain, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river land use district? __Yes X No If yes, identify the district and discuss project compatibility with district land use restrictions. 15. Water surface use. Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body? __Yes X No If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential overcrowding or conflicts with other uses. 16. Erosion and sedimentation. Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved: acres 20 ; cubic yards 75,000 . Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils and identify them on the site map. Describe any erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during and after project construction. Steep slopes along the northwest portion of the project will either remain in place or graded to a 3:1 maximum (Exhibit E, Appendix 1). Fiber blanket will be required on the 3:1 slopes after grading. Temporary silt fence will encompass the entire site and be maintained throughout construction of site. 17. Water quality: surface water runoff a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe permanent controls to manage or treat runoff. Describe any stormwater pollution prevention plans. Two stormwater quality ponds are proposed for this project (Exhibit E, Appendix 1).The first pond located in the northeasterly portion of the site treats runoff from 12 acres of the overall site 25 acres. The pond has been sized to meet water quality requirements of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Programs (NURP) standards and the quality of water leaving the pond should not be dissimilar to the pre-developed quality. The pond has dead storage in the amount of 0.8 acre feet below the normal water elevation. The required sediment (dead) storage in 0.7 acre feet based on the runoff from a 2.5 inch event over a curve number of 76 which is the calculated curve number for the site. The storm storage for this pond is one acre foot, which is adequate to retain water quantity to pre-developed rates. The other pond is in the northwesterly corner of the site and receives runoff from 10.6 acres plus the routing of water from the pond in the northeasterly part of the project. This pond has sediment (dead) storage in the amount of 0.6 acre feet. The required storage to meet NURP requirements is 0.6 acre feet for runoff from a 2.5 inch event over curve number of 76. The pond has storm storage available in the amount of 1.2 acres feet. The outlet from this pond to storm sewer off site is designed to outlet at a lesser rate than the pre-developed condition for the overall site. The outlets of the ponds will be designed to skim off any floatables or oil that could end up in the ponds. The quality of water leaving the pond to MnDOT storm sewer should be treated sufficiently to not adversely affect downstream waters. b. Identify routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site; include major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters. Estimate impact runoff on the quality of receiving waters. Stormwater will outlet from the northwesterly pond (Exhibit E, Appendix I) to existing MnDOT storm sewer in the northwest portion of the site. The MnDOT storm sewer then discharges to an existing ponding area along the north side of Highway 13 immediately adjacent to the site. This ponding area, which also serves as a water quality pond, then discharges to wetlands within the flood plain of the Minnesota River. Since the runoff is treated through a series of water quality ponds, runoff impact to downstream wetlands should be negligible. �18. Water quality: wastewaters a. Describe sources, composition and quantities of all sanitary, municipal and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the site. All domestic wastewater is generated from the proposed residential units. No restaurant or commercial wastes are proposed. A total of 43,018 gpd is projected for the site (157 units x 274 gpd). b. Describe waste treatment methods or pollution prevention efforts and give estimates of composition after treatment. Identify receiving waters, including major downstream water bodies, and estimate the discharge impact on the quality of receiving waters. If the project involves on-site sewage systems, discuss the suitability of site conditions for such systems. No on-site systems are proposed. c. If wastes will be discharged into a publicly owned treatment facility, identify the facility, describe any pretreatment provisions and discuss the facility's ability to handle the volume and composition of wastes, identifying any improvements necessary. Wastewater will be discharged into existing sanitary sewer that is treated at the St. Paul Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant. The lift station (L-61) that supports the City of Mendota Heights wastewater currently is sized to handle a flow of 220,000 gal/per/day. Current lift station usage is 33,000 gal/per/day. The estimated capacity needed for the proposed project is 43,028 gal/per/day based on 157 units x 274 gal/per/day. Don Bluhm, Manager of Municipal Services in the Wastewater division of the Metropolitan Council, has stated that the long-term needs of the City of Mendota Heights would be nowhere near the total capacity of the system, and therefore appears to be enough capacity to serve the proposed project on the existing system. d. If the project requires disposal of liquid animal manure, describe disposal technique and location and discuss capacity to handle the volume and composition of manure. Identify any improvements necessary. Describe any required setbacks for land disposal systems. N/A 19. Geologic hazards and soil conditions a. Approximate depth (in feet) to ground water: 10 feet minimum >25 feet average to bedrock: 10 feet minimum >50 feet average Describe any of the following geologic site hazards to ground water and also identify them on the site map: sinkholes, shallow limestone formations or karst conditions. Describe measures to avoid or minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards. None known b. Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications, if known. Discuss soil granularity and potential for groundwater contamination from wastes or chemicals spread or spilled onto the soils. Discuss any mitigation measures to prevent such contamination. The soils on the site consist of glacial till and fine alluvium overlaying Decorah Shale. Soils vary from sandy lean clays to silty sand and sand. Granularity is high but groundwater contamination from the proposed land use is negligible (See Exhibit J,Appendix 1). �20. Solid wastes, hazardous wastes, storage tanks a. Describe types, amounts and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes, including solid animal manure, sludge and ash, produced during construction and operation. Identify method and location of disposal. For projects generating municipal solid waste, indicate if there is a source separation plan; describe how the project will be modified for recycling. If hazardous waste is generated, indicate if there is a hazardous waste minimization plan and routine hazardous waste reduction assessments. Solid waste consisting of scrap building materials(approximately 40 cubic yards per unit) will be generated during building construction. This waste will be hauled to the construction waste landfill in Inver Grove Heights. According to EPA estimates household waste generation is 4.6 pounds per person per day. At 2.5 persons per household and 157 units, this equates to 330 tons annually for the development. The City of Mendota Heights requires that all residents contract with a licensed refuse hauler that also provides weekly curbside recycling service. b. Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present at the site and identify measures to be used to prevent them from contaminating groundwater. If the use of toxic or hazardous materials will lead to a regulated waste, discharge or emission, discuss any alternatives considered to minimize or eliminate the waste, discharge or emission. No toxic or hazardous materials will be used for the proposed development. The existing building that will be demolished will need to be checked for asbestos and disposed of accordingly. c. Indicate the number, location, size and use of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum products or other materials, except water. Describe any emergency response containment plans. None know to exist. 21. Traffic. Parking spaces added 54 off-street parking stalls, 310 individual garage stalls. Existing spaces (if project involves expansion) 0 Estimated total average daily traffic generated 942 Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated (if known) and time of occurrence 69 trips at 5 p.m. ADTs TH 55 on Mendota Bridge TH 13 south of TH 110 TH 55 south of CSAH 31 TH 13 west of TH 55 TH 13 west of CSAH 31 (Pilot Knob) CSAH 31 (Pilot Knob) south of TH 13 Acacia Blvd at TH 55 (4-lane) CSAH 31 (Pilot Knob) south of Acacia Blvd Intersection Data TH 13 and TH 110 (PM Peak) Existing (2001/2002) 40,000 3,319 26,909 8,728 6,969 5,000 1,450 1,500 3,720 movements Forecasted 40,471 3,884 27,050 8,775 7,016 5,283 2,015 1,877 3,767 Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. If the project is within the Twin Cities metropolitan area, discuss its impact on the regional transportation system. Planned roadway connections to Valencour Circle provide loop road system and a temporary emergency connection is provided at the southeast corner for interim uses. The proposed project will have minimal impact on the regional transportation system as the number of new trips added to the regional roads is negligible in all cases. �22. Vehicle-related air emissions. Estimate the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality, including carbon monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measures on air quality impacts. Note: If the project involves 500 or more parking spaces, consult EAW Guidelines about whether a detailed air quality analysis is needed. Traffic generation will have minimal impact to air quality. Low levels of traffic does not trigger EQB threshold for the study of air emissions. See response to question 21 for traffic volume forecasts. 23. Stationary source air emissions. Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any emissions from stationary sources of air emissions such as boilers, exhaust stacks or fugitive dust sources. Include any hazardous air pollutants (consult EAW Guidelines for a listing) and any greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide) and ozone-depleting chemicals (chloro-fluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons or sulfur hexafluoride). Also describe any proposed pollution prevention techniques and proposed air pollution control devices. Describe the impacts on air quality. N/A 24. Odors, noise and dust. Will the project generate odors, noise or dust during construction or during operation? X Yes __No If yes, describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities or intensity and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts. Also identify locations of nearby sensitive receptors and estimate impacts on them. Discuss potential impacts on human health or quality of life. (Note: fugitive dust generated by operations may be discussed at item 23 instead of here.) Dust and noise normal to construction will occur as a result of this project. Dust will be controlled by watering during construction. Construction noise will be limited to daytime hours (7 a.m. to 8 p.m.) in accordance with the City of Mendota Heights general noise ordinance. There is currently one single family residence in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. The proposed project is located within the Metropolitan Airport Commission’s 1996 65 dBA DayNight Average Sound Level (DNL) contour and the 2005 64-60 DNL contour area. This is the same noise range as the Tangletown neighborhood in Minneapolis and the recently approved subdivision, Augusta Shores, located just across TH 55. The latest noise contour map is included as Exhibit K, Appendix 1. The proposed project is indicated on the map in red, below the word “Mendota”. All structures will be built with noise attenuation features as required in the City of Mendota Heights ordinance. The construction techniques for each townhome address the need for noise attenuation, both from overhead airplane flights, and adjacent truck and automobile noise from Highway 55. Special techniques in construction will involve high-grade windows with thicker glass panes and argon gas separation, as well as 2x6 sidewall construction, with additional installation layers. The ceilings will be insulated to higher levels and all venting and other openings will be baffled to reduce noise transmission. Sliding door, front doors, and garage doors will have additional features to minimize noise transmission. The homes will be air-conditioned and will include a fresh air exchange system to provide interior climate control. A noise consultant is being hired to design sound details of these buildings. �25. Nearby resources. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site? a. Archaeological, historical or architectural resources? X Yes __No The State Archeologist has stated that there are no indications that burial remains exist on the site. There is, however, anecdotal information indicating past activities on the top of Pilot Knob in Acacia Cemetery, which is approximately 1000 feet to the south and approximately 50-60 feet higher in elevation than the subject property. There is an historic marker located in Acacia Cemetery. As observed on aerial photographs and on-site, the parcel has been rather extensively impacted by previous construction/earth moving. See historical aerial photographs of the site dating from 1937 to 1997 located in Appendix 3, see letter from State Archeologist in Appendix 2. Past improvements of realignments of TH 13, TH 110 and TH 55 have impacted the grades and reduced the size of the subject property (See MnDOT Existing Roadway map (1990) and MnDOT Proposed Layout Map (1990) and historical aerial photographs located in Appendix 3). In Appendix 2 is a report prepared by Gemini Research,”Dakota and Ojibwe Land Cession Treaty Site in Minnesota”, that includes an analysis of Pilot’s Knob. The report was completed and submitted to the Minnesota Historical Society in September 1990 before the TH 13, TH 110 and TH 55 realignment project, which lasted from July 1993 to August 1994, impacting land referred to in the Gemini report. Also included in Appendix 2 is the project bid summary for the Highway improvements. The plan incorporates a commemorative open space, which replicates the historic hillside setting where treaties and agreements were negotiated. This area is also connected through trails to the upper Pilot Knob historical marker in the center turnaround. During the course of various public hearings that preceded this discretionary EAW, various information was presented concerning the possibility that there is some historical significance to this 25 acre site. There has been no direct evidence that there is any historical significance to this site. The MnDOT EIS, which studied property adjacent to this site for the expansion of Trunk Highway 55, found no evidence to support any historical significance. Furthermore, during legislative hearings to select State Historical Sites in 1973, information was presented to support recognition of the “Pilot Knob” as a State Historical Site. The State Legislature declined to designate “Pilot Knob” as a State Historical Site. The information which the State Legislature found inadequate to support historical significance for this site in 1973 is what was presented to the Mendota Heights City Council in the recent public hearings. Additional Research by the 106 Group Ltd. During the months of February through June of 2003, The 106 Group Ltd., a cultural resources management firm, conducted an historical, cultural, and archaeological evaluation of the proposed The Bluffs of Mendota Heights (Bluffs) development project area. The purpose of this study was to determine if any portion of the development site contains previously recorded or unrecorded intact cultural, historical, or archaeological resources that may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Because the project area was potentially contained within the boundaries of the area known as Pilot Knob, this study also included an evaluation of the eligibility of Pilot Knob for listing on the NRHP. The results of this research were presented in a report entitled A Historical, Cultural and Archaeological Evaluation and Determination of Eligibility of Pilot Knob for the Proposed “The Bluffs of Mendota Heights” Development, Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota completed in June of 2003. Furthermore, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) requested that there be an assessment made of the potential effects of the proposed Bluffs development on historic resources in and around Mendota Heights that are within the development’s area of potential effect (APE) (B. Bloomberg to the City of Mendota Heights, January 6, 2003, on file at the SHPO). The purpose of this study was to determine the presence or absence of properties listed on, or determined eligible for listing on, the NRHP that might be impacted by the undertaking and to describe those effects, if any, to each property. A report entitled Assessment of Potential Effects of the Proposed “The Bluffs of Mendota Heights” Development, Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota that addressed the effects of the development on neighboring properties was included as an appendix to the historical, cultural, and archaeological report. �The results of these studies are summarized as follows: Geographic Feature: Pilot Knob • • • Pilot Knob meets the state criteria established for a geographic feature of historical and cultural significance. Pilot Knob is recommended as eligible for listing on the NRHP as a geographic feature of historical and cultural significance for its role as a landmark of cultural importance to the Dakota and a landmark during the period of exploration. The hill of Pilot Knob is approximately bounded to the north and east by Highway 55, to the south by Highway 13, and to the west by Old Highway 13. Traditional Cultural Property • • Pilot Knob is known to the Dakota as OHEYAWAHE and PAHA OIPA, and to the Anishinaabe as SAGI AKI. OHEYAWAHE (Pilot Knob) is of cultural importance to the Dakota for its role as a sacred landmark at the confluence of the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers. Due to these associations, OHEYAWAHE (Pilot Knob) is recommended as eligible for listing on the NRHP as a traditional cultural property (TCP) as well as a site. Potential MDOTE Traditional Cultural District • • • Pilot Knob’s cultural significance as a landmark is linked to its geographical location at the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers. The area around the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers is known in the Dakota language alternately as MDOTE, meaning “the mouth or junction of one river with another” or BDOTE, meaning “throat of the waters.” For the Dakota, MDOTE is the center of the earth and the point of their creation. The MDOTE area contains a concentration of many properties of traditional cultural significance to the Dakota, including OHEYAWAHE (Pilot Knob) and the Dakota ceremonial ground where the 1851 Mendota Treaty was signed. It is recommended that OHEYAWAHE (Pilot Knob) together with other traditional sites in the area be considered contributing properties to a larger MDOTE Traditional Cultural District. 1851 Mendota Treaty Signing Site • • Pilot Knob has long been assumed to be the site of the 1851 Mendota Treaty. Historical research for this study indicated that the treaty was signed on a Dakota ceremonial gathering location on the terrace that is now occupied in part by St. Peter’s Church, outside of the Bluffs project area. The terrace on which St. Peter’s Church is located is recommended as eligible for the NRHP for its association with the event of the treaty signing. Archaeology and Burials • • During the archaeological survey of the Bluffs development area, no archaeological sites or burials were identified within the proposed construction limits. Although no burials were encountered during the archaeological survey, it is possible for undetected burials to still exist within the project area. The 106 Group, therefore, recommends consultation with the State Archaeologist, Mark Dudzik, prior to any construction activities. �Effects to Nearby Historic Properties An analysis of factors associated with the proposed development indicates that impacts to surrounding historic properties are limited to visual effects. Because the development property is located on a bluff edge above the confluence of the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers, the visual effect of the property is widespread. Three NRHP listed properties and one NRHP-eligible property have been identified within the project’s viewshed: the Mendota Historic District, the Fort Snelling Historic District, the Fort Snelling-Mendota Bridge, and Acacia Park Cemetery (eligible). Mendota Historic District • The proposed development will not be visible from the Sibley, Faribault, and Dupuis Houses within the Mendota Historic District. • St. Peter’s Church is the only structure within the Mendota Historic District that is located within view of the proposed project. The development will not be visible from within the sanctuary. Fort Snelling Historic District • The development will be visible from the towers of Fort Snelling and from the Department of Dakota structures located along Taylor Avenue. • Due to heavy tree cover, the proposed development is not visible from the sites of Cantonment New Hope or Camp Coldwater in any season. Fort Snelling-Mendota Bridge • The proposed development will not have a direct impact on the Fort Snelling-Mendota Bridge, but will be visible to eastbound traffic on the bridge. Acacia Park Cemetery • A screen of trees limits the visual effect to Acacia Park Cemetery to the east edge of the cemetery north of Acacia Boulevard and the central plaza located at the west end of Acacia Boulevard. Recommendations The City of Mendota Heights should consult with the SHPO, OSA, and Dakota Communities regarding potential effects, appropriate treatment, and mitigation alternatives (See proposed Mitigation response in Section 6b). Discussion of SHPO and OSA Opinions The City of Mendota Heights has requested a resolution of the apparent conflict that exists between the information provided by the Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA) and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding the proposed The Bluffs of Mendota Heights (Bluffs) development project area (J. Danielson to R. Clark, letter, May 1, 2003). OSA Communication In December of 2000, the OSA was asked to provide comment on a proposed development for the Garron property located on the west side of Pilot Knob Road. The State Archaeologist responded, “there are no identified burial sites” in the project area (M. Dudzik to R. Lantzer, letter, December 1, 2000). Because no known burials were recorded in the then proposed development area, OSA further commented that “there are no burial-related contraindications to the project moving forward.” It should be noted that this review was not conducted for the current development and only encompasses a portion of the proposed Bluffs development area. SHPO Communication In January of 2003, the SHPO contacted the City of Mendota Heights regarding the proposed Bluffs development (B. Bloomberg to City of Mendota Heights, January 6, 2003). The SHPO stated that “Pilot Knob is an important geographic feature in Minnesota history being the site of a major treaty signing and of long-standing significance to the Dakota Indians” and “the site is potentially eligible to �the National Register of Historic Places.” SHPO further commented that “intensive residential development on Pilot Knob would adversely affect Pilot Knob” and the city should “carefully consider the impacts of the proposed development on historic resources in and around Mendota Heights.” Roles of SHPO and OSA The OSA is charged with the oversight of Minnesota’s archaeological sites and objects, including the authentication and protection of human burial sites. The letter from OSA only addresses burials, and their presence or absence, within the proposed 2000 Garron site project area. According to the files of the OSA, there are no known burials within the Garron property that would impede development. An area that does not contain burials, though, may be historically or culturally significant for other reasons. The SHPO is charged with the identification and preservation of Minnesota's important historic, cultural, and archaeological resources. While burials may not exist in the project area, the development site is part of Pilot Knob and the SHPO regards the area as an important feature in Minnesota history that is also of significance to the Dakota Indians. Conclusion The comments of these two agencies have been perceived as contradictory, because the letter from the OSA indicates that a development project may move forward on the Garron property, while the letter from the SHPO identifies Pilot Knob as an important historic site and cautions against development. The findings of these letters, though, are not contradictory, but rather stem from the different roles of these two agencies. The OSA and SHPO letters address different aspects of the property’s potential significance (burials vs. cultural and historical significance) and therefore the results of their reviews differ. The applicant took upon themselves to complete this extensive analysis of archeological and historical site significance. Copies of the full archeological report referenced above are available at City Hall and the Mendota Heights Public Library. b. Prime or unique farmlands or land within an agricultural preserve? __Yes c. Designated parks, recreation areas or trails? X No X Yes __No A regional bike trail is located on the northwestern side of the site along Old Highway 13. West of Old Highway 13 is the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Recreation Area at the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers. The regional trail will be connected into the neighborhood to provide recreational access to the future residents. The plan incorporates a variety of open spaces that are linked through a public trail system. The trail links the regional trail system at the west end of the site and traverses the slopes to the upper portion of the property. The commemorative open space, with water feature, limestone wall and observation area, replicates the historic hillside setting where treaties and agreements were said to be negotiated. The trail will also connect to the historical marker in the center turnaround. d. Scenic views and vistas? X Yes __No The site offers views of Fort Snelling, Downtown St. Paul, Downtown Minneapolis, and the confluence of the Minnesota and the Mississippi River valleys. In order to preserve public access to these views, a commemorative open space with a water feature, limestone wall and observation area has been incorporated into the plan. e. Other unique resources? __Yes X No If yes, describe the resource and identify any project-related impacts on the resource. Describe any measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. �26. Visual impacts. Will the project create adverse visual impacts during construction or operation? Such as glare from intense lights, lights visible in wilderness areas and large visible plumes from cooling towers or exhaust stacks? __Yes X No If yes, explain. There are none. 27. Compatibility with plans and land use regulations. Is the project subject to an adopted local comprehensive plan, land use plan or regulation, or other applicable land use, water, or resource management plan of a local, regional, state or federal agency? X Yes __No. If yes, describe the plan, discuss its compatibility with the project and explain how any conflicts will be resolved. If no, explain. The site is guided High Density Residential and Medium Density Residential. The site is zoned part B-1a, part R-3 and part R-1. The proposed residential PUD brings the site into compliance with the City Mendota Heights Comprehensive Plan. 28. Impact on infrastructure and public services. Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure or public services be required to serve the project? X Yes __No. If yes, describe the new or additional infrastructure or services needed. (Note: any infrastructure that is a connected action with respect to the project must be assessed in the EAW; see EAW Guidelines for details.) Developer will rebuild the north end of Pilot Knob Road adjacent to Acacia Cemetery and widen it from a rural section to a standard urban city street. Developer will construct the trail system, open spaces and historical feature referred to in question 6b. The City of Mendota Heights will maintain the parks and trails, while the Homeowners’ Association will irrigate and maintain the sodded areas. The proposed project is consistent with the City of Mendota Heights’s recent Comprehensive Plan, which balances City growth with facility planning. The City Police Chief, Fire Department Head Engineer, and the School District’s Director of Curriculum all stated in conversation that this new development could easily be served with their existing facilities. 29. Cumulative impacts. Minnesota Rule part 4410.1700, subpart 7, item B requires that the RGU consider the "cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects" when determining the need for an environmental impact statement. Identify any past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects that may interact with the project described in this EAW in such a way as to cause cumulative impacts. Describe the nature of the cumulative impacts and summarize any other available information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to cumulative impacts (or discuss each cumulative impact under appropriate item(s) elsewhere on this form). The proposed project will involve extending public roads and utilities to support the orderly redevelopment of housing in the area to the east of the project. 30. Other potential environmental impacts. If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts not addressed by items 1 to 28, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation. There are none. �31. Summary of issues. Do not complete this section if the EAW is being done for EIS scoping; instead, address relevant issues in the draft Scoping Decision document, which must accompany the EAW. List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation before the project is begun. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions. The developer does not believe there are any issues or impacts that may require further investigation. RGU CERTIFICATION. The Environmental Quality Board will only accept SIGNED Environmental Assessment Worksheets for public notice in the EQB Monitor. I hereby certify that: • The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. • The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or components other than those described in this document, which are related to the project as connected actions or phased actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200, subparts 9b and 60, respectively. • Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list. Signature Date Title Environmental Assessment Worksheet was prepared by the staff of the Environmental Quality Board at Minnesota Planning. For additional information, worksheets or for EAW Guidelines, contact: Environmental Quality Board, 658 Cedar St., St. Paul, MN 55155, 651-296-8253, or www.mnplan.state.mn.us �APPENDIX 1 �APPENDIX 2 �APPENDIX 3 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context PilotKnobEAW.pdf Title A name given to the resource Pilot Knob Environmental Assessment Worksheet Description An account of the resource In 2003 an Environmental Assessment Worksheet was done on Pilot Knob, Mendota Heights, MN. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Pilot Knob Preservation Association Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 8/26/2003 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Dalhgren Shardlow and Uban Inc., Hedlund Planning Engineering Surveying, City Mendota Heights Type The nature or genre of the resource Document Language A language of the resource English Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource .pdf Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Pilot Knob, Mendota Heights, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet Mendota Heights NARF pilot knob https://religionsmn.carleton.edu/files/original/3348091c051635ad0bcfa53e2d55c159.pdf 3dc193c547c566a224691171a7c22000 PDF Text Text 5 Sh is a p lace o fcu ltu ral im p o rtan ce to th e D ak o ta co m m u n ity an d o fs ig n if ce ican in th e h is to ry o fM in n es o ta s tateh o o d. rd 55 Rd is M is s 13 O h e y a w a h i/ ilo t K n o b P M EN D O TA H EI H TS,M I N ESO TA G N S ib le y H o u s e H is to ric S ite H is to ric F o rt S n e llin g M S P In t’l A irp o rt 35E M e n d o ta 110 P ilo t K n o b A c a c ia C e m e te ry O h ey aw ah i/Pilo t K n o b is lo cated at 21 00 Pilo t K n o b Ro ad,M en do ta H eig h ts . F ro m I -494,tak e th e Pilo t K n o b Ro ad ex it,th en driv e n o rth u n til th e ro ad en ds . F ro m State H ig h w ay 1 3,tak e th e Acacia Blv d.ex it w es t to Pilo t K n o b Ro ad. Tu rn rig h t.Park alo n g th e s treet. s r R iv e ip p i 5 M n in es ot a ve Ri A c a c ia B lv d r B ig R iv e rs R e g io n a l T ra il 31 P ilo t K n o b R d O h ey aw ah i/Pilo t K n o b is p ro tected by th e City o fM en do ta H eig h ts as an O p en Sp ace s ite. a ep © D A K O TA CO U N TY O h e y a w a h i/ ilo t K n o b P 494 55 13 35E O h ey aw ah i/Pilo t K n o b can be v is ited ev ery day du rin g day lig h t h o u rs . Th ere are in terp retiv e s ig n s an d trails ; th ere are n o o th er f acilities . P le a s e t a k e o n ly p ic t u r e s , le a v e o n ly fo o t p r in t s . CO VER – SETH EA STM A N W ATER CO L O R C.1 847.M I N ESO TA H I R I L SO CI N STO CA ETY A P la c e to T h in k a b o u t E r ly S ta te H is to r y a 1 700s 1 805 Th e es tablis h m en t o fF o rt Sn ellin g brin g s an Am erican m ilitary p res en ce. 1 823 1 834 F irs t s team bo at arriv es at F o rt Sn ellin g . 1 848 Pilo t K n o b is p ro p o s ed to be th e s ite f r th e o M in n es o ta territo rial cap ito l. 1 851 This is the n o rth s lo p e o fO h ey aw ah i,“a h ill m u ch v is ited, als o n o w ” k n o w n as W o tak u y e Pah a,“th e h ill o fall th e relativ es , a s acred ” p lace n am ed by D ak o ta p eo p le cen tu ries ag o .Th is h ill h as been a g ath erin g p lace f r D ak o ta,O jibw e,an d I w a p eo p le,an d a p lace f r o o o cerem o n ies an d bu rials .Pilo t K n o b w as th e s ite o fs ig n in g o fth e Treaty o f1 851 ,w h ich tran s f erred 35 m illio n acres o fD ak o ta lan d to th e U n ited States .I th e w in ter o f1 862-63,1 300 D ak o ta m en , n w o m en ,an d ch ildren w ere co n f ed in a f ced cam p o n th e in en o p p o s ite riv er ban k ,w h ere m an y died.So m e w ere bu ried h ere. L t.Zebu lo n Pik e,f t U . g o v ern m en t o ficial s en t to irs S. f area,reach es th e m o u th o fth e M in n es o ta R iv er. 1 820 Hek™a ahaåna Ikce Wicaß™a paha ¶iå de Oheyawahi eya cażeyatapi. Dehan ißto Wo™a¶uya Paha eya¡i. Wakaå dapi naka nina ohoda¡i. Ikce Wicaßta ded wace¶iya¡i k’a na¶uå wo™a¶uye ewicawanpapi. Ded na¶uå Treaty of 1851 owa¡i. De wowa¡i ¶iå Dakod makoce maka oß¡e ¶e¶to¡awiå¥e ¶e¶to¡awiå¥e wikcemna yamni sam zaptaå uå icu¡i. Hehan 1862-1863 waniye™u ecun wico¶a߶e ti wan ka¥a¡i. Na¶uå cuå¶a߶e wan ahomni ehdepi. He detaåhaå mni akasam™u. Ded Ikce Wicaß™a wica, wiåyaå k’a na¶uå wakaå iża wicopiya pazo wicayuha¡i. Wico™a t’a¡i. Na¶uå uå¥e ded wica®a¡i. D ak o ta an d allied n ativ e p eo p les in h abit m u ch o f M in n es o ta w h en F ren ch traders an d m is s io n aries f t en ter th e area. irs I a treaty s ig n ed o n Pilo t K n o b,th e D ak o ta cede n m o s t o fth e area n o w k n o w n as s o u th eas tern M in n es o ta to th e U . g o v ern m en t. S. M I N ESO TA H I R I L SO CI N STO CA ETY A P la c e to A p p r e c ia te D a k o ta H e r ita g e H en ry H as tin g s Sibley (later M in n es o ta’ f t s irs elected g o v ern o r) tak es ch arg e o fth e Am erican F u r Co m p an y p o s t at M en do ta. A n 1 m a p b y R. o n e s C o lb y,s h o w in g th e c o n flu e n c e o f th e 850 J St. te rs (M in n e s o ta ) a n d M is s is s ip p i riv e rs . e d ia m o n d w a lls o f Pe Th Fo rt Sn e llin g a re le ft o f Pik e Ila n d a n d Pilo t K n o b is a t b o tto m rig h t. s 1 862-63 1 870 M an y D ak o ta p eo p le beg in to retu rn to th eir f rm er h o m es ,in clu din g M en do ta,w h ere s o m e D ak o ta h ad o rem ain ed.Th e M en do ta M dew ak an to n D ak o ta Co m m u n ity co n tin u es to day . 2004 Te x t fro m Pilo t K n o b h is to ric a l m a rk e rs ;D a k o ta v e rs io n c o u rte s y o f G le n n W a s ic u n a . Af th e beg in n in g o fth e U . -D ak o ta Co n f ter S. lict, n o n -co m batan t D ak o ta p eo p le are h eld f r th e w in ter in a cam p belo w F o rt Sn ellin g .M an y died,an d o s o m e w ere bu ried o n Pilo t K n o b.L ater,th e U . g o v ern m en t f rcibly rem o v es m o s t D ak o ta p eo p le S. o f m M in n es o ta. ro O h ey aw ah i/Pilo t K n o b is determ in ed to be elig ible f r lis tin g o n th e N atio n al Reg is ter o fH is to ric Places . o SETH EA STM A N W ATER CO L O R C.1 847 M I N ESO TA H I R I L SO CI N STO CA ETY A P la c e R e c la im e d a s P u b lic L a n d Af th e lan d o fPilo t K n o b h ill w as o fered f r s ale by th e U . g o v ern m en t,it w as p u rch as ed ter f o S. by a v ariety o fp riv ate o w n ers .I 2002,dev elo p ers an n o u n ced a p lan to bu ild 1 5 to w n h o m es o n th e n o rth s lo p e. n 7 A bro ad co alitio n o fN ativ e Am erican s ,lo cal res iden ts ,h is to rian s ,arch eo lo g is ts ,f co m m u n ities ,an d aith en v iro n m en tal g ro u p s u n ited to p res erv e th e area as p u blic o p en s p ace. I 2006 th e City o fM en do ta H eig h ts ,w ith h elp f m Th e Tru s t f r Pu blic L an d*,p u rch as ed 8. acres o fPilo t K n o b n ro o 5 h ill f m th e p riv ate lan do w n ers .I 2007,th e City acq u ired an o th er 1 8. acres f m Acacia Park Cem etery . ro n 5 ro O h ey aw ah i/Pilo t K n o b is o n ce ag ain a p lace th at ev ery o n e can v is it to en jo y th e v iew an d w ildlif to learn abo u t e, eco lo g ical res to ratio n ,an d to ref o n th e h is to ry an d m ean in g o fth is s acred p lace. lect F o r cen tu ries ,D ak o ta p eo p le p laced th eir deceas ed relativ es o n s cafo lds bu ilt o n h ig h p laces ,s u ch as O h ey aw ah i,as f s h o w n h ere in a v iew by Seth Eas tm an f m aro u n d 1 847. ro Th e bo dy w as w rap p ed in s k in s o r clo th ,p laced o n a s cafo ld f r s ev eral day s o r w eek s ,th en bu ried in th e earth . f o Th is v iew is f m th e to p o fO h ey aw ah i,lo o k in g to w ard th e ro p res en t-day M SP in tern atio n al airp o rt. * Ad d itio n a l fu n d e rs th a t a s s is te d w ith th e s e p u rc h a s e s in c lu d e D a k o ta C o u n ty (th ro u g h its Fa rm la n d a n d N a tu ra l A re a s Pro g ra m ),th e M in n e s o ta D e p a rtm e n t o f N a tu ra l Re s o u rc e s (th ro u g h its Re m e d ia tio n Fu n d ,N a tu ra l a n d Sc e n ic ,a n d M e tro G re e n w a y s p ro g ra m s ),M in n e s o ta ’ En v iro n m e n t a n d N a tu ra l Re s o u rc e s Tru s t Fu n d (a s re c o m m e n d e d b y th e L e g is la tiv e - itiz e n s C C o m m is s io n o n M in n e s o ta Re s o u rc e s ),Th e F. Big e lo w Fo u n d a tio n ,Th e M c K n ig h t Fo u n d a tio n ,Th e Sa in t Pa u l Fo u n d a tio n , R. Th e Sc ro o b y Fo u n d a tio n ,a n d p riv a te c itiz e n s . o o o o o T h in k abo u t its s ig n if ce to th e D ak o ta n atio n ,p as t an d p res en t. ican V ie w lan dm ark s f m th e beg in n in g s o fM in n es o ta s tate h is to ry . ro L o o k f r deer,w ild tu rk ey s ,m ig ratin g birds an d o th er w ildlif o e. R e a d th e lan ds cap e f r clu es abo u t th e p as t. o L e a rn abo u t o ak s av an n a res to ratio n . © BR U CE W H I TE O h e y a w a h i/ ilo t K n o b — P A P la c e to R e fle c t o n M a n y S to r ie s A P la c e o f R e v e r e n c e O h ey aw ah i is a traditio n al s acred s ite to th e D ak o ta p eo p le.I lo o k s o v er th e m o u th o fth e t M in n es o ta R iv er,o r Bdo te M in is o ta,w h ich m an y D ak o ta p eo p le co n s ider th e cen ter o fth e earth .Th e lan ds cap e h as been altered in th e p as t 200 y ears ,y et th e wakaå o fth is p lace,its s acred es s en ce,rem ain s .By its in trin s ic n atu re,O h ey aw ah i co n tin u es to be an im p o rtan t p lace f r th e D ak o ta co m m u n ity to retu rn to f r g ath erin g s an d cerem o n ies . o o P le a s e t r e a t O h e y a w a h i/ ilo t K n o b w it h t h e r e s p e c t P a c c o r d e d t o c e m e t e r ie s a n d o t h e r s a c r e d p la c e s . H is to ric Fo rt S n e llin g a n d d o w n to w n M in n e a p o lis , m P ilo t K n o b , 0 fro 201 I th e 1 9th cen tu ry ,as to day ,v is ito rs to Pilo t K n o b co u ld v iew w h at J .W es ley Bo n d called,in n 1 851 ,a “g ra n d s p e c ta c le ,o f ro llin g p ra irie ,e x te n d e d p la in a n d g ro v e s ,th e v a lle y o f th e M in n e s o ta w ith its m e a n d e rin g s tre a m , as w ell as F o rt Sn ellin g an d th e g ro w in g to w n s o f ” M in n eap o lis an d St.Pau l. �e g io n a l T ra il B ig R iv e rs R 810 G ra v e l T ra il 55 M o w e d T ra il C o u n c il F ire s O v e rlo o k A P la c e to L e a r n a b o u t O a k S a v a n n a R e s to r a tio n 820 830 840 850 O v e rlo o k In te rp re tiv e S ig n Tw o h u n dred y ears ag o ,p rairie an d o ak s av an n a co v ered Pilo t K n o b. N ativ e g ras s es do m in ate in a p rairie,w ith n ativ e w ildf w ers lo blo o m in g f m Ap ril to N o v em ber.O ak s av an n a is s im ilar to p rairie, ro bu t als o co n tain s s cattered bu r o ak s an d o ak g ro v es . 860 E n tra n c e 870 0 C u n c il Fire s o O v e rlo o k 890 0 t iv a e Pr e op r ty te P ro p e r 0 lo Pi n tK ob Rd 0 Ac ac 100 90 ia 200 Vo lu n te e rs u s e fe n c in g to p ro te c t n e w ly p la n te d o a k s fro m b ro w s in g b y d e e r a n d ra b b its . 0 89 88 0 0 930 910 920 P r iv a 94 Vo lu n te e rs c u t a n d s ta c k n o n - a tiv e n w o o d y p la n ts ,w h ic h a re la te r u s e d a s fu e l a t D is tric t En e rg y in St. u l. Pa © M A R K K A R N EY /G R EAT R I VER G R EEN I G N ty Pr 0 © M A R K K A R N EY /G R EAT R I VER G R EEN I G N 870 0 90 910 92 93 880 0 89 900 900 S e v e n b lo c k s o f lim e s to n e re p re s e n t th e s e v e n D a k o ta / N a k o ta /L a k o ta g ro u p s w h o s e m e m b e rs c u rre n tly re s id e fro m M in n e s o ta to M o n ta n a ,N e b ra s k a to C a n a d a .T h e 2 -to n b lo c k s w e re q u a rrie d in th e M in n e s o ta R iv e r v a lle y n e a r M a n k a to .Y o u a re in v ite d to s it h e re . 0 88 I o rder to res to re th e lan d to th es e v eg etatio n ty p es ,M en do ta n H eig h ts co n tracted w ith G reat R iv er G reen in g in 2005 to dev elo p a 1 0-y ear res to ratio n p lan .Sp ecial ch allen g es f r res to ratio n o fth is o s ite are its s teep s lo p e,in v as iv e s p ecies ,rem n an ts o fp rio r dev elo p m en t,an d th e n eed to u s e m eth o ds th at are cu ltu rally s en s itiv e.Res to ratio n efo rts in clu de rep eated co n tro lled bu rn s , f m o w in g in v as iv e w eeds ,cu ttin g an d rem o v in g bru s h ,s o w in g p rairie g ras s s eed,p lan tin g g ras s an d w ildf w er s eedlin g s ,an d p lan tin g lo o ak s ap lin g s an d aco rn s . 85 P riv a te P ro p e rty S tre e t P a rk in g © W EL BY SM I /M N D N R TH C o n to u rs (1 0 ') © D A K O TA CO U N TY 800 Legend Bl vd 300 55 Fe e t A P la c e to R e a d th e L a n d s c a p e L o o k acro s s th e riv er v alley to F o rt Sn ellin g .Th is bro ad v alley w as carv ed by g lacial m eltw ater abo u t 1 2, y ears ag o .Betw een 1 2, an d 1 0, y ears ag o , 000 000 000 th e v alley w as cu t deep er by larg e v o lu m es o fw ater carried by G lacial R iv er W arren ,w h ich w as an o u tlet f r G lacial L ak e Ag as s iz in n o rth w es tern o M in n es o ta.Th e f o d p lain y o u s ee to day is th e res u lt o fth e M is s is s ip p i R iv er lo an d th e M in n es o ta R iv er,w h ich is th e rem n an t o fG lacial R iv er W arren , dep o s itin g s edim en t o v er th e las t 1 0, y ears . 000 H o ary Verv ain Ve rb e n a s tric ta Black -ey ed Su s an Ru d b e c k ia h irta W ild Berg am o t M o n a rd a fis tu lo s a G ray -h eaded Co n ef w er lo Ra tib id a p in n a ta Prairie w ildf w ers ,o r f rbs ,co -ev o lv ed w ith in s ects an d birds o v er th o u s an ds o fy ears . lo o Re-es tablis h in g th es e n ativ e p lan ts n o t o n ly in creas es th e beau ty o fPilo t K n o b,bu t als o p ro v ides f o d an d s h elter f r m an y n ativ e an im als . o o F L O W ER S A BO VE A N D BU TTER F L Y © BR U CE W H I TE I ag in e 1 2, y ears ag o ,w h en G lacial R iv er W arren m erg ed w ith th e m 000 M is s is s ip p i R iv er ju s t belo w Pilo t K n o b,at p res en t-day Pik e I lan d.As w ater s ru s h ed th ro u g h th e riv er v alley ,a m as s iv e w aterf f rm ed do w n s tream ju s t all o s o u th o fdo w n to w n St.Pau l.Th e w aterf g radu ally retreated u p s tream .Abo u t all 1 0, y ears ag o ,th e w aterf s p lit in tw o at Pik e I lan d.O n e f rk m o v ed u p th e 000 all s o M in n es o ta R iv er u n til it w as ex tin g u is h ed n ear Sav ag e.Th e o th er f rk m o v ed u p o th e M is s is s ip p i R iv er,th en s p lit ag ain to f rm M in n eh ah a F alls an d St.An th o n y o F alls in M in n eap o lis . Peo p le h av e dram atically altered th e lan ds cap e s een in Seth Eas tm an ’ 1 847 s p ain tin g (s ee bro ch u re co v er).As s ettlers p o u red in to th e area in th e m id-1 800s , Pilo t K n o b w as dev elo p ed f r dairy an d tru ck f s .L o o k f r clu es th at rem ain o arm o f m f rm er f s teads ,s u ch as bu ildin g f u n datio n s an d trees in w in d ro w s . ro o arm o A P la c e to W a tc h M ig r a to r y B ir d s a n d W ild life O h ey aw ah i/ Pilo t K n o b h as been u s ed as bu rial g ro u n d by p eo p le f r cen tu ries . o Settlers co n tin u ed th is cu s to m by es tablis h in g cem eteries o n th e h ill — St.Peter’ s in 1 840 (bef re th e n o rth ern p art o fth e h ill w as bis ected by h ig h w ay s ) an d o Acacia Park Cem etery in 1 925.At th at tim e a p o rtio n o fth e k n o b-lik e to p o fth e h ill,o n ce u s ed by s team bo at p ilo ts f r n av ig atio n p u rp o s es an d th e f re th at o eatu g av e th e h ill its En g lis h n am e,w as rem o v ed du rin g lan ds cap in g . © L EE K A R N EY /U SF W S Th is p ro ject h as been f an ced in p art w ith f n ds p ro v ided by th e State o fM in n es o ta f m th e Arts an d Cu ltu ral in u ro H eritag e F u n d th ro u g h th e M in n es o ta H is to rical So ciety . Th e A m e ric a n b a ld e a g le a n d tu rk e y v u ltu re a re tw o s p e c ie s o f la rg e ,d a rk b ird s o fte n s e e n o v e r Pilo t K n o b . e y c a n b e to ld a p a rt b y th e ir flig h t p ro file s . Th © I O R K O V/ D R EA M STI E. M G M CO T h is b ro c h u re w a s d e v e lo p e d a n d p ro d u c e d b y P ilo t K n o b P re s e rv a tio n A s s o c ia tio n . F o r th o u s an ds o fy ears ,th e M is s is s ip p i F ly w ay m ig rato ry ro u te h as been u s ed by th e m ajo rity o fN o rth Am erican birds th at w in ter in th e s o u th an d n es t in th e n o rth .Th e elev atio n o fPilo t K n o b p lu s th e h abitat it p ro v ides m ak es it an attractiv e s to p o v er f r m ig ratin g birds ,in clu din g o s p ecies s u ch as To w n s en d s o litaire,ro ck w ren ,an d p ereg rin e f n . alco PK PA als o th an k s th e City o fM en do ta H eig h ts an d D ak o ta Co u n ty f r th eir s u p p o rt. F o r in f rm atio n abo u t o o p ark s an d trails in M en do ta H eig h ts ,v is it w w w . en do ta-h eig h ts . m ; f r D ak o ta Co u n ty ,v is it m co o w w w . . o ta. n . s . co dak m u © 201 0 PI O T K N O B PR ESER VATI N A SSO CI O N . L O ATI Ea g le s s o a r in a s te a d y flig h t w ith w in g s h e ld s tra ig h t o u t. Vu ltu re s s o a r in a ro c k in g m o tio n w ith w in g s h e ld a t a n u p w a rd a n g le . Fo r d e ta ile d in fo r m a tio n o n to p ic s in th is p o c k e t g u id e ,v is it w w w . ilo tk n o b p r e s e r v a tio n . r g p o � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context PilotKnobPocketGuide.pdf Title A name given to the resource Pilot Knob Pocket Guide Description An account of the resource This small brochure on Pilot Knob introduces the cultural, historical, spiritual and ecological importance of this Dakota County landmark. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Pilot Knob Preservation Association Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Pilot Knob Preservation Association Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Minnesota Historical Society, City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Copyright Pilot Knob Preservation Association Type The nature or genre of the resource Document Language A language of the resource English Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource .pdf Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Pilot Knob, Mendota Heights, Minnesota NARF pilot knob https://religionsmn.carleton.edu/files/original/3ba213b0f17455321f68fbdc11a7d265.pdf da62f004ee567c1299243bdc5590544a PDF Text Text Pilot Knob Hill Phase II Natural Resource Management Plan November, 2007 ����Pilot Knob Hill Phase II Natural Resource Management Plan Compiled by: Wiley Buck Todd Rexine Tara Krebs Tony Randazzo Daniel Tix Great River Greening November 2007 ��Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Great River Greening, a nonprofit organization, helps communities coordinate cost-effective and sustained efforts to manage ecosystems of the Mississippi, Minnesota and St. Croix River valleys in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. We are primarily an implementing organization, providing on-theground ecological restoration and management of both public and private land. We engage thousands of volunteers in the planting of native vegetation, removal of exotic weeds, native seed collection and stewardship—work which results in an informed and involved citizenry. GRG also acts as a catalyst, creating effective partnerships among agencies, municipalities, and private landowners responsible for managing river valleys and their natural resources. Restoration ecologists and other scientists provide technical expertise. For more information, see our website at www.greatrivergreening.org. Wiley Buck, Restoration Ecologist (M.S., Wildlife Conservation, University of Minnesota) Wiley is responsible for project development and management, particularly for multi-year restoration projects such as Metro Conservation Corridors, a cooperative effort for protection and acquisition in priority areas of the metro, and Bucks and Buckthorn, a youth hunter and ecological education project. He served as Greening’s conservation director in 2004 and 2005. Wiley gained his restoration expertise through his experience with McHenry County Conservation District, The Nature Conservancy, Chicago Wilderness, and the Minnesota DNR’s Scientific and Natural Areas Program (SNA). As Resource Management Supervisor with SNA, he developed and implemented SNA management policy, supervised crew and staff, and helped build budgets and funding priorities. wbuck@greatrivergreening.org i Todd Rexine, Ecological Designer (M.L.A, University of Minnesota) Todd provides landscape ecological and design services on a variety of Greening projects. He has significant installation, computer and budget experience from his years in the private design-build field. He also has a B.F.A. in Studio Art and has worked as an assistant for American Bronze Castings, in addition to continuing in his own sculpture. trexine@greatrivergreening.org Tara Krebs, Project Assistant (B.A. Rangeland Ecology, conc. Restoration, Colorado State University) Tara assists the Conservation Director at Great River Greening with project development and tracking, as well as follow-up maintenance and field support. She started as a field crew member at Great River Greening. Her previous work experience includes: studying nutrient loading on a watershed level with The Institute of Ecosystem Studies, teaching ecology lessons to high school students at the Irvine Nature Center, and work as the Rangeland Management specialist SCEP student, writing annual operating plans, implementing riparian monitoring systems, and doing GPS/GIS work for the USDA Forest Service in Colville, WA. tkrebs@greatrivergreening.org Tony Randazzo, Landscape Ecologist (M.L.A, University of Minnesota) Tony provides landscape, ecological and design services on a variety of Greening projects, conducts ecological inventories and analysis, and writes ecological restoration and management plans. Previously at Kestrel Design Group and Peterson �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Environmental Consulting, Tony specializes in inventory, design and restoration of wetlands, shorelines and streambanks. trandazzo@greatrivergreening.org Daniel Tix, Conservation Director (Ph.D., Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota) Dan leads and coordinates the growing conservation operations of Greening, including volunteer restoration work, crew work, ecological planning, design and consulting. Previously, as Conservation Ecologist, he was involved in all types of restoration work, particularly the restoration of native savanna and forest communities and the development of design and management plans. Dan received his Ph.D. in plant biology from the University of Minnesota, where he researched management of restored prairies along roadsides and in urban areas. He has prior experience performing plant inventories for ecological management projects in California, the Dakotas, and Minnesota. Prior to his work at Great River Greening, Dan worked as a wetland consultant, delineating wetlands and advising developers on appropriate wetland management strategies. dtix@greatrivergreening.org ii �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Executive Summary The potential acquisition and restoration of a 15 acre addition to the 8 acres of existing public natural area on Pilot Knob Hill represents a historic opportunity to protect a significant piece of Minnesota’s history and restore some of the native prairie and savanna that has all but disappeared from the landscape. Known as Oheyawahi (“a hill much visited”), this prominent hill is a burial ground and sacred space to the Dakota people. It was a landmark for river navigation recognized by early European-American settlers. In 1851, a major treaty signed between the Dakota and whites ceded to the U.S. 35 million acres of land in Minnesota (Woolworth and White 2004). Today, the site is adjacent to Fort Snelling State Park, within a major bird migration route; it is both surrounded by dense urban development, while also an integral part of the wildlife rich Minnesota River corridor. The main purpose of this report is to identify the most appropriate targets for restoring and managing the Pilot Knob Hill Phase II site and then determine an effective strategy for achieving those targets. These targets and recommendations, and much of the background information, is based on information gathered for the Phase I management plan (Great River Greening, 2005). In addition, we identify several additional options to enhance the project, such as including volunteers and increasing the diversity of wildflowers. The overall goal is to make this site an inviting place where people can enjoy its views, experience the natural setting, and learn about and honor its storied past. The site could also become a gateway to Mendota Heights for thousands of daily motorists. iii Restoration Targets: Pilot Knob Hill should be restored to native prairie and savanna, habitats that were present in the mid-1800s before the land was settled by Europeans, and of utmost ecological value (MN DNR.2006) and cultural value today When restored, the site will give visitors a sense of the diverse and beautiful prairie landscape that is rare today. Restoration Process: The restoration of native habitats in the 15 acre Pilot Knob Hill Phase II project area will be a long term process. Little native vegetation is left due to fairly typical disturbance of agriculture use and homesite development. These disturbances have allowed a number of threatening invasive species to get a foothold, though they are still at manageable levels. Unlike Phase I, this site can be restored in distinct steps and distinct areas. Fortunately, the area with the greatest ecological connectivity to Phase I will also be the easiest area to restore. With the suite of invasive species on the site, however, the restoration needs to proceed systematically and with care. Volunteer Opportunities: Nearly every part of this restoration project can involve volunteers, either through large, well-publicized events or as small, self-sufficient groups requiring minimal supervision. The large events allow local people to come together for meaningful work, become personally involved, and learn more about the restoration and the site. Potential volunteer activities run the gamut from invasive species removal to planting and seeding. �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Trails and Overlook: A simple, low-maintenance trail system with overlooks that connects to the Phase I trails will give visitors the opportunity to contemplate the site’s expansive views of natural and human-built landscapes. Costs: Estimated cash requirements for native prairie and savanna restoration are: • Whole Site Treatments (exotics etc.) $ 32,000 • Area 1 Prairie $ 35,000 • Area 2 Prairie and Savanna $ 54,000 • Areas 3 Savanna and Prairie $ 30,400 (10yrs of 30yr plan) • Wildlife Hibernaculum/Nest Boxes $ 6,300 • Trail/Overlook/Parking constr $ 38,800 • Interpretive displays $ 30,000 Acquisition Requirements: This management plan is designed to fulfill the requirements of the acquisition partner organizations and grant programs. Use of the site will be determined in the final grant agreements, but sound management and appropriate public access are principles that are fully anticipated. The acquisition partners include Trust for Public Land, Dakota County Farmland and Natural Areas Program, DNR Metro Greenways, DNR Remediation Fund, and the DNR Natural and Scenic Area Grants Program. iv Funding: The Pilot Knob Hill Phase II natural resource restoration project has many components that are compelling for funders: • it is highly visible, • it has a nationally significant role in the history of the Dakota people and European settlement of the region, • it connects to existing natural areas and is in a key township in the state’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, • prairie and savanna communities are high priority habitats for restoration due to their rarity, • the work provides meaningful opportunities for volunteers. While there are no guarantees for fundraising, the City of Mendota Heights can anticipate that substantial funding for the restoration project can be generated through grants. If selected to coordinate the restoration work, Great River Greening can work with the City to secure grant funds for the project. A Vision: An artistic vision of a restored Pilot Knob Hill gives a sense of how this natural area could look. The waving prairie grasses, flushes of colorful wildflowers throughout the season, and scattered, twisting-limbed bur oaks in a restored Pilot Knob Hill would be a striking sight to thousands of drivers crossing the bridge into Mendota Heights. It would be a great setting for bringing together community members to commemorate such a significant place. �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan illustration by Dan Shaw v �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Acknowledgements This plan was written under the guidance of Guy Kullander, James Danielson, and Sue McDermott and of the City of Mendota Heights; Alan Singer of the Dakota County Farmland and Natural Areas Program; and Robert McGillivray of The Trust for Public Land. Ryan Ruzek assisted with shape files; Mary Hagerman at Dakota County GIS Services supplied high resolution aerial photos and assistance with re-projecting. Cathy Undem at Dakota Co. Farmland and Natural Areas Program supplied historic aerial photos. Many volunteers from several organizations have contributed on drafts of this report include Gail Lewellan, Sister Jan Dalsin, and Jeanne Hollingsworth of the Pilot Knob Preservation Association; Larry Grainger of PKPA and the JRB Minnesota River History Center; Jim Anderson, Cultural Liaison of the Mendota Mdwakenton Dakota Community; Rudy, long-time resident at the north homesite; and Dale Bachmeier, Acacia Park Cemetery for allowing access during the acquisition period. vi Peter Wielke, USDA-NRCS, and Liz Harper, Non-game Specialist at MN DNR, provided expert review and data on select portions of the plan. Chet Meyers, Chairperson of the Red-Headed Woodpecker Recovery, Audubon - Minneapolis provided valuable resources on the habitat needs of red-headed woodpeckers. Cordelia Pierson of The Trust for Public Land compiled the Phase I version of the funding sources listed in Appendix C. Susan Overson of the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area assisted with estimates of the costs of creating and installing interpretive signs. This plan was presented to the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission on November 13, 2007, and the City Council on November 20, 2007. �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Table of Contents Page Review and Approval Executive Summary iii Acknowledgements vi Pilot Knob Hill Project Area Location 1 Geology and Soils 3 Vegetation of Pilot Knob Before European Settlement 6 Vegetation of Pilot Knob Project Area in the 1900s 8 Current Vegetation at Pilot Knob Hill 12 Native Plant Communities Recommended for Restoration at Pilot Knob Hill 19 An Implementation Plan for Restoring Native Plant Communities 24 Wildlife Habitat Management at Pilot Knob Hill 36 Implementation Schedules 40 Recommendations for Trails, Overlook, and Interpretive Information 51 Recommendations for Parking and Pilot Knob Road 65 Recommendations for Involving Volunteers 70 References 74 vii �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Appendices: Appendix A: Plant Species for Restoration at Pilot Knob Hill Appendix B: Resources for Restoration Appendix C1: Potential Funding Sources for Pilot Knob Restoration as of October 22, 2005 Appendix C2: Current Funding Sources as of November 2007 Appendix D: Reasonable Replacement Costs for Tree/Shrub Removal on Mn/DOT Right of Way Appendix E: Plan Amendments Appendix F: Bird Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) Found at Fort Snelling State Park Appendix G: Rare Animal Features within 1.5 Miles of Pilot Knob Hill List of Figures: Figure 1: Pilot Knob Hill Project Location Figure 2: Soils of Pilot Knob Hill Project Area Figure 3: Vegetation at the Time of European Settlement Figure 4: 1945 Aerial Photo of Pilot Knob Hill Phase II Figure 5: 1970 Aerial Photo of Pilot Knob Hill Phase II Figure 6: 1985 Aerial Photo of Pilot Knob Hill Phase II Figure 7: Current Land Cover Figure 8: Invasive Species Locations Figure 9: Target Plant Communities at Pilot Knob Hill Figure 10: Herbaceous Seed Mixes for Sowing Figure 11:Phase I and Phase II Trails and Overlooks Figure 12: Proposed Temporary Trails and Overlook Locations Figure 13: Proposed Trails and Overlook Locations at Pilot Knob Hill II viii 77 90 93 97 98 100 101 103 2 4 7 9 10 11 14 18 20 39 52 53 54 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan List of Tables: Table 1: Whole Site Considerations Table 2: Area 1 Prairie Reconstruction Table 3: Area 2 Prairie and Savanna Reconstruction Table 4: Area 3 Savanna and Prairie Reconstruction Table 5: Wildlife Habitat Improvements Table 6: Estimated Construction Costs Table 7: Estimated Construction Costs, Parking Lot Area Table 8: Summary of Estimated Costs by Year 40 42 44 45 50 67 68 69 ix �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Pilot Knob Hill Project Area Location Pilot Knob Hill Phase I and II project areas are in the southern corners of section 27 and 28, range 23, township 28 in Mendota Heights, Dakota Co. Pilot Knob Hill is located in the 2000 block of Pilot Knob Road at its northern terminus. The Pilot Knob Hill Phase II project area consists of over 16 acres of potential habitat, consisting of three parcels currently owned by the City, and the bulk of the acreage from a Trust for Public Land acquisition from Acacia Park Cemetery. Phase I and Phase II straddle both sides of the Pilot Knob Road, which reaches a dead-end at the site, and will no longer be necessary. This adds a small amount of acreage to the project location; its removal is important for connectivity. This land is adjacent to the eight acres in Phase I combining for a total of approximately 24 acres. The project site is bordered 1 by highways to the east and paved road on the south, Acacia Park cemetery to the west. The two sites together then are bordered on the north by Highways 55 and 110 just east of the Mendota Bridge, and to the west by the Big Rivers Regional Bike Trail (maintained by Dakota County) and Sibley Memorial Highway (Figure 1). Fort Snelling State Park sits within the Minnesota River Valley just west of the project area. The Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge adjoins the state park just upstream from the project area. The south edge of Mississippi National River and Recreation Area is just north of the project area. The views from the hill span native forests and wetlands in the Minnesota Valley, as well as a broad panorama of the urban landscape including the Minneapolis skyline, Fort Snelling State Park and History Center, and the MSP International Airport. �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan St. Paul Lilydale Phase II Phase I Sections Municipalities Fort Snelling Mendota 28 27 Mendota Heights N Figure 1: Pilot Knob Hill Project Location 0 (2003 FSA Color Aerial) Photo) 1 2 2 Miles �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Geology and Soils During the Paleozoic Era 450-523 million years ago, the Pilot Knob Hill region was covered by warm, tropical seas. Sediments deposited in these seas later formed a series of limestone, sandstone, dolomite and shale layers throughout southeastern Minnesota. The uppermost strata of this sedimentary rock series occurs near the surface on the sides of Pilot Knob Hill. Rocks exposed within the Phase I project area include the Decorah shale, a gray-green shale, and Platteville limestone. These layers are known for having highly abundant fossils, including brachiopods, cephalopods, gastropods, crinoids, and trilobites (Ojakangas and Matsch 1982). Much later in time, the Paleozoic bedrocks were covered by glacial deposits. Approximately 13,000 years ago, Pilot Knob Hill was covered by the eastern edge of the Des Moines lobe of the Wisconsinan glaciation, which was the latest glaciation in Minnesota. When the glacial lobe melted from its edge and retreated, approximately 12,000 years ago, outwash streams flowed over the Pilot Knob area northward into the Mississippi River. These meltwater streams left beds of sandy and gravelly outwash (Hobbs et al. 1990). The braided meltwater stream bed was later followed by Glacial River Warren, a huge glacial river that originated from the southern tip of Glacial Lake Agassiz in western Minnesota and formed the broad and wide valley now occupied by the Minnesota River (Wright 1972). The glacial outwash deposits sit underneath the upper slopes of Pilot Knob, including most of the project area. Lower slopes 3 of Pilot Knob were carved by Glacial River Warren, which removed layers of outwash and underlying glacial till, and cut into the underlying sedimentary bedrock layers. According to the Dakota County Soil Survey (NRCS 1983), three soil types occur in the Pilot Knob Hill phase II project area (Figure 2). Brief descriptions of these soil types given below are excerpted from this soil survey. Interpretations of conditions for soil formation are from Brady (1974) and Weikle (pers. comm.). Additional recommendations on suitable plant communities for the different soil types are interpretations of the authors of this report. Soil survey polygon attributes and boundaries were created before 1983, which predates the latest road construction improvements for highway 55. The steep slopes along highway 55 at the northeast corner of the project area occur further south today than they did when the soil survey was created. The three soil types in the Pilot Knob Hill phase II project area are all mesic loams or silt loams most suitable for mesic plant communities such as mesic prairie or savanna. The Waukegan soil is by far the most prevalent soil, with only minor corners of the project areas Lester and Kanaranzi (likely disrupted from Hwy 55 construction) Waukegan soils in the site are classified as mollisols, meaning that they contain dark, upper horizons formed under prairie. �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan WAUKEGAN LESTER KANARANZI # ~0" Ph. II Boundary # >12" # # 3" # >12" # ~0" # >15" # # ~0" >12" N Figure 2: Soils of Pilot Knob Hill Project Area(Source: USDA, 1983) 0 400 4 800 Feet A Horizon Depths 10_22_07 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Soil borings were taken as part of this planning process (see Figure 2). Topsoil depths were found to vary greatly, being very deep in many spots but essentially absent in others. This lack of topsoil in some spots is likely due to erosion from agriculture, and scraping for road building or other purposes. These soil borings also revealed the presence of invasive exotic earthworms, specifically nightcrawlers (Lumbricus terrestris). This infestation is common but the deleterious effect of earthworms on forest and woodland understory plants is well documented. Waukegan Silt Loam – This is a gently sloping, well-drained soil formed in a deep, silty mantle over sandy and gravelly outwash deposits. In a typical profile, silt loam extends to a 5 depth of 32 inches, underlain by gravelly coarse sand of glacial outwash deposits. Lester Loam – This soil is a deep, well-drained loam formed in glacial till deposits. A typical pedon consists of loam to 11 inches over clay loam. The underlying clay loam is likely to have formed in shale and limestone colluvial deposits. In phase II this soil was likely disrupted during Hwy 55 construction. Kanaranzi Silt Loam – This is a gently sloping, well-drained soil of fine silt loam. In a typical profile, silt loam extends to a depth of 0-7 inches. Native vegetation is classified as tall grass prairie. �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Vegetation of Pilot Knob Before European Settlement The upper slopes of Pilot Knob were dominated by native prairie vegetation in the early 1800s, as clearly illustrated by Seth Eastman’s drawing from 1847. Between open prairies were bands of woody vegetation concentrated along drainages. Given the mesic (moist) soils on these upper slopes, the prairie vegetation would have been predominantly mesic tallgrass prairie. Eastman’s drawing of Pilot Knob Minnesota Historical Society Frederick J. Marschner’s map of “The Original Vegetation of Minnesota” shows the Pilot Knob region as “Oak Openings and Barrens” (Figure 3; Marschner 1974). This map was based on the notes of surveyors of the Public Land Survey, who marked off the grid of section lines across the state and surveyed most of Dakota County from 1847 to 1855. Oak Openings and Barrens were principally “scattered trees and groves of Oaks (mostly bur oaks) of scrubby form with some brush and thickets, in a matrix of tallgrass prairie, and occasionally with Pines” (Heinselman 1974). 6 These Oak Openings and Barrens would be described today as Southern Dry Savanna or Southern Mesic Savanna (MNDNR 2005, in preparation). Mesic prairies and oak savannas are firemaintained plant communities that burned every 5-10 years, which prevented them from being overtaken by brush and trees. Before European settlement, wildfires set by lightning or Native Americans frequently swept across the landscape (Grimm 1984). Today, mesic prairies and savannas are among the rarest native plant communities in Minnesota. Most prairies and savannas in the region were cleared for agriculture or urban development. Nearly all that remained transformed into woodlands and forests due to the suppression of wildfires. �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan 7 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Vegetation of the Pilot Knob Project Area in the 1900s Figures 4, 5 and 6 are historic aerial photos of the area in 1945, 1970 and 1985 respectively. The project area was primarily a farm and other houses in the early 1900s. Large fields were cultivated on the south end and north end. The east-central portion appears to have been an intense livestock area; in 1970, trees and shrubs appear to have volunteered in this former eastcentral livestock areas, presumably due to the removal of the livestock. The old field on the south end currently supports a large number of young green ash and other trees. 8 By 1985, Pilot Knob Road’s connection to Hwy 55 was rerouted and has been a dead end cul-de-sac ever since. Several homesites existed on the site, with a cluster of small lots in the southeast. MN DOT constructed a detention basin in the southeast corner, but it does not appear to collect much runoff at this point. Most recently, Acacia Park Cemetery has changed the use of the grounds around the central homesite. The back lot is now used extensively for equipment and vehicle storage. Up until the 1990s, the large turf area between the two remaining homesites was cut for sod by Acacia Park Cemetery (Bachmeir, pers. comm.) �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Figure 4: 1945 Aerial Photo of Pilot Knob Hill (Photo and layout courtesy of Dakota Co. Farmland and Natural Areas Program) 9 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Figure 5: 1970 Aerial Photo of Pilot Knob Hill (Photo and layout courtesy of Dakota Co. Farmland and Natural Areas Program) 10 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Figure 6: 1985 Aerial Photo of Pilot Knob Hill (Photo and layout courtesy of Dakota Co. Farmland and Natural Areas Program) 11 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Current Vegetation at Pilot Knob Hill The existing land cover in the Pilot Knob Hill Phase II project area was field surveyed from September to Novermber 2007, and in Phase I in September 2005 (Great River Greening, 2005) and mapped in Figure 8. The units on the map are described below. Old Field In Phase I, the vegetation of this area is highly disturbed and dominated mostly by a dense cover of a wide diversity of exotic or invasive native plant species. Major dominant species on the site include Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), quackgrass (Agropyron repens), burdock (Arctium minus), common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), giant goldenrod (Solidago gigantea), Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), white sweet clover (Melilotus alba), and yellow sweet clover (Melilotus officinalis). Some native plant species that would occur in prairies and savannas are also present. These include stiff goldenrod (Solidago rigida), wild bergamot (Monarda fistulosa), dogbane (Apocynum androsaemifolium), white snakeroot (Eupatorium rugosum), wolfberry (Symphoricarpos occidentalis), nannyberry (Viburnum lentago), jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus), gray dogwood (Cornus racemosa), yarrow (Achillea millefolium), short sedge (Carex brevior), and woodland sedge (Carex blanda). Turf In Phase II, the old field is fairly typical in that the herbaceous layer is dominated by non-native smooth brome, poa, and overabundant native Canada and stiff goldenrod. It is has a high stem density of invasive Siberian elm, black walnut, and green ash. Red cedar, gray dogwood, box elder, aspen and other species are present in lower numbers. 12 Several acres in phase II are in turf, including the yards around the two remaining homesites and an expanse between the two homes. This area has been mowed regularly. It has common weeds in it including quack grass, but is relatively free of spotted knapweed and other invasive species in the area. �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Vegetable Garden Detention Pond A large vegetable garden was in production until 2007. This area is adjacent to the turf and is now being colonized by weedy species. Raspberry and assorted fencing are also in this classification. There is a stormwater detention pond in the southeast corner of the site, collecting run off from Valencour Circle. However, even in heavy rainfall periods, standing water does not collect. Due to the steep slopes and highly disrupted nature of this area, it presents no unique planting opportunities. 13 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Wi As Ct Br Am Co Bi Di Si Br Mo Fr Be Bu Ds Re Of Bx Land Cover Bg Ur Tr Re Br Old field Planted conifers Buildings and groun Vegetable garden DOT slope Turf grass Detention Pond Cottonwood box elder and ash Vg Br Tf Br Pr Ur Tr Ur Cw Bg Of Cw Po Co N Figure 7: Current Land Cover (2006 Color Aerial courtesy of Dakota Co.) 0 14 400 800 Feet �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Box Elders and Planted Conifers (Phase I only) This is a large area of woods on the Acacia Cemetery property composed mostly of box elders that invaded the area since the early 1960s (Figures 4, 5 and 6). Stands of invasive trees like this are not recognized as native plant communities, as they originate primarily on human-disturbed sites. Several patches of planted conifers planted before 1970 also occur within this woods and contain white spruce (Picea alba), red pine (Pinus resinosa), and arbor vitae (Thuja sp.). Other trees in these woods include cottonwood, green ash, black walnut, Siberian elm, and American elm. Underneath the trees in these woods is a dense thicket of common buckthorn, a highly invasive exotic species that crowds out native trees and wildflowers. Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) is an exotic plant that has invaded the ground in these woods. Other common native herbs include wood nettle (Laportea canadensis), moonseed (Menispermum canadense), lady fern (Athyrium angustum), enchanter’s nightshade (Circaea lutetiana), sweet-scented bedstraw (Galium triflorum), and white snakeroot (Eupatorium rugosum). Stacks of marble tiles, slate roof shingles, and limestone blocks are stored in a small portion of this area. 15 Bur Oaks This is a small stand of large bur oak trees on the Acacia Cemetery property that were present in 1945 (Figure 4) and likely originated from trees that occupied the area before the time of European settlement. These trees grew up in an open setting and not in woods, as they have broad crowns with spreading, horizontal limbs. A large American elm, (Ulmus americana), is also present within the woods. The herbs on the ground are species typical of shaded woods on heavy, moist soils, including wood nettles, and other species seen in the Box Elder and Planted Conifers woods. �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan DOT Slope This is an engineered, north-facing slope along the south side of highway 55. In Phase I, the slope consists predominantly of grassy vegetation with a narrow band of planted trees and shrubs that were mapped separately. Below the band of trees and shrubs, the slope is dominated by exotic species: smooth brome (Bromus inermis), Kentucky bluegrass, and bird’s foot trefoil. The upper half of the slope, above the planted trees, the vegetation is much the same as the area mapped as Old Field. Several species of native prairie grasses and forbs were also planted by MNDOT into this area but these did not establish very well due to poor seed, insufficient site preparation, and /or lack of maintenance. These prairie species include big bluestem, Indian grass, little bluestem, and black-eyed Susan (Rudbeckia hirta). Controlled burns on the upper part of the slope would help re-establish the planted prairie grasses. In Phase II, the slope for the roadcut, owned in part by DOT and part contained in the Phase II boundary, several trees including Lombardy poplar, conifers, and desirable oaks are growing. Within the project boundary, the understory vegetation includes invasive reed canary grass, but also native river bulrush and extensive wild bergamot. Box elder trees are beginning to take over. On the DOT slope in Phase II, there are no highly invasive trees or shrubs whose removal is necessary like Phase I. Planted Conifers In Phase I, this is an area of pines (Ponderosa pine or red pine) and white spruce planted by MNDOT. In Phase II, conifers have been planted along a roadside easement along Acacia Blvd at the south end of the site where many mature evergreens and some hardwoods were planted decades ago. Shrubs are also ornamental. Conifers include Scotch pine (Pinus sylvestris), red pine (Pinus resinosa) and white spruce (Picea alba). Box elder and aspen have volunteered; on the shady north side of this planting, many other trees are volunteering. Cottonwood, box elder and green ash The large east-central forested area of Phase II is comprised largely of cottonwood, box elder and green ash in the canopy. The shrub layer is predominately invasive buckthorn, but the desired elderberry bush is found along some of the perimeter. The understory in this area is in very poor condition. Road cut slope, NE end Phase II 16 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Buildings and Grounds Invasive Species This classification includes the cultural areas of homes and outbuildings, driveways, utilities, roads, turf and trees-in-turf. These areas will be highly modified by the house and outbuilding removal process. Invasive species span the spectrum of existing land covers. Figure 8 identifies species that are on the verge of expanding. Other species such as poa and smooth brome are ubiquitious and therefore not mapped. 17 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Knapweed Sw. clover S. elm/B. elder med/low density Buckth./Honeys. medium density Carrageena Spoil pile Can. thistle Leafy spurge N Figure 8: Invasive Species Locations (2006 Color Aerial courtesy of Dakota Co.) 0 400 18 800 Feet �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Native Plant Communities Recommended for Restoration at Pilot Knob Hill Mesic (moist soil) prairie, wet prairie, dry prairie and mesic oak savanna are native plant communities that once existed on Pilot Knob and would be excellent target communities for restoration. These communities have a continuous display of wildflowers throughout the growing season. In the fall the prairie grasses turn a combination of rich orange-red and blue colors. Figure 10 shows a proposed layout of these communities in the project area. Descriptions of the native plant community types recommended for restoration at Pilot Knob are given below. A step-by step timeline for restoring these native plant communities is given in the next section. brome, and slender wheatgrass. Little bluestem, sideoats grama grass, and porcupine grass are more common in dry-mesic phases of this type. Switch grass, prairie cordgrass, and slender wheatgrass are more common in the wet-mesic phase. Some of the more common forbs include heart-leaved alexanders, Canada goldenrod, wild bergamot, Maximilian sunflower, gray-headed coneflower, purple prairie clover, and prairie phlox. Shrubs, varying from well scattered to clumped, typically include leadplant and prairie rose. Mesic Prairie: Within the project area on the north side of Pilot Knob, the open prairies were mostly mesic prairie as the site is dominated mostly by moist, loamy soils. Mesic prairie is a diverse, tallgrass prairie community on moderately-drained to welldrained sites on uplands. This community type ranges from dry-mesic to wet-mesic in nature. Dominant grasses are big bluestem, Indian grass, porcupine grass, prairie dropseed, and little bluestem. Other important grasses and sedges include Leiberg’s panic grass, switchgrass, Mead’s sedge, Kalm’s 19 Mesic Prairie in June, Redwood County © Minnesota DNR �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Area 1 4.6 ac Target Plant Communities Area 3 5.3 ac Oak savanna Mesic prairie Dry prairie Det. pond Cattail marsh Wet prairie Area 2 7.6 ac N Figure 9: Target Plant Communities at Pilot Knob Hill (2006 Color Aerial courtesy of Dakota Co.) 0 300 20 600 Feet �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan mesic sites, the dominant vegetation between trees is mesic prairie; on dry sites the dominant vegetation is dry prairie. In areas of dense trees, the vegetation contains many species that are tolerant of partial to full shade that occur in oak woodlands. Oak Savanna: At Pilot Knob, we recommend restoration of open oak savanna to recreate one of the prevalent native plant communities that used to occur in the region, and provide transition zone and screenings around the south and east perimeters. Oak Savanna in the Fall, Scott County © Minnesota DNR Dry to mesic savanna and woodlands were common communities in Minnesota in the transition zone between open prairies and dense hardwood forests. On Pilot Knob, these communities occupied drainages where the fire frequency was not as great as in open, treeless prairies. These areas had scattered to clumped trees composed mostly of bur oak, a relatively fire-resistant tree when mature. Northern pin oak, which is somewhat less fire resistant, was also frequent in the landscape. In natural savannas, the stature and spacing of trees is somewhat variable: areas with a high frequency of fire tend to have fewer, more widely-spaced trees within a matrix of prairie vegetation; and areas with low fire frequency tend to have more dense woody vegetation. In open savannas on 21 A good source of local ecotype acorns is the stand of bur oaks growing on the adjacent Acacia Cemetery. Other native oak stands within 30 miles would also be a good source; manicured sites are especially well suited for acorn collection. Bur oaks generally produce acorns around August 20 and produce acorns every year. �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan At Pilot Knob, we recommend planting dry prairie on the driest, most well-drained areas, such as on the upper parts of steep west-facing slopes. Dry prairie vegetation is shorter in stature and facilitates better views from topographic high points in the site. Including dry prairie in the restoration will also increase the diversity of different grasses and wildflowers in the site. Dry Prairie: Wet Prairie: Dry Prairie in June, Hennepin County © Minnesota DNR Dry hill prairie likely covered the driest tops of hills and ridges at Pilot Knob. The dominant grasses in the most excessivelydrained areas are mid-height to short grasses, including porcupine grass, little bluestem, side-oats grama, and junegrass. On lower, more mesic slopes, such as at mid-slope on steep hillsides, big bluestem usually co-dominates with the short to mid-height grasses. Common forbs in this type include pasque flower, stiff sunflower, silky aster, stiff goldenrod, rough blazing star, purple prairie clover. Two very common native shrub species are leadplant and prairie rose. This community is very similar in composition to dry oak savanna but lacks the scattered to clumped oaks and species adapted to low to moderate shade. 22 Wet Prairie, Dakota County © Minnesota DNR This is a wetland prairie community that occurs on poorlydrained mineral soils that may be slightly flooded during wet seasons in the spring. The dominant grasses and sedges are prairie cord-grass, big bluestem, bluejoint, woolly sedge, and switchgrass. Often other sedges are common, including Sartwell’s sedge, dark green bulrush, and Buxbaum’s sedge. Common forbs include Virginia mountain mint, giant �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan goldenrod, golden alexanders, spotted water-hemlock, New England aster, and giant sunflower. Shrubs are sometimes common in these communities, including red-osier dogwood, slender willow, pussy willow, and Bebb’s willow. In Phase I, we are planting wet prairie in three areas of wet, mineral soils that are wet for much of the growing season. These areas are in low, level areas in drainages. Reed canary grass, an invasive exotic species of wetlands, currently dominates most of these areas in the site. In Phase II, the DOT slope in the northeast is moister due to the seepage from the top of the hill and its north aspect. It is this one spot where wet prairie reconstruction is recommended. Plant Species Lists: Lists of plant species for the native plant communities recommended for restoration in the site are given in Appendix A. These lists include a complete list of species that occur in the community type in the region. These species lists were 23 determined from an analysis of numerous vegetation plots collected in remnant native plant communities in east-central Minnesota by ecologists of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) (Dunevitz and Lane 2004). Additional refinements of the lists were done by examining plant species lists taken by MN DNR ecologists from several nearby reference sites identified in the MN DNR’s Rare Features Database. These reference sites include mesic oak savanna at Fort Snelling State Park (MCBS 1995); dry oak savanna at the Lawrence Wayside (Scott County; MCBS 2002); mesic prairie and oak woodland at the Katherine Ordway Natural History Study Area (Macalester College, Dakota County); mesic prairie at the Black Dog Prairie Preserve Scientific and Natural Area (Dakota County); and mesic prairie at Thomas Lake Prairie (City of Eagan, Dakota County; MCBS 1997). For Phase II, the species lists were refined to include those believed to be important in the reconstruction process (Packard 1999) and those recommended for exposed clay soil (Prairie Moon Nursery 2007). �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan methods and approach, the objectives should be kept in mind to guide the decisions. An Implementation Plan for Restoring Native Plant Communities at Pilot Knob Pilot Knob Phase II is a more typical site for prairie and savanna restoration than Phase I, as a large part of it is currently old field and turf. Nonetheless, it will be challenging as several invasive species are threatening. Once restored the combined acreage with Phase I will bring about a large waving prairie and savanna with diverse wildflowers supporting bird and other animal life, and provide an enjoyable site for visitors and motorists. The key recommendations to accomplish a successful restoration at Pilot Knob are: • Adopt an “adaptive management” approach, • Invest properly in invasive species control and site preparation. • After the seed is sown, make a three-year investment to help ensure the native plants get established. • Annual maintenance, including a three-year burn cycle. As with all natural area restorations, we encourage Mendota Heights to adopt an “adaptive management” approach to the restoration of this important site. Because of variables due to such things as weather, seed bank, advancements in the restoration field, and new exotic species, the knowledge of the site will increase as the work progresses. This knowledge should be used to revise and adapt the management approach as the work progresses. When adapting the management 24 Unlike Phase I, the Phase II site lends itself well to a phased in approach, with three areas identified as restoration blocks. This phasing allows for the areas of greatest ecological value to be restored first. Fortunately, the priority areas are also the least expensive to restore. For Phase II, the recommendations are categorized as either whole site considerations, or by Area. Specific recommendations follow. WHOLE SITE CONSIDERATIONS Mark the property lines The property lines, especially on the east, are unclear in the field. Getting a professional survey and then marking the property lines is essential for communicating with on-theground restoration personnel. Invasive Species Control Spotted Knapweed Control Spotted knapweed poses several problems. In the areas that it has already infested, it will become dominant in part via chemicals it emits into the soil to prevent germination of other species; these chemicals can linger in the soil for several years. Through prolific airborne seed production it can be exponentially invasive, especially where the soil is worked and exposed; seeds can remain viable in the soil for seven years (MN DNR 2002). �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan prairie vegetation becomes established and greatly reduce (though probably not eliminate) the number of knapweed and leafy spurge plants that grow there. The knapweed at Phase II is found in four distinct populations. In Area 1, there is an established roadside population under the utility poles (along with leafy spurge) that is being controlled with mowing by Public Works, and along a small area near the cul-de-sac. In Area 2, there are two pioneering populations, one along the mowed area and lane of the current Gathering Area (see Figure x), and a second at the MN DOT retention pond. Also in the southwest corner of Area 2 is the large core population that has infested several acres of the southwest corner. This is by far the most problematic area, with a high level of infestation and signs of expansion. Along with knapweed, exotic mustard is prevalent, and there is a patch of sweet clover, another invasive species with similar behavior and control. Infested areas to be mulched As with any invasive species, the approach will be, in order of priority, to: 1) stop further spreading; 2) attack the periphery and restrict the range; and 3) attack the core populations and infestations. Knapweed is also spread by contaminated topsoil from which it can hitch a ride on boots and equipment including cars, mowers and tracked vehicles. To help protect Area 1 from airborne seeds coming from Area 2, the row of tall trees and shrubs on the north side of the south house will largely remain intact for two years, with the exception of girdling the box elder and spruce, until the prairie vegetation becomes established and control of the south population of knapweed is achieved. Stop further spreading In Area 1, the infested areas are relatively small. The biggest threat they pose is in spreading from infested soil getting on equipment tires, especially since the soil will be worked in the area and heavy equipment will be used to remove the poles and road. We recommend covering these two areas with 4” or more of shredded hardwood mulch made from the trees and shrubs in the area. This covering should take place before other activities in the area. This will smother the invasive knapweed (and leafy spurge and Canada thistel) plants for several years until the Throughout the site, with the main focus being on the southern half, the knapweed plants should not be allowed to go to seed. This can be done through a variety of methods, including spraying, pulling, and mowing/cutting throughout the growing season. Knapweed has an extended blooming period, from early July through October, with the main blooming period in July, so diligence is required. Mowers used in any infested areas should be thoroughly cleaned at the infestation site to prevent further spread. Mowers were the main source of spread 25 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan for the existing gathering area and are often a vector for the seed. Mendota Heights will implement an equipment cleaning protocol for future mowing equipment using existing highpressure sprayers (Kullander, pers. comm..) If you see this plant outside of the fenced area, please report it to xxx-xxxx or leave a note in the box. Thank you. Managers: Be sure to thoroughly clean equipment and boots before leaving this area. As feasible, work in this area at the end of the day so you don’t track seed to other parts of the site after working in here. The southwest corner and the current temporary Gathering Area need to be closed to public for two or three years, until the knapweed is under control and the threat of spreading on boots and equipment is minimized. In the southwest corner, we recommend fencing off the infested area (after tree removal, see below) to prevent the spread of seed via foot, vehicle and equipment traffic. This ‘psychological’ fencing will be semipermanent (~ 3 years); a typical structure is t-posts with a single strand of smooth wire, appropriate markings and safety flags, and interpretation. In addition, a temporary parking area further north, at the southernmost driveway, with a trail spur, will be used until the knapweed is under control. This will require a temporary gate to be installed north of the temporary lot, and some vegetation barriers along the east side of the road and the east side of the lot, achieved easily by felling nearby trees. The existing gravel surface can be used or can be removed and seeded to turf while it is a temporary lot. At the temporary Gathering Area, posted signs without fence are recommended. Visitor use is anticipated to be much lighter in this area than in the SW corner. Knapweed fencing and sign posts, general location Reduce perimeter Beyond the prevention of seed production, the smaller pioneering populations and the edge of the main infestation should be reduced with more intensive control including spot spraying and pulling. The knapweed at the MN/DOT retention pond and at the gathering space should be intensively controlled for several years, as should the perimeter of the main population. Interpretation An interpretive sign might read: This area is infested with spotted knapweed, a highly invasive exotic species. Please do not access this area as seeds are known to hitch a ride on shoes, boots, and clothes. 26 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Two small populations of sweet clover have been documented at the site, one at the future parking pull off and one in the southeast portion of the site. Sweet clover has the ability to infest prairies and although currently small, its control should also be a priority. Its control will follow the same path as the spotted knapweed. It is noteworthy that sweet clover benefits from prescribed burns so it can be problematic for prairies even when they are in the maintenance phase. It oftentimes fluctuates on a multi-year cycle in established prairies, where every fifth year or so it is a dominant plant. Attack the core population In addition to preventing any of the core population from going to seed, elimination of the core population should be achieved as quickly as possible. Before the fencing is installed, the trees should be removed as their removal will bring a flush of knapweed due to the soil disturbance and increased sunlight. Tree removal should be followed by a shallow spring harrowing, to also flush the seed bank, followed by a spring boom spray followed by spot treatments throughout the growing season. Inexpensive cover crops will be sown to test the potency of knapweed’s allelopathic chemicals on germination. This process should be repeated in year 2 and perhaps year 3. Control of the knapweed needs to be gained before the Area 2 prairie restoration can begin. The existing patch by the pull-off will be mulched. The pioneering plants will be pulled and/or sprayed. Garlic Mustard Garlic mustard has also been found on the site. It is invasive to woodlands and forests, overtaking the understory. While it may become invasive in the existing woodland, it will not persist in prairie or savanna and it can be largely ignored at this time. Maintenance: Early detection, rapid response. As part of the annual maintenance, the entire site should be surveyed for knapweed. Detecting new populations early and eradicating them before they can become established is a key to efficient and effective control. Canada thistle Canada thistle is a difficult and tenacious invasive species. A small population of it has been documented at the site; its control should be a priority before it gets worse. This is best achieved with a variety of methods, primarily spraying. Leafy Spurge A population of leafy spurge has been identified on both sides of Pilot Knob Road near the northeast corner of the Acacia property. The east population will be controlled with the mulch used for spotted knapweed. The west population is in the road right of way; control will be coordinated with Public Works which has already been mowing it closely. Preventing the spread is the most important. Bird’s-foot trefoil and crown vetch Bird’s-foot trefoil is well established in the MN-DOT retention pond, very likely purposefully planted there as part of the process. Trefoil can be invasive even to established prairies. Crown vetch is widespread in the DOT slope. It too has the potential to invade prairie reconstructions. Sweet Clover 27 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Russian olive and Lombardy poplar. Both of these species are exotic species present in small numbers at the north homesite. Russian olive is invasive in many natural areas including prairie restorations (MN DNR 2002). Lombardy poplar can be invasive with root suckers in some situations. We recommend control of both of these pecies, primarily through spraying. Buckthorn and Honeysuckle These two woody shrubs can become highly invasive in savannas. The current level of infestation is low but should be treated to prevent the problem from getting worse. We recommend controlling these shrubs with a combination of cutting and stump treating, and basal bark chemical application. Fall is the best time to treat as they are easy to spot in the first half of November. Two years of control are recommended. Cottonwood Cottonwood is an overabundant native tree species at this site, found in the wooded area. It is a prolific seed producer capable of colonizing an area especially when the soil is exposed. However, sprouts can be fairly easily controlled by mowing and burning so a simple reduction in cottonwood will be the goal. Girdling the cottonwood trees along the north edge of the wooded area and leaving them standing will reduce the seed amount and provide woodpecker habitat. Siberian elm and box elder Siberian elm is an invasive tree species that is a prolific seed producer. It can overwhelm areas when they are being planted. It is currently found throughout the southern half of the site in patches. Its control is needed before the soil is worked. This is best achieved through cutting and stump treatment, and chainsaw girdling with chemical application. The girdling method is much more cost-effective and leaves standing dead material, prime habitat for woodpeckers and other wildlife; it should be the primary method of control except where trees need to be removed for other reasons. Box elder is an overabundant native tree, one that can also dominate and overwhelm prairie plantings. Box elder has both female seed-bearing trees, and male trees. Control of the female trees, to disrupt the seed production, is required as part of the prairie restoration. Girdling and cut-stump treatment are the recommended methods. 28 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Siberian peashrub A stand of large non-native invasive pea shrub exists in the southeast corner of the site at one of the former home sites. This may become invasive once restoration begins. It is best controlled with a cut-stump treatment, and stacking the cut material on site rather than risk the spread of seed by hauling it elsewhere. Smooth brome, reed canary grass, bluegrass (poa), and overabundant Canada goldenrod All of these species are addressed as part of the restoration and do not need to be addressed separately. Spoil area An area south of the masonry house is currently being used as a spoil pile and/or borrow pit. It is severely infested with a number of exotic species, including one which we have not yet identified. This area is best treated by leveling and covering under deep mulch, followed by spot treatment throughout the growing season. It is also a logical area for a fire ring. Snags are wildlife trees Early Detection, Rapid Response The past several years have seen the rise of several invasive species, and the establishment of several new ones in the area. These include Russian thistle, cheat grass, wild parsnip, and Queen Anne’s lace. These are often spread along roadsides via mowing equipment and vehicles. A trained ecologist should perform an invasive species survey of the area on an annual basis to prevent these newcomers from becoming established. Scotch Pine and Spruce Scotch pine is a mildly invasive exotic species. It is found along the southern edge, seeded in by the mature trees of the Acacia Grand Entrance easement. It should be removed as part of the general clearing of the area. Spruce is also not native to the area, but not considered invasive. Some spruce trees on site are quite large. These can be girdled and left standing, to create wildlife habitat, and to get the public accustomed to their removal. Unified Strategy with Neighbors The City and its restoration partner should pursue working relationships with the surrounding landowners, for a unified 29 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan weed control strategy. This includes Acacia Cemetery and their Grand Entrance, homeowners to the east, and DOT rights-ofway. The invasive species control does not necessarily have to be as complete in these ‘buffer’ lands; eliminating seed production and dispersal is the primary goal. PHASED AREA CONSIDERATIONS Area 1 Prairie Reconstruction Site Prep It is reported that the house and outbuildings will be removed shortly before restoration. Any additional site prep such as fence removal, driveway removal, and cleanup, also needs to be completed prior to restoration. The utility poles and lines should also be removed; it is reported that underground utilities, including DOT fiber optics and underground power to the DOT fiber optics, will likely still be present and active (Kullander, pers. comm..). Active removal of the roadbed is strongly encouraged, as it can then be restored to prairie, providing a continuous cover of vegetation, important for some of the smaller terrestrial wildlife. Removal of the poles and roadbed will greatly improve the opportunities for visitors’ to get a sense of Minnesota’s natural heritage. Off-Road Vehicle Barriers Off-road vehicles can wreak havoc on a natural area, destroying habitat and vectoring invasive species. Without prevention, trespass may increase in the absence of homeowners. In addition to the design measures of parking lot boulders and gates, standing vegetation can be used as barriers. The south side is protected via the vegetation. The southeast corner is protected both by existing vegetation and the detention pond. No vegetation will be removed around the perimeter of the southeast corner; invasive species there will be girdled and left standing. This area is largely mowed turf, former vegetable garden, and former homesite. Small and intermediate trees will be removed and used to mulch the knapweed infestation site (see above for more detail). Four large trees, two silver maple and two green ash can remain. While these trees are not native to oak savannas, they have an open-grown structure that will provide the right amount of shade to allow the installation of savanna understory plants, while providing a sense of savanna to visitors for the next 30 years while the oak trees elsewhere on the site mature. Several limbs on these trees will be girdled to allow for more sunlight, and provide wildlife habitat. Boulders for the permanent lot can be collected on-site if artificial boulder piles are discovered around the former homesites. However, scattered boulders in the landscape provide important micro-habitat and should be left in place. Neighbors are typically the source of ATV and snowmobile trespass. With the limited number of neighbors, and no trespass problems of this type to date, any future problems with this trespass might quickly be solved with education and enforcement. Barriers for these vehicles are not deemed necessary at this time. Soil prep will include a single season of two sprayings and 23” harrowing and sod-busting, followed by seeding. Because of 30 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan A minimally intrusive method of prairie establishment, being used at William O’Brien State Park, was investigated as part of this management plan. The native plant diversity of the final restorations using is unacceptably low so this method is not recommended. the sod structure, we recommend using a seed drill (rather than broadcasting the seed), followed by an overseeding to add diversity and reduce the ‘row look’. Overseeding is an excellent volunteer event opportunity which could take place in fall of 2008. This area can then be put on the same maintenance schedule as Phase I, to include mowing, spot treatment of exotics, and eventually burning. Seeding will be followed by prairie establishment phase for three years. This establishment typically requires establishment mowing three times a year for two years, spot treatment of exotics, limited over-seeding, and a mixture of mowing and burning in year three. After that, the maintenance phase is typically spot treatment of exotics and a controlled burn or burn alternative every three years. Note: It is clear that the Pilot Knob hill is a Dakota burial ground (White and Woolworth, 2004). For the restoration in Phase I, repeated harrowing to a depth of 2” was deemed acceptable to stakeholders. For Phase II, this technique is acceptable and in most areas preferred over working the soil to 4". Note: For all prairie seeding areas, we strongly recommend a seed mix that is diverse and heavy on the forb seed, at least 3# and preferably 5#/acre. While this adds to the cost significantly, it also leads to greater diversity, which is important for beauty, function, and bird life. Species must be appropriate for the region and be of local eco-type. We also recommend the full seeding rate for grasses (≥ 10 pounds/acre), since they will complete well with invasive species and incoming weeds. If the forb rate is reduced, however, grass rate must also be reduced. Prairie Reconstruction and Savanna Understory Installation Mesic prairie mix is recommended for most of Area 1, except dry prairie is recommended where a thin layer of soil exists over former roadbed, homesite, etc. (see Figure xx). At the periphery, these mixes will be blended to prevent a hard edge. Wet prairie species will be restored to a moister area on the slope of the road cut, currently infested with reed canary grass. A small seep also exists nearby, currently populated largely by native river bulrush (Scirpus fluviatilis); this area is too small for supplemental seeding or planting. Tree Row Removal The tree row at the border between Area 1 and 2 will be phased out over three or four years. Year 1, invasive species and large spruce will be girdled and left standing, to create woodpecker habitat and allow the public to become accustomed to their removal. Once the invasive species are under control in Area 2 and Area 1 is vegetated, then the shrub under-story can be Under the drip-line of the large trees and extending north to the property edge, a savanna understory mix will be sowed. Once established, this area can then be a source of savanna understory seed for sowing in other areas on-site. 31 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan former roadbed, homesite, etc. (see Figure xx). At the periphery, these mixes should be blended to prevent a hard edge. removed and larger trees limbed up. Finally, the tree row will be removed in preparation for seeding Area 2. Area 2 Prairie and Savanna Reconstruction In the areas partially shaded by the easement trees, a savanna understory mix will be sown. Seeding will be followed by prairie establishment phase for three years. This establishment typically requires establishment mowing three times a year for two years, spot treatment of exotics, limited over-seeding, and a mixture of mowing and burning in year three. After that, the maintenance phase is typically spot treatment of exotics and a controlled burn or burn alternative every three years. Tree removal Once the knapweed, sweet clover, and other invasive species are under control, this area should be cleared of the trees and shrubs, with the exception of a few red cedar and the gray dogwood. They will be removed, hauled to the roadside, and hauled away for use as bio fuel. Many of the trees are green ash and black walnut. There is a general statewide call to reduce ash inventory in the state to reduce the impacts of emerald ash borer, an exotic insect that is devastating ash trees in nearby states (MDA 2007); removing the green ash can be considered part of that effort. Tree removal will be phased over ten years in the savanna installation areas, as red cedar and aspen can act as a nurse crop for oaks. Savanna Oaks Installation After the establishment Rx burn, we recommend planting oak trees. Bur oaks are the specific species we recommend, and as in Phase I, local acorns from sites such as Acacia cemetery is the ideal source of acorns. Several acceptable options exist. We recommend collecting ~1000 acorns from local sources, and planting them into the ground. When seedlings arise, they will need to be protected from herbivory by rabbits, voles, and overabundant deer. We recommend a rigid mesh protector during the growing season, and a tree cone with mesh top in the winter for added protection from girdling by voles. Once the bark gets hardy enough, the rigid mesh will work year round. Winter and spring protection will have to be provided until the terminal bud is 8’ or higher, beyond the reach of browsing deer. This is an excellent volunteer activity. Prairie Reconstruction and Savanna Understory Installation Site prep here can run a wide spectrum, with several acceptable options. We recommend spraying, followed by raking off the dead thatch (as an alternative to burning), and a second spraying. Due to global warming concerns and the smoke management needs at Pilot Knob Hill, we feel that a burn alternative is preferable and less expensive for the site prep stages. This soil prep can happen over the course of a single growing season, followed by a fall seeding with cover crop. We strongly recommend a seed mix that is diverse and heavy on the forb seed (at least 3# and preferably 5#/acre). Mesic prairie mix is recommended for most of the site, except dry prairie is recommended where a thin layer of soil exists over 32 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Screening with existing trees and shrubs between the site and neighbors to the east has been requested by at least one stakeholder. This is easily accommodated. Site prep In addition to the invasive species control described earlier, we recommend clearcutting select areas to create gap openings. Recommended priority areas are the ravine area east of the south homesite, and surrounding the open grown tree in the southeast portion. Cut tree material can be bucked up and stacked on the forest floor around the gaps to save removal costs and help nurse the young oaks. Excess can be removed for firewood, bio fuel, or other purposes. Tree cones with browse mesh installed by volunteers Area 3 We recommend a gradual reduction of the wooded area, converting to prairie, and within the remaining wooded area, a gradual replacement of existing trees with oaks, to begin the savanna reconstruction. Basic savanna understory reconstruction will be included with the oak planting. There is the potential for a biofuels program to develop that could be used to aggressively clear cut areas for restoration and use the wood for biofuel power generation. If such a biofuels program minimizes the cost of site prep, then we recommend pursuing it. Interpretation will be required to gain public acceptance of the clearcutting. Snags and other wildlife trees should be spared from removal in such a scenario. In the meantime, we recommend beginning a gradual reconstruction of oak savanna. Area 3 savanna restoration priorities Oak savanna reconstruction Once the site is prepped, acorns can be planted. A basic understory mix should also be sown by hand in the area, a mix 33 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan that includes hardy and common natives suitable for the shade component that will colonize well, such as Pennsylvania sedge, wild bergamot, golden glow, and wild rye. direction by an ecologist. We do not recommend them for spraying or controlled burns unless they are specifically trained and certified to do so by the state. Dakota County STS reports that the crew supervisor has chainsaw and power brush cutting capabilities, and that in the summer months they typically do paid work for municipalities, while in the winter months they are more available for assistance for free. We recommend collecting local acorns and planting them in these areas. In the following fall, seedlings will need to be located and then protected from deer, rabbits, voles, etc. The most cost-effective way is to install a tree cone/browse mesh system that requires little maintenance. Winter protection will have to be provided until the terminal bud is 8’ or higher, beyond the reach of browsing deer. Also available is a Dakota County work crew of inmates. These inmates have incentives for working hard. Our limited experience working with inmate crews is that they are hard working; using them is appropriate at sites where the public will not be alarmed. We feel they are appropriate to help with the restoration activities at Pilot Knob Hill. Ideally, but not required, the protective cones will be removed for the summer and reinstalled before winter. Once the bark gets hardy and tough, the rigid mesh will work year round. Winter protection will have to be provided until the terminal bud is 8’ or higher, beyond the reach of browsing deer. Working with volunteers is of utmost importance as they are the stakeholders in the restoration. Volunteering builds constituency, and engages and educates citizens. Restoration is an excellent way for volunteers to connect with their local natural area, a connection that is on a steep decline for the nation’s urban, suburban, and rural children (Louv 2005). Large groups of volunteers build a strong sense of community, and are generally immediately cost-effective when doing large manual projects. Trained volunteers who return to the site can be very valuable in cost savings but also as stewards with long term ownership of the restoration, reporting back on new invasive species populations for example, or pulling the lone stray knapweed. Another very good option is to collect acorns for custom growing at a local nursery for two years for later planting as seedlings. The same protection regime will need to be followed. Labor Forces Dakota County Corrections has two labor forces that are appropriate for the restoration activities. Sentence to Serve (STS) is comprised of offenders who are putting in community service time. STS consists of a paid crew supervisor, typically trained in enforcement, and “day of” crews who meet and work for the day. Our wide experience with county STS crews are that they work well for large, straightforward projects, with a significant amount of on-site Global Warming and Bio Fuels A great deal of new information is coming out on the role of natural communities in terrestrial carbon management, as part of a larger concern over global warming. While more detailed 34 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan analysis is needed on the effects of wooded areas vs. grasslands, it is clear that natural communities with deeprooted natives are much better at carbon management than turf grasses, especially those that require mowing. Converting hardscapes and other impervious surfaces are also beneficial, as is water retention. As an offshoot of global warming concerns, bio fuels appear to have a role. Bio fuels still release carbon, but unlike fossil fuels, that carbon release is partially offset by the increased carbon sequestration of the vegetation that remains behind. Great River Greening believes it is important to incorporate this data into our restoration recommendations and activities. As seen in this natural resource management plan, we encourage any cut wood going to a bio fuel plant or other utilitarian purpose such as firewood for MMDC or other stakeholders. We typically no longer recommend brush pile burning on-site, and recommend alternatives to controlled burning for some applications. 35 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan birds will start to decline from today’s levels, which are already much lower than they were several decades ago (National Audubon Society . Wildlife Habitat Management at Pilot Knob Hill The cornerstone of wildlife habitat management is vegetation management. Pilot Knob Hill will eventually be prairie and savanna, the rarest communities in the region and some of the most important for wildlife species (MN DNR 2006). Bird Surveys and Habitat We anticipate that Pilot Knob Hill’s habitat value for bird life is best found in the variety of communities found there and its location in the river corridor and proximity to Fort Snelling State Park. The acreage is relatively small for area-sensitive grassland birds such as Henslow’s sparrow, eastern meadowlark and bobolink. One possible exception is that with the unbroken vista to the west, it may effectively appear to birds to be a larger grassland. Pilot Knob Hill is in the St. Paul Baldwin Plains and Moraines ecological subsection. This subsection is in the top tier of the state’s subsections for species richness of wildlife ‘species of greatest conservation need’ (SGCN), and the township which includes Pilot Knob Hill is one of the three highest ranking in the subsection for SGCN records. Furthermore, prairie and oak savanna are the top two habitats used by SGCN in the subsection (MN DNR 2006c). This is compelling information for underscoring the importance for managing for wildlife in the area. Bird Surveys Bird surveys will help to document the effects of restoration on bird life. The data collected should be incorporated into future management decisions. The Phase II site offers some specific opportunities beyond general vegetation management for wildlife habitat given the varied existing conditions, and the enlarged size of the natural area. A few species will find all their habitat needs can be met at Pilot Knob Hill. Many other species will use the site in combination with adjacent areas, particularly the rest of the Minnesota River corridor, and adjacent Fort Snelling State Park. Surveys by volunteers are an excellent way to gather bird information, especially since Pilot Knob Hill is already known as an excellent birding spot. Greening has had success partnering with the St. Paul Audubon Society for getting annual volunteer bird surveys; Audubon Minnesota is developing a standardized and rigorous protocol for volunteer monitoring of birds which will likely include training. Audubon Minneapolis is interested in evaluating the site as potential red-headed woodpecker habitat (Meyers, pers. comm.) Grassland wildlife species are expected to be of more concern in the next few years. Many agricultural lands are being taken out of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), a set-aside program that puts marginal ag lands into permanent grassland habitat for a period of 10 years. Predictions are that grassland Woodpeckers 36 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan tailed hawk, bald eagle, and migrating broad-winged hawks will very likely be observed from Pilot Knob Hill. Rare species including northern harrier, Peregrine falcon (known to nest on the Mendota bridge in recent years), and loggerhead shrike, documented at Fort Snelling State Park, may also use the site. Some birds of prey will soar above the open habitat, while others will perch on nearby trees. Loggerhead shrikes are known to frequent utility wires and thorny bushes (National Audubon Society, 2007e). As mentioned in the vegetation management section, standing dead trees are excellent habitat for woodpeckers (and squirrels, bats, foxes etc.), both common and rare. The rare red-headed woodpecker has been documented at Fort Snelling State Park, and Pilot Knob Hill can be seen as an enlargement of the habitat for this species. Red-headed woodpecker’s ideal habitat is mature oak savanna with short understory ( Bluebirds Bluebirds have suffered a decline over the past several decades as well, largely due to a loss in their nesting sites. Bluebirds are a species that thrives at the transition between wooded areas and grassland openings. Installation of two pairs of bluebird nest boxes on the north edge of Area 3N is recommended. Typically, tree swallows will occupy half of the nest boxes. These boxes require annual maintenance, a popular volunteer activity. Snake Hibernaculum A snake hibernaculum is an underground chamber that snakes use for winter hibernation. Manmade structures such as old wells, rock and log piles, retaining walls and building foundations, and natural features such as ant mounds and rodent or crayfish burrows are examples of snake hibernation sites ((Toronto Zoo, no date). Creating snake hibernacula is a key to their conservation, as many are destroyed with urban expansion. At Pilot Knob Hills, harmless species including common garter snake and red-bellied snakes are most likely to inhabit the hibernaculum. Fox snake, an SGCN species, is known to be in the area (Harper, MN DNR, pers. comm.) and may also inhabit the hibernaculum. Other animals may use the chamber as well. Field sparrow Field Sparrow, while relatively common recently, is a Minnesota species of greatest conservation need (MN DNR 2006a; MN DNR 2006b) and a common bird in decline (National Audubon Society, 2007d.). Field sparrow should also thrive at the transition between wooded areas and grassland openings. No specific enhancements are recommended at this time, however if the bird survey documents field sparrows at the site, future vegetation management should keep that in mind. Aerial predators Birds of prey are very likely to use the Pilot Knob site, with its very rare plant communities it offers habitat that is not readily found elsewhere. Many common birds of prey such as red 37 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan create a hibernaculum. The top will be mounded above grade to allow for some settling, and covered with soil. Logs, rocks, and a small hole will be above ground. In April or May, snakes emerge and proceed to mate in an intriguing wildlife display. This hibernaculum will be off of the trail, with interpretation, so only focused willing visitors observe the hibernaculum. It may take several years for the snakes to begin using the hibernaculum. Hibernaculum construction. Photo courtesy Toronto Zoo. We recommend excavating a corner of the foundation of the former north house and re-filling in a detailed manner with concrete and masonry construction materials and rubble to 38 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Area 1 4.6 ac Area 3 5.3 ac Seed Mixes Oak savanna Dry prairie Mesic prairie No plantings Area 2 7.6 ac N Figure 10: Herbaceous Seed Mixes for Sowing (2006 Color Aerial courtesy of Dakota Co.) 0 400 39 800 Feet �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Implementation Schedules Table 1: Whole Site Treatments Year – I.D. 2008-1 Timeline Jan - Mar SW: Remove trees 2008-2 Jan - Mar 2008-3 Apr - May Invasive tree control – sib. Elm, box elder, cottonwood, spruce, tree row Knapweed control: SW- Install Fencing; Gathering - Install and post signs 2008-4 Apr - May 2008-5 Apr - Oct 2008-6 2008-7 2008-8 2008-9 May - June June Sept - Oct November 2009-1 Apr - May 2009-2 Apr - Oct Activity Technique Knapweed control: SW - Harrow, and first boom spray, sow cover crop; Gathering – Rake, spot spray and sow Knapweed control: Spot treatment, SW and Gathering. No plants going to seed, attack perimeter populations, survey site Survey and mark boundary Canada thistle control Bird’s-foot trefoil, crown vetch control Buckthorn and honeysuckle control Cut/stump treat, haul. Girdle and leave at edge until fence is installed. Chainsaw girdle with chemical; leave standing SW - t-post with smooth wire and interpretation; Gathering – no wire Boom spray with Transline; oat cover crop Cut, pull, spray. Multiple visits Estimated Cost/Unit $1500/ac Estimated Cost $3,800 $2,350 $3,300 $1,400 $3,000 Professional surveyors Transline spot spray Spray Basal bark, limited cut/stump treat Boom spray with Transline; oat cover crop 40 $1,400 Cut, pull, spray. Multiple visits Knapweed control: SW - Harrow, and second boom spray, sow cover crop; Gathering – Rake, spot spray and sow Knapweed control: Spot treatment, SW and Gathering. No plants going to seed, attack perimeter populations, survey site City in-kind $100 $500 $1,000 $3,000 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan 2009-3 2009-4 2009-5 June Sept - Oct November Canada thistle control Bird’s-foot trefoil control Buckthorn and honeysuckle control 2010-1 Apr - Oct 2010-2 Sept - Oct $100 $300 $1,000 Knapweed control: Spot treatment, SW and Gathering. Transline spot spray Spray Foliar spray, basal bark, cut stump. Cut, pull, spray. Multiple visits No plants going to seed, attack perimeter populations, survey site Bird’s-foot trefoil control Spray $300 $24,550 $3,000 Sub-Total for Whole Site 201117 Invasive Species Control, Gen’l Varied Total for Whole Site 41 $1,000/yr*7= $7,000 $31,550 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Table 2: Area 1 Prairie Reconstruction Year – I.D. 2008-1 Timeline Activity Technique Jan-April 2008-2 Jan-April Cut/ stump treat/stack. Remove for use, or chip later Fell nearby trees along roadside 2008-3 April 2008-4 Apr - May 2008-5 MayAugust Sm. and intermediate tree removal Roadside vegetation barriers Mulch roadside knapweed areas, spoil area Site prep: first spray Remove roadbed and replace with engineered soil surface. Remove utility poles. Site prep: second spray, harrow to bust sod. Seed prairie and savanna mixes 2008-6 September 2008-7 Sept - Oct 2008-8 Sept - Oct Fall volunteer event “kick off” 2009-1 Apr - Oct Establishment mowing 3x, spot treatment Estimated Cost/Unit Estimated Cost $3,000 $150 4” deep minimum $4,500 Boom spray with Roundup $55/acre plus oversight City InKind In conjunction with other city road work. Shallow harrowing $200/acre, plus oversight $1,500/acre plus oversight Seed drill Overseeding, slope seeding, invasives removal, etc. 30-100 people mow when 8-10” high to 46” 42 $375 $1,150 $8,250 $5,000 $15,000 $300/acre, plus oversight $1,650 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan 2010-1 Apr - Oct 2011-1 Apr - Oct Establishment mowing 3x, spot treatment Establishment mowing 1x; Rx burn mow when 8-10” high to 46” $300/acre, plus oversight mow when 8-10” high to 46”. Spring or fall burn $5,000 Subtotal for Area 1 2012 2013 2014 Apr - Oct Apr - Oct Apr - Nov Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance 2015 2016 2017 Apr - Oct Apr - Oct Apr - Nov Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance $1,650 $30,725$40,725 Spot treatment, overseeding Spot treatment, overseeding Spot treatment, overseeding, $500/yr $500/yr $500/yr Rx burn Spot treatment, overseeding Spot treatment, overseeding Spot treatment, overseeding, $3000 $500/yr $500/yr $500/yr Rx burn $3000 Est. Total for Area 1 43 $39,725$49,725 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Table 3: Area 2 Prairie and Savanna Reconstruction Year – I.D. Timeline Activity Technique 2010-1 Jan -March Tree removal 2010-2 Apr - Oct Site Prep. Chainsaw and haul. Treat cut stumps. Dep’t of Corrections assistance. Spray, Rake, Spray 2010-3 Sept - Nov Seeding No-till drill with high diversity mix 2011-1 Apr - Oct Establishment 2012-1 Apr - Oct Establishment 2013-1 Mar - Nov Establishment 2013-2 August 2014-1 2014-2 Apr – Nov August 2014-3 Sept - Oct 2015-1 2015-2 Apr- Nov Sept - Oct Plant 1000 or more local acorns, in bare spots. Maintenance Plant 1000 or more local acorns, in bare spots. Find and protect oak seedlings from winter herbivory, 2013 planting Maintenance Find and protect oak seedlings from winter herbivory, 2014 planting Mowing 3x, spot treatment, possible overseeding Mowing 3x, spot treatment, possible overseeding Rx burn, mowing 1x, spot treatment, possible overseeding Hand collect; “step” or trowel in. 2016 Apr - Nov Annual Maintenance 2017 Apr - Nov Annual Maintenance Estimated Cost/Unit $2,000/acre Estimated Cost $200/acre plus oversight $1,500/acre plus oversight $300/acre plus oversight $300/acre plus oversight $1,760 $16,000 $13,200 $2,550 $2,550 $6,000 $1,000 Spot Treatment, possible overseeding. Hand collect; “step” or trowel in. $1,000 $1,000 Tree cone w/ browse mesh $6/tree $150 Spot treatment, possible overseeding Tree cone w/ browse mesh $6/tree $1,000 $150 Sub-Total Spot Treatment, possible overseeding. Rx burn Spot Treatment, possible overseeding. Total 44 $46,360 $1,000 to $5,000 $1,000 $53,360 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Table 4: Area 3 Savanna and Prairie Reconstruction Year – I.D. 2008-1 2009-1 Ar ea 3S 3N Timeline Activity Technique Estimated Cost/Unit August Jan -March Cut/stump treat/stack local Clearcut $5000/ac 2009-2 3S Jan - March Clearcut $5000/ac $2,500 2009-3 2009-4 2009-5 2009-6 2010-1 3N 3S 3N 3S 3N March - May March-May August August Jan-March Hand broadcast and rake in Hand broadcast and rake in Hand collect, “step” or trowel in. Hand collect, “step” or trowel in. Clearcut $300/ac $300/ac $5000/ac $300 $150 $500 $250 $5,000 2010-2 3S Jan-March Clearcut $5000/ac $2,500 2010-3 2010-4 2010-5 2010-6 3N 3S 3N 3S March-May March-May August August Hand broadcast and rake in Hand broadcast and rake in Hand collect, “step” or trowel in. Hand collect, “step” or trowel in. $300/ac $300/ac $300 $150 $500 $250 2010-7 3N Tree cone w/ browse mesh $6/tree $150 2010-8 3S SeptemberOctober SeptemberOctober Tree cone w/ browse mesh $6/tree $150 2010 -9 3N NovemberDecember Control Peashrub Site Prep west edge of ravine, acre 1 of 2 Site prep, centered around opengrown tree, .5 acre of 1 Sow understory seed acre 1 of 2 Sow understory seed acre .5 of 1 Plant 1000 local acorns acre 1 of 2 Plant 1000 local acorns acre .5 of 1 Site Prep west edge of ravine, acre 2 of 2 Site Prep centered around opengrown tree, 2nd .5 acre of 1 Sow understory seed, acre 2 of 2 Sow understory seed, acre .5 of 1 Plant 1000 local acorns, acre 2 of 2 Plant 1000 local acorns, 2nd .5 acre of 1 Find and protect oak seedlings from winter herbivory acre 1 of 2 Find and protect oak seedlings from winter herbivory 2nd .5 acre of 1 Phased removal of woody encroachment Estimated Cost $500 $5,000 2011-1 3N 2011-2 3S 2011 -3 3N SeptemberOctober SeptemberOctober AugustDecember Find and protect oak seedlings from winter herbivory, acre 2 of 2 Find and protect oak seedlings from winter herbivory, acre 1 of 1 Phased removal of woody encroachment. $400 Girdle and leave standing trees and shrubs, 5-10’ in from existing perimeter. Sow aggressive savanna and prairie seed mix. Tree cone w/ browse mesh $6/tree $150 est. Tree cone w/ browse mesh $6/tree $150 est. Girdle and leave standing trees and shrubs, 5-10’ in from existing perimeter. Sow aggressive savanna and prairie seed 45 $400 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan 2011-4 3S AugustDecember Phased removal of woody encroachment 2012 -1 3N AugustDecember Phased removal of woody encroachment 2012-2 3S AugustDecember Phased removal of woody encroachment 2012-3 3N 2012-4 3S 2013 -1 3N May, SeptemberOctober May, SeptemberOctober AugustDecember Reduce competition. Change to mesh in summer, cone/mesh in winter (optional). 2 acres. Reduce competition. Change to mesh in summer, cone/mesh in winter (optional). 1 acres. Phased removal of woody encroachment 2013-2 3S AugustDecember Phased removal of woody encroachment 2013-3 3N 2013-4 3S 2014 -1 3N May, SeptemberOctober May, SeptemberOctober AugustDecember Reduce competition. Change to mesh in summer, cone/mesh in winter (optional). 2 acres. Reduce competition. Change to mesh in summer, cone/mesh in winter (optional). 1 acres. Phased removal of woody encroachment mix. Girdle and leave standing trees and shrubs, 5-10’ in from existing perimeter. Sow aggressive savanna and prairie seed mix. Girdle and leave standing trees and shrubs, 5-10’ in from existing perimeter. Sow aggressive savanna and prairie seed mix. Girdle and leave standing trees and shrubs, 5-10’ in from existing perimeter. Sow aggressive savanna and prairie seed mix. Bark protected until hardy. Terminal bud protected until 8’ tall. $400 $400 $400 $300 Bark protected until hardy. Terminal bud protected until 8’ tall. $150 Girdle and leave standing trees and shrubs, 5-10’ in from existing perimeter. Sow aggressive savanna and prairie seed mix. Girdle and leave standing trees and shrubs, 5-10’ in from existing perimeter. Sow aggressive savanna and prairie seed mix. Bark protected until hardy. Terminal bud protected until 8’ tall. $400 Bark protected until hardy. Terminal bud protected until 8’ tall. $150 Girdle and leave standing trees and shrubs, 5-10’ in from existing perimeter. Sow aggressive savanna and prairie seed mix. $400 46 $400 $300 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Increase understory diversity 2014-2 3S AugustDecember Phased removal of woody encroachment Increase understory diversity 2014-3 3N 2014-4 3S 2015 -1 3N May, SeptemberOctober May, SeptemberOctober AugustDecember Reduce competition. Change to mesh in summer, cone/mesh in winter (optional). 2 acres. Reduce competition. Change to mesh in summer, cone/mesh in winter (optional). 1 acres. Phased removal of woody encroachment Increase understory diversity 2015-2 3S AugustDecember Phased removal of woody encroachment Increase understory diversity 2015-3 3N 2015-4 3S May, SeptemberOctober May, SeptemberOctober Reduce competition. Change to mesh in summer, cone/mesh in winter (optional). 2 acres. Reduce competition. Change to mesh in summer, cone/mesh in winter (optional). 1 acres. Collect savanna seed from Area 1; overseed in understory. Purchase seed if nec. Girdle and leave standing trees and shrubs, 5-10’ in from existing perimeter. Sow aggressive savanna and prairie seed mix. $500 Collect savanna seed from Area 1; overseed in understory. Purchase seed if nec. Bark protected until hardy. Terminal bud protected until 8’ tall. $300 $400 $300 Bark protected until hardy. Terminal bud protected until 8’ tall. $150 Girdle and leave standing trees and shrubs, 5-10’ in from existing perimeter. Sow aggressive savanna and prairie seed mix. $400 Collect savanna seed from Area 1; overseed in understory. Purchase seed if nec. Girdle and leave standing trees and shrubs, 5-10’ in from existing perimeter. Sow aggressive savanna and prairie seed mix. $500 Collect savanna seed from Area 1; overseed in understory. Purchase seed if nec. Bark protected until hardy. Terminal bud protected until 8’ tall. Bark protected until hardy. Terminal bud protected until 8’ tall. 47 $400 $300 $300 $150 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan 2016-2 3N 3S AugustDecember AugustDecember Phased removal of woody encroachment Girdle and leave standing trees and shrubs, 5-10’ in from existing perimeter. Sow aggressive savanna and prairie seed mix. $400 Increase understory diversity 2016 -1 Collect savanna seed from Area 1; overseed in understory. Purchase seed if nec. Girdle and leave standing trees and shrubs, 5-10’ in from existing perimeter. Sow aggressive savanna and prairie seed mix. $500 Phased removal of woody encroachment Increase understory diversity 2016-3 3N 2016-4 3S 2017 -1 3N May, SeptemberOctober May, SeptemberOctober AugustDecember Reduce competition. Change to mesh in summer, cone/mesh in winter (optional). 2 acres. Reduce competition. Change to mesh in summer, cone/mesh in winter (optional). 1 acres. Phased removal of woody encroachment Increase understory diversity 2017-2 3S AugustDecember Phased removal of woody encroachment Increase understory diversity 2017-3 3N May, Reduce competition. Change to Collect savanna seed from Area 1; overseed in understory. Purchase seed if nec. Bark protected until hardy. Terminal bud protected until 8’ tall. $400 $300 $300 Bark protected until hardy. Terminal bud protected until 8’ tall. $150 Girdle and leave standing trees and shrubs, 5-10’ in from existing perimeter. Sow aggressive savanna and prairie seed mix. $400 Collect savanna seed from Area 1; overseed in understory. Purchase seed if nec. Girdle and leave standing trees and shrubs, 5-10’ in from existing perimeter. Sow aggressive savanna and prairie seed mix. $500 Collect savanna seed from Area 1; overseed in understory. Purchase seed if nec. Bark protected until hardy. Terminal bud 48 $400 $300 $300 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan 2017-4 3S SeptemberOctober May, SeptemberOctober mesh in summer, cone/mesh in winter (optional). 2 acres. Reduce competition. Change to mesh in summer, cone/mesh in winter (optional). 1 acres. protected until 8’ tall. Bark protected until hardy. Terminal bud protected until 8’ tall. $150 Sub-Total 49 $30,400 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Table 5: Wildlife Habitat Improvements Year – I.D. 2008-1 2008-2 20092017 20092017 20092017 Timeline Activity Technique May-June Excavate and install snake hibernaculum Install bluebird houses Excavate, fill, cover. Rubble only, no wood Estimated Cost $1,500 City in-kind $300 Maintain bluebird houses Clean and leave open by volunteers $0 Annual Bird and Snake Surveys Volunteer coordination $500x9=$4500 Create Snags for Woodpeckers, etc. Girdle trees and limbs as part of other management n/c SeptemberOctober SeptemberOctober Year Round Any Estimated Cost/Unit Sub-Total 50 $6,300 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Recommendations for Trails, Overlook, and Interpretive Information Trails It is recommended that trail construction follow the same construction procedure as in Phase I. The main trail connecting to Phase I would be 4 feet wide and constructed of compacted crushed Class V limestone gravel. This would be the trail on the western edge of the Phase II site. The remainder of the trails would be low maintenance mowed trails. The trail location has been kept primarily along the western edge of the Phase II site (see Figure 11). This alignment is intended to preserve the restoration area for wildlife habitat consideration. The trail on the south half would be a loop trail allowing visitors the option of having a smaller journey through the site or continuing on to the northern part of the site. On the northern portion of the trail visitors can continue exploring the site and either take the trail west to the Phase I restoration area or take a trail north towards Highway 55. This northern leg of the trail would bring visitors near the proposed snake hibernacula area and also gain access to a view of St. Peter’s Cemetery on the other side of Highway 55, framed by remaining large trees. Figure 13). It is also recommended to connect up the bike path on the north side of Acacia Blvd. to the entrance and parking lot area. There would be an area set a side in the parking area for visitors to lock their bikes up and visit the site on foot (see Illustration by Dan Shaw 51 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan S # Phase II Boundary Phase I Boundary S # Overlook Temp Gathering Areas Hibernacula Gravel Trail Mowed Trail Temp Trail Parking Lot Emerg Vehicle Access N Figure 11: Phase I & Phase II Trails and Overlooks (2006 Color Aerial courtesy of Dakota Co.) 0 400 52 800 Feet �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Phase II Boundary S # Overlook Temp Gathering Areas Hibernacula Gravel Trail Mowed Trail Parking Lot Emerg Vehicle Access Knapweed Infestation Picture> N Figure 12: Proposed Temporary Trails and Overlook Locations at Pilot Knob Phase II (2006 Color Aerial courtesy of Dakota Co.) 0 400 53 800 Feet �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Phase II Boundary S # Overlook Temp Gathering Areas Hibernacula Gravel Trail Mowed Trail Temp Trail Parking Lot Emerg Vehicle Access Picture> N Figure 13: Proposed Trails and Overlook Locations at Pilot Knob Phase II (2006 Color Aerial courtesy of Dakota Co.) 0 400 54 800 Feet �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Overlooks provide a growing medium for plants and to prevent erosion of the crushed stone. The primary views are still located at the overlook area in the Phase I restoration. In Phase II there would be two overlooks where visitors would be able to pull off the path and stop. The first overlook would be at about the midway point of the site. Here there is a view towards Saint Paul of the old Highland Park Water Tower. The second overlook would be at the northern end of Phase II at the edge of where Pilot Knob Road ends. There is a glimpse into St. Peter’s Cemetery from this point and also allows the visitor to look back at the journey they have made. Recommended Overlook Design and Materials: The 3 overlooks will be based on a circular design. This said there are two options for the design of the overlooks to consider: Option 1 would be keeping in tune with the recommendations in the Phase I proposal but having each overlook a little different. Option 2 would be to consult with a public artist to design the overlooks. Option 1: The proposed overlooks would be constructed with approximately 3-4 inches of crushed limestone or stone placed and compacted over the existing ground surface. The main overlook located in Phase I would be a 14 foot diameter circle with the other two being 10 foot diameter circles. The main overlook would still have sitting stones placed around the circle allowing visitors to have a rest and lookout over the river valley. Seven sitting stones, each representing one of the seven branches of Dakota, would be placed around the perimeter of the ring. Each stone should be approximately 3 feet in length. These stones would be anchored approximately 2-3 inches into the crushed limestone and would extend approximately 16-18 inches above the ground to provide a sitting area. It may be beneficial to place some soil on the edges of the overlook to Main Overlook, Illustration by Dan Shaw 55 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan The northern most overlook would stay rather simple. Different colored stone would be used for the circle denoting the four cardinal directions: North – Red limestone, East – Yellow Limestone, South – White Limestone, West – Dresser Trap. Steel edging would be used around the perimeter of the circle as well as to separate the colored stone. The overlook at the midway point of Phase II would be a garden overlook again based on the cardinal points of the compass. The circular pad would still be 10 feet across and be constructed of compacted crushed limestone. The garden area would encompass a 4 foot area surrounding the gravel circle. Possible species to include could be: North – Red (Little Bluestem, Prairie Phlox, Prairie Smoke), East – Yellow (Lance Leaf Coreopsis, False Sunflower, Prairie Dropseed), South – White (Alum Root, Whorled Milkweed, Heath Aster, Prairie Dropseed, Quaking Aspen), West – Black (Black Eyed Susan, Prairie Dropseed, Black Chokeberry). Steel edging would be used to separate the garden planting from the prairie and around the compacted gravel pad. North North Northern Overlook, Illustration by Todd Rexine 56 Garden Overlook, Illustration by Todd Rexine �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Option 2: The second option for the overlooks is to work with a public artist to come up with a design for the spaces possibly a blend of some of the ideas from option 1 along with the artist’s own notions. There has already been a conceptual design created by Seitu Jones for the overlook in Phase I. If the city pursues this avenue it would be a matter of closely working the artist to make sure the final design is what the city is after. Images by Seitu Jones 57 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Group Gathering Spaces There has been much discussion on having designated areas for larger group gatherings. These areas would remain in a prairie state during the majority of the year, but at the request of an applicant through a city permit, select areas could be mowed to accommodate groups. The two spaces are of different sizes to accommodate varying size groups. The larger of the spaces is located on the southern portion of the site and would allow for a 100 foot diameter area. This location was chosen because the topography lends a gentler slope for a larger space. The location also appears to be used already for gatherings as it is currently mowed. To demark this location, seven oaks could be planted on the outer edge of the circle, to represent the seven branches of the Dakota. The second location is located to the east of the current brick house. It is a smaller space with a diameter of about 40 feet. This location could also be demarked by oak trees. With the smaller space the oaks would be located at the four cardinal points of the compass. Illustration by Todd Rexine 58 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Interpretive Signs A notice board or weather-proof box located near the main interpretive display should be included to post announcements of upcoming events at the site, such as volunteer events, and progress reports on the restoration work. A weather-proof announcement/update box could also be posted at the bike trail entrance at the west end of the site. Interpretive information is a crucial experiential component for a locality with such a storied past. Interpretive information could highlight natural and cultural history while interweaving art and storytelling traditions. Simple and clean markers at the main entry points of Pilot Knob are recommended. The main entrance to Pilot Knob presents an opportunity for a monument featuring the history of the site. Features to highlight in interpretation could include: • • • • • • • At the entrance there is also an opportunity to have visitors notify the city of potential invasive species on the site. Small maps could be made available for visitors to write on and leave. All that would be needed is a small sign and weatherproof drop box. This would be in conjunction with the notice board. Native Prairies and Savannas Dakota History Post European Settlement History Glacial River Warren and The Minnesota River Valley Decorah Shale and Fossils Migratory Birds The Restoration of Native Plant Communities at Pilot Knob Interpretive information should be developed by individuals with special knowledge of certain topics. The Pilot Knob Preservation Association has volunteered the expertise and resources of its members to prepare interpretive historical materials. Illustration by Todd Rexine 59 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Monument Entry Sign Images used in entry sign examples from the Minnesota Historical Society. Text from www.dakotahistory.org/county/pilotknob.asp. Left Panel 60 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Middle Panel 61 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Right Panel 62 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Large Interpretive Panel (32”x22”) to be located at overlooks. Top three-quarters devoted to description of the topic with the bottom section reserved for interesting facts or other educational opportunities Background image from Minnesota Historical Society all other images provided by Great River Greening 63 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Small interpretive panel (16”x20”) This size panel would be used along the trails at areas of interest to describe special features, habitats, species or views occurring at Pilot Knob. Care should be taken on both the large and small interpretive panels so the wording engages both children and adults. 64 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Recommendations for Parking and Pilot Knob Road Parking There is currently ample space at the southwest corner to create a parking lot. The parking lot would incorporate part of Pilot Knob Road north of Acacia Blvd. This would allow use of the existing asphalt road bed to create a portion of the parking lot with the rest of the space being comprised from the gravel area on the east side of Pilot Knob Rd. The parking lot would offer a good location to create some recessed planting areas to accept stormwater from the road bed and infiltrate it. Along with stone outcroppings, the recessed infiltration areas could help to define the parking lot and prohibit vehicles from the restoration area. Bus parking can be accomplished with on street parking on Acacia Blvd. Visitors would be able to exit the bus onto the bike path and follow the bike path to the entrance area of Phase II, at the corner of Pilot Knob Road and Acacia Blvd. Currently the north side of Acacia Blvd (between Pilot Knob Road and Valencour Circle) can accommodate parking for 14 school buses or 32 automobiles. With current city zoning codes there is available on street parking on both sides of Acacia Blvd and Pilot Knob Road south of Acacia Blvd. Illustration by Todd Rexine 65 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Emergency Vehicle Access Pilot Knob (north of Acacia Blvd.) The access will need to be planted as dry prairie and burned off as part of a prescribed burn. It would require the excavation of all the compactable gravel and having engineered soils installed. This would be a mix of angular rock and native or imported soil. If mowed it is recommended that it not all be mowed at the same time allowing for the prairie to cross over and break up the linear nature of the road. This will also allow cover for wildlife that will be crossing over the old road bed. With the land on the west side of Pilot Knob being restored to prairie/savanna there it is not necessary for Pilot Knob Road to continue to the gravel cul-de-sac, on the northern end of the site between Phase I and Phase II. However, Acacia cemetery still needs to have access from Pilot Knob Road to the northern edge of the cemetery. There also needs to be an emergency vehicle access to the northern edge of the restoration. This being the case, there could be a metal swing gate installed on the northern end of the parking lot to allow access by Acacia cemetery and emergency vehicles. The asphalt road would remain to the northern property line between Acacia and Phase I restoration. At this point there are several options to consider for the section of Pilot Knob Road north of Acacia Cemetery. Marked posts would need to be installed to delineate the edge of the access area. Upon conversations with Alcoa GeoSystems, Geoblock is a plantable structural system that would work for emergency vehicle access. An option for the asphalt is to have it hauled out and milled for reuse on other roads. The gravel sub-base for the road would be able to be excavated and reused to construct some of the trails. Option 1: Leave Pilot Knob Road intact. This would allow emergency vehicles access as needed to the end of Pilot Knob Road. It would create a physical barrier between Phase I and Phase II for wildlife. It would also continue to create a visual barrier between both Phases. College of Architecture – University of Minnesota A publication of students work for interpretive buildings for Pilot Knob was reviewed. The designs were comprehensive and insightful using various forms of construction. At this time buildings on the land does not fit the low impact restoration that the city is looking at. Also with the current funding and grants being used to procure the site a structure is not able to be located on Pilot Knob. Option 2: Remove the asphalt from Pilot Knob Road and install a vegetated emergency vehicle access. The remaining road bed north of the property line would be excavated and in its place a vegetate emergency access route would be installed. There are a number of products available that can be utilized to help stabilize the soil and give it the structural strength to support emergency vehicles. This would help unite both phases together and would visually break up the straight line that Pilot Knob Road currently creates. 66 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Table 6: Estimated Construction Costs Garden Overlook Year 1 Installation Estimate 3 CY crushed Class V limestone at 4" thick w/ placement Metal Edging Installed Regrading before limestone placement $1,200 62 CY (16800 CF) crushed Class V limestone at 3” thick with placement $6,500 Rock check-dams in ditches $200 Plants Installed $800 Construction Subtotal $600 Construction Subtotal $9,150 $350 $1,600 Oversight $650 Oversight $500 Mulch Crushed Limestone Trail (Phase 1 & north half Phase 2) $3,250 Interpretive Signs at Overlooks Main Overlook (Phase 1) Editing submitted written work $1,000 3 CY crushed Class V limestone at 4" thick w/ placement 7 Boulders w/ placement (assume donated stone – cost is moving from Acacia property) Materials and construction $6,000 Installation (labor, footings, etc.) $3,000 7 Boulders purchased and placed Oversight $350 $1,400 Interpretive Sign Subtotal $2,800 Fire Ring (10ft diameter) $500 Construction Subtotal $10,000 1.5 ton of 12-18" boulders installed $2,250-$3,650 Construction Subtotal $400 $400 Northern Overlook 3 CY 3/4" crushed stone 4" thick w/ placement $500 Metal Edging Installed $400 Oversight $200 Construction Subtotal TOTAL $1,200 67 $26,250 – $27,650 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Table 7: Estimated Construction Costs, Parking Lot Area South End Installation Estimate ( to be completed once Knapweed is under control) Connection to Bike Trail on Acacia Blvd 12 CY (324 CF) crushed Class V limestone a 4" thick to path $2,750 Parking Area Rough grading $2,000 50 CY (1350 CF) crushed Class V limestone at 12" thick w/ placement Placement soil and seeding on edges of Class V to prevent erosion $6,000 20 Boulders w/ placement (donated – cost is moving from Acacia property) 20 Boulders purchased and placed 450 SF Infiltration Basin installed Oversight $3,000 Construction Subtotal $1,000 $6,000 $1,800 $1,600 $15,400-$18,400 Entrance Interpretive Monument Editing submitted written work Graphics design for large 3-panel kiosk Materials and construction Installation (labor, footings, etc.) Simple interpretive sign (alternative to kiosk) Interpretive Sign Subtotal TOTAL $1,000 $6,000 $10,000 $3,000 $6,000 $6000 - $20,000 $24,150 – $41,150 Removal of Pilot Knob and installation of Emergency Vehicle access and gates to be overseen by the city of Mendota Heights 68 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Table 8: Summary of Estimated Costs by Year YEAR Basic 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 TOTAL RESTORATION Optional Enhancements/Volunteer Events $33,375 $16,650 $45,810 $10,150 $5,800 $10,250 $9,200 $5,200 $10,050 $8,050 $154,535 CONSTRUCTION Trail/Overlook/ Parking Lot (Phase I and Phase II Area 1, north trails, Overlooks, and signage) $27,650 $16,800 Area 2 (Parking lot, remaining trails, signs) $41,150 $16,800 $68,800 69 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan prairie seed collection and seeding. To date, Great River Greening has engaged more than 15,000 community volunteers in these types of activities at many sites in the Twin Cities metropolitan river valleys. Our successful approach relies on our trained volunteer supervisors who educate and train volunteers to conduct restoration activities properly in welldefined work units. Recommendations for Involving Community Volunteers Volunteers can be a way to contain costs, depending on how much advance organizing, event day assistance, and supplies (box lunches, rented Bifs) are needed. Informal groups of hardworking, committed volunteers that need minimal oversight and do not require additional supplies or organizing (volunteer recruiting, rented toilets, and box lunches) are the most beneficial in terms of containing cost. Many local community members are already enthused about the potential acquisition and restoration of the site and should be a great source of assistance to the project. Recruiting and Engaging Volunteers Recruiting volunteers from neighborhoods and businesses or other institutions close to the location of a restoration project is always a priority for Great River Greening. We recruit individuals and families for our events, as well as larger groups. Groups of community members already united for their own reasons often appreciate opportunities to participate in enjoyable hands-on activities that serve the wider community. Ecological restoration projects are a great match for many individuals and groups searching for volunteer opportunities. A large volunteer event of 100 or more volunteers generally requires funding for training, advertising, recruitment, event supplies, and advance site prep. When funding is obtained, these events are an excellent way to raise awareness and publicity, foster deeper connections to the site, and recruit new volunteers, all while performing meaningful work. Activities that can be performed at least in part by volunteers are noted in the implementation schedules and below. Groups to contact for recruiting volunteers include: • Community organizations (like the Pilot Knob Preservation Association) • Neighborhood block clubs • Schools and colleges (many have service learning programs) • Churches • Scout troops • Garden clubs • Local businesses • Civic organizations • Volunteer recruitment organizations, (eg. Twin Cities Volunteer Resource Center) • Community volunteer programs for employees of local corporations (for example, in the Twin Cities, 3M, H.B. Fuller, Potential activities that can be handled by volunteers: • tree planting • hauling and stacking previously cut brush • planting native forb (wildflower) seedlings • weed pulling (maintenance) • monitoring the natural area Great River Greening has extensive experience in successfully organizing large groups of volunteers in restoration activities, including tree and shrub plantings, exotic species removal and 70 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Comcast, Cargill and other corporations encourage their employees to volunteer) Planning the volunteer event • Define the location and field activities of the event, considering event logistics like parking location, registration area and wrap-up/lunch area. • Estimate the number of volunteers required for the field work and other volunteer event needs. The kinds of volunteers we typically recruit include: • Not all activities will be appropriate for volunteers of all ages and recruitment will need to reflect this. (For example, brush hauling is unsafe for young children) • Trained volunteer supervisors (to lead and instruct restoration volunteers). • Parking volunteers (to direct traffic--especially important for large events). • Registration volunteers • Food table volunteers • Event cleanup volunteers • Recruit and register volunteers in advance (especially for large events). • Confirm registration with volunteers, and provide site maps, directions and event information (by mail or email). Event publicity can be done by word-of-mouth, and with fliers, press releases to community newspapers, newsletters, websites and email listservs. Organizing Volunteer Events Volunteers enjoy well-organized events. When volunteers’ basic needs are met and their time is used well at an event, they enjoy themselves, experience a sense of satisfaction, and are more likely to volunteer again. Educating volunteers about the purposes and benefits of the restoration activities, and training them to properly conduct the activities are essential to holding a well-organized, satisfying volunteer event. Greening has conducted dozens of volunteer events with people of all ages. We have held events for only a handful of volunteers and events with as many as 1,100 volunteers. Our events are typically 3 hours long, and are usually held on Saturday mornings. Following are the steps we take to conduct our events. Organizing the field work • Before the event, organize the restoration work area into “work units.” A work unit is the defined area for work to be completed by 20 volunteers and 2 volunteer supervisors during the event time period. • All work units are well-marked, and all necessary materials (plants, woodchip, water for plantings, for example) and tools are provided at the event site. Occasionally (particularly for 71 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Groups that finish the work in their units early are asked to shift to assist in another work unit so all the work in the project area can be completed by the end of the event. • Water is provided at the work units. very large events), we ask volunteers to bring their own hand tools to supplement the ones we provide. • Trained volunteer supervisors arrive at the event shortly before the restoration volunteers and orient themselves to their work units and the event activities. Thanking the volunteers • When the field work period of the event is completed, volunteers gather at a central location for snacks or lunch and a short presentation. • Event hosts thank the volunteers for their work and provide additional information about the project. Greening typically invites partner organizations and local public officials to make presentations during the event wrap-up. This is a good time and location for partners or local groups to display booths. • After the event, we mail postcards to volunteers thanking them for their participation. Volunteer organization at the event • Posted signs direct volunteers to parking and registration areas. • Restroom facilities are located in convenient locations. (We usually rent “biffs.) • All volunteers go to the registration area to sign in, and are assigned to work units. • Coffee and snacks are provided. (These are often donated by local businesses.) • Field staff is trained in first aid. Cell phones and first aid equipment are available. An emergency plan is in place in case of an accident. Staff informs volunteer supervisors of the plan during their orientation. For very large events, a trained nurse or other medical staff is present at the event site. • Water is provided at work units and the event wrap-up area. Evaluating the event • We request comments about our events from participants, both while they are at the event and after the event. For most events, we typically survey our volunteer supervisors and a subset of the volunteer participants to help identify where we need to improve. • Staff holds a debriefing after each event to further improve our efforts. Field activities at the event • Volunteer supervisors direct their volunteers to their work units and provide a 10-minute training about the purpose of the project and activities, demonstrate proper methods, identify any safety concerns and answer questions. • Volunteer supervisors oversee the activities of the volunteers, ensuring proper methods are used. • Staff oversees volunteer supervisors to ensure work is happening appropriately and on schedule. Training volunteer supervisors • Great River Greening already has a network of volunteer supervisors who lead work groups at Greening events 72 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan • Volunteers willing to serve as supervisors participate in our basic training, where they learn about their role at Greening events. A supervisor’s role is to educate volunteers about the purpose of the project and event activities, to help motivate the volunteers and help them enjoy the activities, and to help ensure they use proper techniques. • In addition to the basic training, we also offer advanced training to volunteer supervisors to expand their knowledge of ecological restoration activities. Topics have included exotic species control, prairie plant identification and an introduction to the natural communities of the Twin Cities area. Volunteer Site Monitors Volunteers can also assist the monitoring and management of the site by periodically walking through the site and reporting on management problems (trash, vandalism, new exotic weed problems) to the City’s parks department. They can also record observations of interesting birds or other creatures they encounter. The City of Maplewood (see “Nature Center Volunteers” in www.maplewoodmn.com) has a good program that could serve as a model. In this program, trained volunteers visit their designated natural areas once a month, fill out a monitoring form that they submit to city staff. Potential Volunteer Events Greening has experience engaging volunteers in the following management activities: • Planting native trees and shrubs • Planting wildflower and grass seedlings • Collecting and broadcasting prairie seed • Removing exotic species seedlings using weed wrenches • Hauling exotic species brush that has been cut by professional crews 73 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan References Lane, C., S. Raab. 2002. Great River Greening: a case study in urban woodland restoration. Ecological Restoration 20:04, 243251. Dunevitz, H., C. Lane. 2004. Species Lists for Terrestrial and Palustrine Native Plant Communities in East-Central Minnesota, A joint project of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Ecological Strategies LLC, and Great River Greening. These lists, with accompanying text, are available from the website for Great River Greening: www.greatrivergreening.org. Louv, R. 2005. Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature deficit disorder. Algonquin Books. Marschner, F.J. 1974. The original vegetation of Minnesota. Map compiled from U.S. General Land Office survey notes. U.S. Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul. Great River Greening. 2005. Pilot Knob Natural Resource Management Plan [Phase I]. St. Paul, MN. . Grimm, E. 1984. Fire and other factors controlling the big woods vegetation of Minnesota in the mid-nineteenth century. Ecological Monographs, 54(3), pp.291-311. MCBS. 1995. Inventory of Biological Features in Fort Snelling State Park and Inventory of Natural Communities and Rare Plants in Minnehaha Regional Park. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Biological Report No. 54, St. Paul, Minnesota. Heinselman, M.L. 1974. Interpretation of Francis J. Marschner’s map of the original vegetation of Minnesota. Text printed on the back side of Marschner’s map. U.S. Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul. MCBS. 1997. Natural Communities and Rare Species of Dakota County, Minnesota [map]. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN Hobbs, H.C., S. Aronow, C.J. Patterson.1990. Surficial Geology Map of Dakota County, County Atlas Series, Atlas C6, Plate 3 of 9, Minnesota Geological Survey, Minneapolis. MCBS. 2002. Survey of Biological Features in the Minnesota Valley State Recreation Area. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Biological Report No. 72, St. Paul, Minnesota. Kilde, R. 2000. Going Native: A Prairie Restoration Handbook for Minnesota Landowners. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Scientific and Natural Areas Program, St. Paul, MN. MN Department of Agriculture. 2007. Emerald Ash Borer Prevention, Early Detection & Rapid Response. 74 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan http://www.mda.state.mn.us/plants/pestmanagement/eab.htm. (Accessed 11/7/07) MN DNR. 2006c St. Paul Baldwin Plains and Moraines. Pp. 106-111 in Tomorrow’s Habitat for the Wild and Rare: An Action Plan for Minnesota Wildlife, Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). St. Paul, MN. Also available on-line at http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/assistance/nrplanning/bigpicture/cw cs/profiles/st_paul_baldwin_plains.pdf. (Accessed 10/22/07). MN DNR. 2002. Minnesota invasive non-native terrestrial plant; an identification guide for resource managers. St. Paul, MN. Also available on-line at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialplants/index.ht ml National Audubon Society, 2007a. Top 20 Common Birds in Decline. http://www.audubon.org/bird/stateofthebirds/cbid/browseSpeci es.php (Accessed 10/18/07). MN DNR. 2003. Direct Seeding of Native Hardwood Trees: An Innovative Approach to Hardwood Regeneration. A 4 page brochure from the MN Department of Natural Resources Division of Forestry. National Audubon Society. 2007b. #6 Common Bird in Decline Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna). http://www.audubon.org/bird/stateofthebirds/cbid/profile.php?i d=6 (accessed 10/18/07). MNDNR. 2005. [manuscript in preparation] Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota: the Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province. Ecological Land Classification Program, Minnesota County Biological Survey, and Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program. MNDNR St. Paul, MN. National Audubon Society. 2007c. #8 Common Bird in Decline Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). http://www.audubon.org/bird/stateofthebirds/cbid/profile.php?i d=8 (accessed 10/18/07). MN DNR. 2006a. Tomorrow’s Habitat for the Wild and Rare: An Action Plan for Minnesota Wildlife, Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). St. Paul, MN. National Audubon Society. 2007d. #9 Common Bird in Decline Field Sparrow (Spizella pusilla). http://www.audubon.org/bird/stateofthebirds/cbid/profile.php?i d=9 (accessed 10/18/07). MN DNR. 2006b. Tomorrow’s Habitat for the Wild and Rare: An Action Plan for Minnesota Wildlife, Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). Available on-line at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/cwcs/index.html (accessed 10/22/07). National Audubon Society, 2007e. #17 Common Bird in Decline Whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferus). 75 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan University, Purdue University, and Ohio State University. 2007. Emerald Ash Borer. http://www.emeraldashborer.info (Accessed 11/7/07) http://www.audubon.org/bird/stateofthebirds/cbid/profile.php?i d=17 (accessed 10/18/07). Ownbey, G., T. Morley. 1991. Vascular Plants of Minnesota: A Checklist and Atlas. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN. van der Valk, A. G., and R. L. Pederson. 1989. Seed banks and the management and restoration of natural vegetation. pp. 329346 in M. A. Leck, V. T. Parker, and R. L. Simpson (eds.) Ecology of Soil Seed Banks. Academic Press, New York, USA. Ojakangas, R.W., C.L. Matsch.1982. Minnesota’s Geology. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Weikle, P., personal communication, NRCS Soil Scientist for the Twin Cities metropolitan region, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. Packard, S., C. Mutel (Ed.s.). 1997. The Tallgrass Restoration Handbook. Island Press, Washington D.C. Shirley, S. 1994. Restoring the Tallgrass Prairie: An Illustrated Manual for Iowa and the Upper Midwest. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press. White, B., A. Woolworth. 2004. Oheyawahi/Pilot Knob: A Hill of State and National Significance in Dakota County. Over the Years, Vol. 45, No. 2. A publication of the Dakota County Historical Society and Museum. Stuckey, R.L., D.P. Salamon. 1987. Typha angustifolia in North America: a foreigner masquerading as a native. (Abstract). Page 4 in Proceedings of the Ohio Academy of Science, Columbus, OH. Wovcha, D.S., B.C. Delaney, G.E. Nordquist. 1995, Minnesota’s St. Croix River Valley and Anoka Sandplain: A Guide to Native Habitats, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. USDA - NRCS. 1983. Soil Survey of Dakota County. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Wright, H.E. 1972. Physiography of Minnesota. In: Sims, P.K., G.B. Morey (ed.s), Geology of Minnesota: A Centennial Volume. Minnesota Geological Survey, St. Paul, pp 561-578. USDA Forest Service, Michigan Department of Agriculture, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services (APHIS), Michigan State 76 �Genus S OUTHERN MES IC PRAIRIE List of Potential Plant S pecies 1 Quaking aspen Bur oak Northern pin oak Red cedar Common Name tremuloides macrocarpa ellipsoidalis virginiana Lead-plant Fragrant false indigo Prairie sagewort Gray dogwood Red-osier dogwood American hazelnut Wild plum Chokecherry Smooth sumac Staghorn sumac Prairie rose Smooth wild rose Black raspberry Red raspberry Prairie willow M eadowsweet Snowberry S pecies canescens nana frigida racemosa sericea americana americana virginiana glabra typhina arkansana blanda occidentalis idaeus humilis alba cmx. Yarrow Fragrant giant hyssop Prairie wild onion Wild garlic Long-headed thimbleweed Virginia thimbleweed Canada anemone Pussytoes Spreading dogbane Clasping dogbane Western mugwort Tall wormwood Butterfly-weed Oval-leaved milkweed Sky-blue aster Heath aster Panicled aster New England aster Smooth aster Field milk-vetch Canada milk-vetch Harebell Prairie golden aster Understory Trees Populus Quercus Quercus Juniperus millefolium foeniculum stellatum canadense cylindrica virginiana canadensis spp. androsaemifolium sibiricum ludoviciana campestris tuberosa ovalifolia oolentangiensis ericoides lanceolatus novae-angliae laevis agrestis canadensis rotundifolia villosa 2 3 S pecies in PRI S tandard Grass & Wildflower S eed Mixes (% of mix) 4% b.w. 2% b.w. 3% b.w. 4% b.w. X clay X X Other S pecies Recommended for Planting clay X X X X X clay X clay 77 Shrubs Amorpha Amorpha Artemisia Cornus Cornus Corylus Prunus Prunus Rhus Rhus Rosa Rosa Rubus Rubus Salix Spiraea Symphoricarpos Forbs Achillea Agastache Allium Allium Anemone Anemone Anemone Antennaria Apocynum Apocynum Artemisia Artemisia Asclepias Asclepias Aster Aster Aster Aster Aster Astragalus Astragalus Campanula Chrysopsis II Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Appendix A: Plant Species for Restoration at Pilot Knob Mesic Prairie – page 1 �Cirsium Cirsium Comandra Coreopsis Dalea Dalea Desmodium Erigeron Euphorbia Euthamia Fragaria Galium Galium Gentiana Geum Glycyrrhiza Hedeoma Helenium Helianthus Helianthus Helianthus Heliopsis Heuchera Hypoxis Krigia Kuhnia Lactuca Lathyrus Lathyrus Lespedeza Liatris Liatris Liatris Lilium Lithospermum Lobelia Lupinus Mirabilis Monarda Oenothera Oxalis Pedicularis Pediomelum Phlox Physalis Physalis Polygala Polygala Potentilla Potentilla Prenanthes Pycnanthemum muticum flodmani umbellata palmata purpurea candida canadense strigosus corollata graminifolia virginiana boreale triflorum andrewsii triflorum lepidota hispida autumnale maximiliani giganteus pauciflorus helianthoides richardsonii hirsuta biflora eupatorioides spp. palustris venosus capitata aspera ligulistylis pycnostachya philadelphicum canescens spicata perennis hirsuta fistulosa biennis cmx. canadensis argophyllum pilosa heterophylla virginiana sanguinea polygama simplex arguta racemosa virginianum Swamp thistle Prairie thistle Bastard toad-flax Stiff tickseed Purple prairie-clover White prairie-clover Canadian tick-trefoil Daisy fleabane Flowering spurge Grass-leaved goldenrod Common strawberry Northern bedstraw Three-flowered bedstraw Closed gentian Prairie smoke Wild licorice M ock pennyroyal Autumn sneezeweed M aximilian's sunflower Giant sunflower Stiff sunflower Ox-eye Alum-root Yellow star-grass Two-flowered Cynthia False boneset Wild lettuce M arsh vetchling Veiny pea Round-headed bush-clover Rough blazing star Northern plains (meadow) blazing star Gayfeather (tall blazing star) Wood lily Hoary puccoon Rough-spiked Lobelia Wild lupine Hairy four-o'clock Wild bergamot Common evening-primrose Wood-sorrel Wood-betony Silvery scurf-pea Prairie phlox Clammy ground-cherry Ground-cherry Purple milkwort Racemed milkwort Old-field cinquefoil Tall cinquefoil Smooth rattlesnake-root Virginia mountain-mint 4% b.w. 14% b.w. 4% b.w. 1% b.w. b.w. b.w. b.w. b.w. 2% b.w. 5% b.w. 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% b.w. 4% b.w. clay clay X X X clay clay X X clay X X X X X X 78 II Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Mesic Prairie – page 2 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Mesic Prairie – page 3 Ratibida Rudbeckia Scutellaria Silphium Sisyrinchium Smilacina Solidago Solidago Solidago Solidago Solidago Solidago Stachys Thalictrum Tradescantia Verbena Vernonia Veronicastrum Vicia Viola Viola Zizia Zizia pinnata hirta leonardi perfoliatum campestre stellata rigida canadensis gigantea nemoralis ptarmicoides speciosa palustris dasycarpum bracteata stricta fasciculata virginicum americana pedatifida pedata aptera aurea gerardii curtipendula kalmii bicknellii meadii tenera scoparia siccata canadensis trachycaulus spectabilis pyramidata mexicana glomerata frondosa racemosa oligosanthes leibergii virgatum perlongum commonsianum capillare scoparium nutans pectinata heterolepis spartea Grasses, Rushes and Sedges Andropogon Bouteloua Bromus Carex Carex Carex Carex Carex Elymus Elymus Eragrostis Koeleria Muhlenbergia Muhlenbergia Muhlenbergia Muhlenbergia Panicum Panicum Panicum Panicum Panicum Panicum Schizachyrium Sorghastrum Spartina Sporobolus Stipa Ferns and Fern Allies Gray-headed coneflower Black-eyed Susan Leonard's skullcap Cup-plant Field blue-eyed grass Starry false Solomon's-seal Stiff goldenrod Canada goldenrod Giant goldenrod Gray goldenrod Upland white aster/goldenrod Showy goldenrod Woundwort Tall meadow-rue Bracted spiderwort Hoary verbena Bunched ironweed Culver's root American vetch Prairie bird-foot violet Bird-foot violet Heart-leaved alexanders Golden alexanders Big bluestem Side-oats grama Kalm's brome Bicknell's sedge M ead's sedge M arsh-straw sedge Pointed-broom sedge Hay sedge Canada wild rye Slender wheatgrass Purple lovegrass June-grass M exican satin-grass Clustered muhly grass Swamp satin-grass M arsh muhly grass Few-flowered panic grass Leiberg's panic grass Switchgrass Long-leaved panic grass White-haired panic grass Witch grass Little bluestem Indian grass Prairie cord-grass Prairie dropseed Porcupine-grass 16% b.w. 6% b.w. 1% b.w. 2% b.w. 15% b.w. 3% b.w. 35% pls 8% pls 4% pls 2.5% pls 25% pls 25% pls 0.5% b.w. clay X clay clay X X X X X clay X clay X clay clay clay 79 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Mesic Prairie – page 4 laevigatum hyemale arvense Ferns and Fern Allies Equisetum Equisetum Equisetum Smooth scouring-rush Tall scouring-rush Field horsetail From Prairie Restorations, Inc. (www.prairieresto.com/seed_mixes.htm) % refers to % of grass mix or % of wildflower mix. pls = pure live seed; b.w. = bulk weight 1 M odified from a compilation of M NDNR vegetation plot data from East-Central M innesota: see "Species Lists for Terrestr and Palustrine Native Plant Communities in East-central M innesota" by C. Lane & H. Texler (at www.greatrivergreening.org) 2 3 Clay species modified from Prairie Moon Nursery Mesic Clay Mix ((http://www.prairiemoon.com/store/template/product_detail.php?IID=747&SID=4bd9277f2a1ff1c813d8f20fc9ecd9 03) 80 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Dry Prairie – page 1 Trees Genus Juniperus Prunus Quercus Quercus Quercus Shrubs Amorpha Artemisia Ceanothus Corylus Prunus Rhus Rosa Rosa Rubus Symphoricarpos Toxicodendron Zanthoxylum Forbs Achillea Allium Ambrosia Ambrosia Anemone Anemone Antennaria Arabis Artemisia Artemisia Artemisia Asclepias Asclepias Asclepias Asclepias Asclepias Aster Aster Aster Aster Aster Aster Astragalus Calylophus Campanula DRY PRAIRIE List of Potential Plant S pecies1 Common Name Red cedar Black cherry Bur oak Northern pin oak Northern red oak S pecies virginiana serotina macrocarpa ellipsoidalis rubra Lead-plant Prairie sagewort American New Jersey tea American hazelnut Wild plum Smooth sumac Prairie rose Smooth wild rose Black raspberry Snowberry Poison ivy Prickly ash Yarrow Prairie wild onion Common ragweed Western ragweed Long-headed thimbleweed Pasque-flower Pussytoes Spreading rock-cress Tall wormwood Western mugwort Estragon Whorled milkweed Green milkweed Common milkweed Oval-leaved milkweed Butterfly-weed Heath aster Silky aster Aromatic aster Sky-blue (azure) aster Crooked-stemmed aster Smooth aster Buffalo-bean Toothed evening primrose Harebell canescens frigida americanus americana americana glabra arkansana cmx occidentalis cmx rydbergii americanum millefolium stellatum artemisiifolia psilostachya cylindrica patens spp. divaricarpa campestris ludoviciana dracunculus verticillata viridiflora syriaca ovalifolia tuberosa ericoides sericeus oblongifolius oolentangiensis prenanthoides laevis crassicarpus serrulata rotundifolia 2 S pecies in PRI S tandard Grass & Wildflower S eed 3 Mixes (% of forb or grass mix) 5% d.w. 1% d.w. 2% d.w. 2% d.w. 2% d.w. Other S pecies Recommended for Planting X X X X X X X 81 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Dry Prairie – page 2 Chenopodium Chrysopsis Cirsium Comandra Coreopsis Cycloloma Dalea Dalea Dalea Delphinium Erigeron Erysimum Euphorbia Euphorbia Hedeoma Helianthemum Helianthus Isanthus Kuhnia Lactuca Lathyrus Lepidium Lespedeza Liatris Liatris Linum Lupinus Lithospermum Lithospermum Lithospermum Mirabilis Monarda Oenothera Oenothera Onosmodium Oxalis Pediomelum Pediomelum Penstemon Penstemon Physalis Physalis Polygonum Potentilla Ratibida Rudbeckia Scutellaria Senecio Silene Solidago Solidago Solidago desiccatum villosa flodmani umbellata palmata atriplicifolium purpurea villosa candida virescens strigosus inconspicuum corollata glyptosperma hispida bicknellii pauciflorus brachiatus eupatorioides spp. venosus densiflorum capitata punctata aspera sulcatum perennis canescens caroliniense incisum hirsuta fistulosa biennis clelandii molle cmx. argophyllum esculentum grandiflorus gracilis virginiana heterophylla tenue arguta pinnata hirta leonardi plattensis antirrhina nemoralis missouriensis rigida Narrow-leaved lamb's quarters Prairie golden aster Prairie thistle Bastard toad-flax Stiff tickseed Winged pigweed Purple prairie-clover Silky prairie-clover White prairie-clover Prairie larkspur Daisy fleabane Small-flowered wallflower Flowering spurge Ridge-seeded spurge M ock pennyroyal Hoary frostweed Stiff sunflower False pennyroyal False boneset Wild lettuce Veiny pea Green-flowered pepper-grass Round-headed bush-clover Dotted blazing star Rough blazing star Grooved yellow flax Wild lupine Hoary puccoon Hairy puccoon Narrow-leaved puccoon Hairy four-o'clock Wild bergamot Common evening-primrose Cleland's evening-primrose False gromwell Wood-sorrel Silvery scurf-pea Prairie-turnip Large-flowered beard-tongue Slender beard-tongue Ground-cherry Clammy ground-cherry Slender knotweed Tall cinquefoil Gray-headed coneflower Black-eyed Susan Leonard's skullcap Prairie ragwort Sleepy catchfly Gray goldenrod M issouri goldenrod Stiff goldenrod 6% d.w. 16% d.w. 4% d.w. 2% d.w. 3% d.w. 6% d.w. 2% d.w. 18% d.w. 4% d.w. 2% d.w. X X X X X X X 82 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Dry Prairie – page 3 Solidago Solidago Solidago Thalictrum Tradescantia Verbena Veronicastrum Viola Zizia Zizia ptarmicoides canadensis speciosa dasycarpum bracteata stricta virginicum pedatifida aurea aptera gerardii basiramea curtipendula gracilis hirsuta kalmii longifolia tenera muhlenbergii siccata longispinus schweinitzii lupulinus spp. canadensis trachycaulus spectabilis pyramidata cuspidata perlongum oligosanthes wilcoxianum leibergii scoparium nutans cryptandrus heterolepis spartea comata octoflora Grasses, Rushes and Sedges Andropogon Aristida Bouteloua Bouteloua Bouteloua Bromus Calamovilfa Carex Carex Carex Cenchrus Cyperus Cyperus Cyperus Elymus Elymus Eragrostis Koeleria Muhlenbergia Panicum Panicum Panicum Panicum Schizachyrium Sorghastrum Sporobolus Sporobolus Stipa Stipa Vulpia laevigatum rupestris Ferns and Fern Allies Equisetum Selaginella Upland white aster (goldenrod) Canada goldenrod Showy goldenrod Tall meadow-rue Bracted spiderwort Hoary vervain Culver's root Prairie bird-foot violet Golden alexanders Heart-leaved alexanders Big bluestem Base-branched three-awn Side-oats grama Blue grama Hairy grama Kalm's brome Sand reed-grass M arsh-straw sedge M uhlenberg's sedge Hay sedge Sandbur Schweinitz' cyperus Hop-like cyperus Canada wild rye Slender wheatgrass Purple lovegrass June-grass Plains muhly Long-leaved panic grass Few-flowered panic grass Wilcox's panic grass Leiberg's panic grass Little bluestem Indian grass Sand dropseed Prairie dropseed Porcupine-grass Needle-and-thread grass Eight-week fescue Smooth scouring-rush Rock spikemoss 2 pls = pure live seed; b.w. = bulk weight From Prairie Restorations, Inc. (www.prairieresto.com/seed_mixes.htm) 3% d.w. 1% d.w. 18% d.w. 3% d.w. 35% pls wt. 10% pls wt. 1% d.w. 53% pls wt. 0.5% d.w. 0.5% d.w. X X X X X X 1 M odified from a compilation of M NDNR vegetation plot data from East-Central M innesota: see "Species Lists for Terrestrial and Palustrine Native Plant Communities in East-central M innesota" by C. Lane & H. Texler (at www.greatrivergreening.org). 3 83 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Wet Prairie – page 1 Genus Shrubs Cornus Cornus Salix Salix Salix Spiraea Forbs Agastache Alisma Anemone Apios Apocynum Asclepias Aster Aster Aster Aster Calystegia Campanula Castilleja Chelone Chenopodium Cicuta Cirsium Desmodium Epilobium Eupatorium Eupatorium Euphorbia Euthamia Fragaria Gentiana Geum Helenium Helianthus Helianthus Heliopsis Hypericum Hypoxis Iris Iris Krigia Lathyrus Lathyrus WET PRAIRIE List of Potential Plant S pecies1 Gray dogwood Red-osier dogwood Bebb's willow Pussy willow Slender willow M eadowsweet Common Name racemosa sericea bebbiana discolor petiolaris alba Blue giant-hyssop Water plantain Canada anemone Groundnut Clasping dogbane Swamp milkweed Panicled aster New England aster Flat-topped aster Red-stemmed aster Hedge bindweed M arsh bellflower Indian paintbrush White turtlehead Narrow-leaved lamb's quarters Spotted water-hemlock Swamp thistle Canadian tick-trefoil Willow-herb Spotted Joe-pye weed Common boneset Flowering spurge Grass-leaved goldenrod Common strawberry Closed gentian Yellow avens Autumn sneezeweed Giant sunflower Sawtooth sunflower Ox eye Great St. John's wort Yellow star-grass Northern blue Flag Southern blue flag Two-flowered Cynthia M arsh vetchling Veiny pea S pecies foeniculum subcordatum canadensis americana sibiricum incarnata lanceolatus novae-angliae pubentior puniceus sepium aparinoides coccinea glabra desiccatum maculata muticum canadense cm2 maculatum perfoliatum corollata graminifolia virginiana andrewsii aleppicum autumnale giganteus grosseserratus helianthoides pyramidatum hirsuta versicolor virginica biflora palustris venosus 3 X X X X X X X X S pecies in PRI Other S pecies S tandard Grass & Recommended for Wildflower S eed Planting 2 Mixes (% of forb or grass mix) 2% b.w. 1% b.w. 3% b.w. 5% b.w. 2% b.w. 3% b.w. 16% b.w. 4% b.w. 1% b.w. 2% b.w. 3% b.w. 3% b.w. 8% b.w. X 84 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Wet Prairie – page2 Liatris Liatris Lilium Liparis Lobelia Lobelia Lycopus Lycopus Lysimachia Lysimachia Lythrum Mentha Mimulus Monarda Oenothera Oxalis Oxypolis Pedicularis Pedicularis Polygala Polygala Polygonum Polygonum Potentilla Prenanthes Pycnanthemum Ratibida Rudbeckia Rudbeckia Sagittaria Scutellaria Senecio Silphium Smilacina Solidago Solidago Solidago Solidago Stachys Teucrium Thalictrum Verbena Vernonia Veronicastrum Vicia Viola Zizia ligulistylis pycnostachya michiganense loeselii siphilitica spicata americanus uniflorus ciliata quadriflora alatum arvensis ringens fistulosa perennis cmx. rigidior canadensis lanceolata sanguinea senega amphibium punctatum simplex racemosa virginianum pinnata hirta laciniata latifolia galaericulata pseudaureus/aureus perfoliatum stellata canadensis gigantea riddellii rigida palustris canadense dasycarpum hastata fasciculata virginicum americana cm1 aurea hyemalis gerardii ciliatus canadensis Grasses, Rushes and Sedges Agrostis Andropogon Bromus Calamagrostis Northern plains blazing star Gayfeather (tall blazing star) M ichigan lily Loesel's twayblade Great lobelia Rough-spiked lobelia Cut-leaved bugleweed Northern bugleweed Fringed loosestrife Prairie loosestrife Wing-angled loosestrife Common mint Purple monkey-flower Wild bergamot Perennial evening-primrose Wood-sorrel Cowbane Wood-betony Swamp lousewort Purple milkwort Seneca snakeroot Water smartweed Dotted smartweed Old-field cinquefoil Smooth rattlesnake-root Virginia mountain-mint Gray-headed coneflower Black-eyed Susan Goldenglow Giant arrowhead M arsh skullcap Golden ragwort Cup-plant Starry false Solomon's-seal Canada goldenrod Giant goldenrod Riddell's goldenrod Stiff goldenrod Woundwort Germander Tall meadow-rue Blue vervain Bunched ironweed Culver's root American vetch Violet Golden alexanders 15% b.w. 3% b.w. 38% pls wt. 1% b.w. 16% b.w. 1% b.w. 1% b.w. 2% b.w. 2% b.w. 6% b.w. 2% b.w. 4% b.w. 8% b.w. Rough bent-grass Big bluestem Fringed brome Bluejoint X X X X X X X 85 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Wet Prairie – page 3 Carex Carex Carex Carex Carex Carex Carex Carex Carex Carex Carex Carex Carex Eleocharis Elymus Elymus Eriophorum Glyceria Hierochloe Juncus Juncus Juncus Juncus Leersia Muhlenbergia Muhlenbergia Panicum Poa Scirpus Scirpus Sorghastrum Sparganium Spartina Sphenopholis bebbii buxbaumii granularis haydenii interior lacustris sartwellii scoparia stipata stricta tenera tetanica pellita compressa canadensis trachycaulus angustifolium striata odorata nodosus tenuis vaseyi dudleyi oryzoides frondosa glomerata virgatum palustris atrovirens cyperinus nutans eurycarpum pectinata obtusata arvense pratense sensibilis Ferns and Fern Allies Equisetum Equisetum Onoclea Bebb's sedge Buxbaum's sedge Granular sedge Hayden's sedge Inland sedge Lake-sedge Sartwell's sedge Pointed-broom sedge Awl-fruited sedge Tusssock-sedge M arsh-straw sedge Wood-sedge Woolly sedge Flattened spike-rush Canada wild rye Slender wheatgrass Narrow-leaved cotton-grass Fowl manna-grass Sweet grass Knotty rush Path rush Vasey's rush Dudley's rush Rice cut grass Swamp satin-grass Clustered muhly grass Switchgrass Fowl meadow-grass Dark green bulrush Wool-grass Indian grass Giant bur-reed Prairie cord-grass Prairie wedge-grass Field horsetail M eadow horsetail Sensitive fern 2 pls = pure live seed; b.w. = bulk weight From Prairie Restorations, Inc. (www.prairieresto.com/seed_mixes.htm) 10% pls wt. 10% pls wt. 1% b.w. 2% b.w. 6% pls wt. 1% b.w. 15% b.w. X X X X 1 M odified from a compilation of M NDNR vegetation plot data from East-Central M innesota: see "Species Lists for Terrestria and Palustrine Native Plant Communities in East-central M innesota" by C. Lane & H. Texler (at www.greatrivergreening.org). 3 86 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Oak Woodland – Page 1 Genus Canopy Trees (>10m) Acer Acer Betula Carya Celtis Fraxinus Ostrya Prunus Quercus Quercus Quercus Quercus Tilia Ulmus Understory Trees Acer Acer Acer Betula Carya Celtis Fraxinus Ostrya Prunus Quercus Quercus Tilia Ulmus Ulmus Shrubs Cornus Cornus Corylus Corylus Prunus Ribes Ribes Rosa Rubus Rubus Sambucus Symphoricarpos Toxicodendron Viburnum DRY-MESIC OAK WOODLAND List of Potential Plant S pecies1 negundo rubrum papyrifera cordiformis occidentalis pennsylvanica virginiana serotina alba ellipsoidalis macrocarpa rubra americana americana Box elder Red maple Sugar maple Paper-birch Bitternut hickory Hackberry Green ash Ironwood Black cherry White oak Northern red oak Basswood American elm Slippery elm Box elder Red maple Paper-birch Bitternut hickory Hackberry Green ash Ironwood Black cherry White oak Northern pin oak Bur oak Northern red oak Basswood American elm Common Name negundo rubrum saccharum papyrifera cordiformis occidentalis pennsylvanica virginiana serotina alba rubra americana americana rubra Pagoda dogwood Gray dogwood American hazelnut Beaked hazelnut Chokecherry Prickly gooseberry M issouri gooseberry Smooth wild rose Blackberry Red raspberry Red-berried elder Snowberry Poison ivy Nannyberry S pecies alternifolia racemosa americana cornuta virginiana cynosbati missouriense blanda cm1 idaeus racemosa cmx rydbergii lentago S pecies Recommended for Planting on Woodland Edges at Pilot Knob X X X X 2 Recommended Species Available as Seed from Prairie Moon Nursery 87 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Oak Woodland – Page 2 Viburnum Zanthoxylum Vines Parthenocissus Vitis Smilax Forbs Actaea Amphicarpaea Anemone Apocynum Aquilegia Aralia Aralia Arisaema Aster Campanula Caulophyllum Circaea Cryptotaenia Desmodium Erigeron Eupatorium Fragaria Galium Galium Galium Galium Geranium Geum Hackelia Helianthus Heliopsis Hydrophyllum Impatiens Laportea Lathyrus Maianthemum Mitella Monotropa Osmorhiza Osmorhiza Phryma Pilea Polygonatum Polygonatum Ranunculus Ranunculus Sanguinaria Sanicula Sanicula Smilacina rubra bracteata acutiloba androsaemifolium canadensis nudicaulis racemosa triphyllum cordifolius americana thalictroides lutetiana canadensis glutinosum philadelphicus rugosum virginiana aparine boreale concinnum triflorum maculatum canadense spp. strigosus helianthoides virginianum spp. canadensis ochroleucus canadense diphylla uniflora claytonii longistylis leptostachya spp. pubescens biflorum abortivus recurvatus canadensis gregaria marilandica racemosa spp. riparia hispida rafinesquianum americanum Red baneberry Hog-peanut Sharp-lobed hepatica Spreading dogbane Columbine Wild sarsaparilla American spikenard Jack-in-the-pulpit Heart-leaved aster American bell flower Blue cohosh Canada enchanter's nightshade Honewort Pointed-leaved tick-trefoil Philadelphia fleabane Common snakeroot Common strawberry Cleavers Northern bedstraw Elegant bedstraw Three-flowered bedstraw Wild geranium White avens Stickseed Woodland sunflower Ox-eye Virginia waterleaf Touch-me-not Wood-nettle Pale vetchling Canada mayflower Two-leaved miterwort Indian pipe Clayton's sweet cicely Anise-root Lopseed Clearweed Hairy Solomon's-seal Giant Solomon's-seal Kidney-leaf buttercup Hooked crowfoot Bloodroot Gregarious black snakeroot M ariland black snakeroot Racemose false Solomon's-seal Virginia creeper Wild grape Green-briar Downy arrow-wood Prickly ash X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 88 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Oak Woodland – Page 3 Carrion-flower Long-leaved chickweed Early meadow-rue Stinging nettle Yellow bellwort Culver's root Violet cmx. longifolia dioicum dioica grandiflora virginicum cm4 Woodland brome Hairy wood chess Woodland sedge Graceful sedge Pennsylvania sedge Sprengel's sedge Stellate sedge Bottlebrush grass Nodding fescue M ountain rice grass Black-fruited rice grass Smilax Stellaria Thalictrum Urtica Uvularia Veronicastrum Viola latiglumis pubescens (purgans) blanda gracillima pensylvanica sprengelii radiata hystrix subverticillata asperifolia racemosa Lady-fern Rattlesnakefern Interrupted fern Bracken Big bluestem filix-femina virginianum claytoniana aquilinum Grasses, Rushes and Sedges Andropogon gerardii Bromus Bromus Carex Carex Carex Carex Carex Elymus (Hystrix) Festuca Oryzopsis Oryzopsis Ferns and Fern Allies Athyrium Botrychium Osmunda Pteridium X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 1 M odified from a compilation of M NDNR vegetation plot data from East-Central M innesota: see "Species Lists for Terrestrial and Palustrine Native Plant Communities in East-central M innesota" by C. Lane & H. Texler (at www.greatrivergreening.org). 2 Prairie M oon Nursery, Winona, M N (www.prairiemoon.com). Note: Prairie M oon's standard woodland and savanna edge seed mixes are not recommended because they contain species that do not occur in this region. 89 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Appendix B: Resources for Restoration And Management Equipment: Tree planting and seeding equipment: Forestry Suppliers, Inc. 205 West Rankin St. Jackson, MS 39201 (800) 647-5368 www.forestry-suppliers.com Prairie restoration: Seed: Minnesota Native Landscapes 14088 Hwy. 95 NE Foley, MN 56329 (320) 968-4222 www.mnnativelandscapes.com Prairie Moon Nursery 31837 Bur Oak Lane Winona, MN 55987-9515 507-452-1362 www.prairiemoon.com Ben Meadows Company 3589 Broad St. Atlanta, GA 30341 (800) 241-6401 www.benmeadows.com Prairie Restorations, Inc. P.O. Box 327 Princeton, MN 55371 (763) 633-4342 www.prairieresto.com Shooting Star Native Seeds P.O. Box 648 Spring Grove, MN 55974-0648 (507) 498-3944 www.shootingstarnativeseed.com Spring Lake Restoration Nurseries 21938 Mushtown Rd. Prior Lake, MN 55372 952-447-1919 http://www.appliedeco.com/slrn/ 90 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Potted plants: Dragonfly Gardens PO Box 192, Amery, WI 54001. (715) 268-6155; www.dragonflygardens.net Hild & Associates 326 Glover Rd. S. River Falls, WI 54022 800-790-9495; ghild@hildnatives.com Landscape Alternatives 25316 St. Croix Trail Shafer, MN 55074 (651) 257-4460; landscapealt@earthlink.net Prairie Moon Nursery 31837 Bur Oak Lane Winona, MN 55987-9515 507-452-1362; www.prairiemoon.com Prairie Restorations, Inc. P.O. Box 327 Princeton, MN 55371 (763) 633-4342; www.prairieresto.com Ramsey County Corrections Nursery 297 S. Century Ave St. Paul, MN 55119 651-266-1510; sean.uslabar@co.ramsey.mn.us Spring Lake Restoration Nurseries 21938 Mushtown Rd. Prior Lake, MN 55372 952-447-1919, http://www.appliedeco.com/slrn/ 91 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Local Ecotype Trees: (bare root seedlings) MN DNR State Forest Nursery General Andrews Nursery PO Box 95 Willow River, MN 55795 tel. (218) 372-3183 www.dnr.state.mn.us/forestry/nurseries/ordering Restoration contractors: Bidwell Maintenance (heavy equip. for site prep) 75 Bidwell St. St. Paul, MN 55107 Great River Greening 35 W. Water St., Suite 201 St. Paul, MN 55107-2016 651-665-9500 www.greatrivergreening.org (potted, b&b trees and shrubs) Out Back Nursery 15280 110th St. S. Hastings, MN 55033 651-438-2771 www.outbacknursery.com Minnesota Native Landscapes 14088 Hwy. 95 NE Foley, MN 56329 (320) 968-4222 www.mnNativeLandscapes.com (bareroot, potted, b&b - specify local stock) Bailey Nurseries 1325 Bailey Rd. St. Paul, MN 55119-6313 651-768-3378 www.baileynurseries.com Prairie Restorations, Inc. P.O. Box 327 Princeton, MN 55371 (763) 633-4342 www.prairieresto.com Contacts: United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge Patricia Martinkovic, Refuge Manager 3815 E. 80th St. Bloomington, MN 55425-1600 (952) 854-5900 Patricia_Martinkovic@fws.gov 92 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Division of Wildlife: Bryan Lueth, Urban Wildlife Manager 5463 – C W Broadway Forest Lake, MN 55025 651-296-3779 bryan.lueth@dnr.state.mn.us art.widerstrom@dnr.state.mn.us Division of Ecological Services Hannah Texler, Regional Ecologist 1200 Warner Rd., St. Paul, MN 55106 651-772-7570 hannah.texler@dnr.state.mn.us Division of Forestry: Art Widerstrom, Area Forester 800 Oak Savanna Lane Cambridge, MN 55008 763-689-7101 Minnesota Department of Transportation Paul Voight 651-284-3791 (w) 651-470-5956 (cell) 93 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Several federal, state, and local government grant programs, as well as private corporations and foundations, have funded restoration projects like Pilot Knob. Most grants require some amount of match: either as cash match only, or as cash and/or in-kind match. Appendix C1: Potential Funding Sources for the Pilot Knob Restoration and Management Project as of October 22, 2005 The Pilot Knob natural resource restoration project has many components that are compelling for funders: • it is highly visible, • it has a nationally significant role in the history of the Dakota people and European settlement of the region, • it connects to existing natural areas in the Minnesota River Valley, • prairie and savanna communities are high priority habitats for restoration due to their rarity, • the work provides meaningful opportunities for volunteers. There are many different potential sources for funding natural resource restoration work and associated volunteer events. Potential Source Potential Amount While there are no guarantees for fundraising, the City of Mendota Heights can anticipate that substantial funding for the restoration project can be generated through grants. If selected to coordinate the restoration work, Great River Greening can work with the City to secure grant funds for the project. Status as of October 22, 2005 Mississippi River Fund (National Park Service Foundation) $37,000 city letter submitted Sept. 2005 for March 2006 decision; requires 50% match, which can include in-kind Pilot Knob Preservation Association $1,000 plus inkind $10,000 PKPA also offers in-kind assistance to develop interpretive information and provide volunteers to assist with restoration work. Dakota County Great River Greening (GRG) $8,000 approved by the Dakota County Board on October 18, 2005 contingent on using GRG’s assistance; requires 50% cash match; restoration funds from Metro Conservation Corridors 94 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District $5,000 verbal interest in funding and helping secure other funding Friends of the Minnesota Valley Sierra Club Friends of the Mississippi River $2,500 $500 verbal commitment verbal commitment Verbal commitment. Grant funds available through the Metro Conservation Corridors program. FMR also has members in the region and can bring many volunteers. Minnesota Historical Society - State Grants-in-Aid grant program helps fund installation of structures for and development of interpretive information; priority is given to projects involving properties that are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic places. Maximum grant of $6,000. Requires 1:1 match. Pre-application deadline likely in July 2006. See: www.mnhs.org/about/grants/stgrantscontents.html HRK Foundation foundation with interest in restoration through “Community Building...to encourage responsible land use and promote conservation and preservation of community resources.” See www.hrkfoundation.org. restoration grants available historically; status of future funding unknown; restoration of native plant communities; reforestation; protection of wetlands; and abatement of soil erosion. Plantings must consist only of native species; requires 1;1 match though match may be in-kind Conservation Partners – DNR Metro Greenways restoration Lower Minnesota River Watershed District National Fish & Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) Challenge Grants National Fish & Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) General Matching Grant restoration grants through Metro Conservation Corridors; application round likely in early 2006; no maximum award, but has awarded up to $50,000 in past . For info, see www.dnr.state.mn.us/grants/land/metrogreen.html. Contact: Kate Drewry kate.drewry@dnr.state.mn.us Some watershed districts have funded restoration work, particularly as related to improving water quality in the watershed See http://www.watersheddistrict.org/. Contact Terry Schwalbe [terrys@lowermn.com] about a potential partnership. letter deadline Sept 15; http://www.nfwf.org/guidelines.cfm; in our region, the most likely projects to be funded are demonstration projects that show new approaches to restoration; could show how restoration could be done on a Native American burial ground. 95 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Roadsides for Wildlife - DNR $500 Revegetation of roadsides with native grass and forb seed, demonstration plots on biological weed control, and native seed planting and harvesting equipment. $350/acre max cost-share; $500 rough estimate http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/grants/habitat/roadsides.html Minnesota ReLeaf - DNR Purchasing and planting of predominantly native trees to conserve energy, benefit wildlife, and establish community windbreaks; actions to preserve and maintain healthy community forests; educational programs in conjunction with these activities; and conducting tree inventories for land use and comprehensive planning Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR) This commission, staffed by state legislators, solicits, evaluates and recommends natural resources projects for legislative funding from the Minnesota Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund. Application deadlines are biennial. www.commissions.leg.state.mn.us/lcmr/lcmr.htm. MN Office of Environmental Assistance www.moea.state.mn.us/ MN Pollution Control Agency http://www.pca.state.mn.us/netscape4.html USDA – Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) The Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program of USDA-NRCS may be a possible source of funding. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ Native American Tribes Additional Foundations Individuals Corporations Potential Total as of 10/03/05 $64,500 96 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Appendix C2: Current Funding Sources as of November, 2007 Funding source NEA (Artist fee) notes http://www.arts.gov/grants/apply/GAP08/Challenge.html due June 1 Prairie Island Bess Spiva Timmons Foundation Artist Fee - 3/12/2007, no word back yet Target Store Grant Artist Fee -5/31/2007 Archie D and Bertha H Walker Foundation MPCA Artist Fee - 6/7/2007 for interpretive facilities: signs, trails, overlook, and design of those facilities: to be done by 6/08 Acacia Cem. used for buckthorn removal at acacia in 2006 PKPA Paid directly to the city; site prep in 2006 Starbucks site prep in 2006 Matt Entenza site prep in 2006 Dak SWCD Cons. Partners grant see list to use for in contract, site prep in 2006 use in 2007, reimbursement to city, used for restoration in 2007 - seeding! GRG MeCC Phase II used for site prep, especially in 2006, some in 07 Friends of MN Valley MeCC Phase II Dak. County Cap. Improve. used for oak tree in MnDOT ROW Prefer used for capital improvements - trees, plants, etc.; Is ok if used for trail, etc. if it attracts match funds Mn Hist Soc Lower Mn River Watersh. Dist Total received for restoration and facilities Pay for signs only! See acceptance form for details. used for various restoration in 2007 - reimbursement to city $82,659 97 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan are based on the “reasonable replacement cost” method of valuating trees and shrubs. These are only a general guideline, and these figures could change based on several factors including but not limited to species, condition, location, historical significance, etc. I would say based on our field visit of the Pilot Knob site on October 11th, 2005 that the following figures should be a good for the potential removal of Mn/DOT trees and shrubs. The per plant cost figures are based on the average of the average bid prices for contracted Mn/DOT landscape projects between 01/01/02 and 12/31/04 (3 contract years). This bid price would include the preparation of the site, planting of the tree according to Mn/DOT specification 2571, and maintaining the tree for a period of 2 years Appendix D: Reasonable Replacement Costs for Tree/Shrub Removal on Mn/DOT Right of Way from: Paul G. Voigt Natural Resource SpecialistHorticulturist Senior Office of Environmental Services Phone: (651) 284-3791 E-mail: paul.voigt@dot.state.mn.us The following table can be used as a general guideline as to how Mn/DOT may determine the value of replacing or paying for removed vegetation on its Right of Way. These numbers . 98 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan PLANT TYPE Coniferous tree SIZE RANGE OF REQUESTED REMOVAL Up to 8’ height REPLACEMENT QUANTITY Coniferous tree Over 8’ height up to 14’ height 2 for 1 w/ a 5’ height coniferous B&B tree Coniferous tree Over 14’ height up to 20’ height 3 for 1 w/ a 5’ height coniferous B&B tree Deciduous tree *1”dbh – 8”dbh 1 for 1 w/ a 2” caliper deciduous B&B tree Deciduous tree Over 8”dbh - 14” dbh 2 for 1 w/ a 2” caliper deciduous B&B tree Deciduous tree Over 14 dbh -20” dbh 3 for 1 w/ a 2” caliper deciduous B&B tree Deciduous shrub 4’ height – 10’ height 1 for 1 w/ a 4’ height containerized deciduous shrub 1 for 1 w/ a 5’ height coniferous B&B tree *dbh refers to the diameter of the tree at breast height (4.5’ above the ground). 99 REPLACEMENT COSTS PER PLANT $277.00 (1 x $277.00 = $277.00 per tree removed) $277.00 (2 x $277.00 = $554.00 per tree removed) $277.00 (3 x $277.00 = $831.00 per tree removed) $348.00 (1 x $348.00 = $348.00 per tree removed) $348.00 (2 x $348.00 = $696.00 per tree removed) $348.00 (3 x $348.00 = $1044.00 per tree removed) $60.00 (1 x $60.00 = $60.00 per shrub removed) �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Appendix E: Plan Amendments • The writers of this plan have worked hard to provide reasonable and accurate estimates of the work and costs involved in the proposed restoration and management project at Pilot Knob. However, no natural resource management plan can predict all of the potential situations or changes that might arise in the future that require significant deviations from the approved plan. Unforeseen situations that might require amendments to the plan might include: • • • • • • • A severe drought that kills plant seedlings before they can root themselves deeply into the soil Nursery stock shortages Unforeseen plant diseases Responding to and working with adjacent landowners such as Acacia Park Cemetery and MNDOT Other situations that might also merit a deviation from the approved plan could include potential new designs, materials and costs for alternatives to the constructed areas (trails, overlook, parking lot, interpretive structures) or native plant communities that were not considered by the time the final draft of the plan was written and approved. Catastrophic weather events that knock over trees into the project site, requiring additional tree removal An excessive rainfall event immediately following soil raking that will require unforeseen additional measures to control erosion Poor quality plant seed that fails to germinate properly, requiring an additional seeding Inflation of prices for materials and labor, especially 510 years from now Prior to any significant plan and implementation revisions consisting of major departures that are not consistent with the overall goal and intent of the plan, Dakota County and DNR Metro Greenways, and their appropriate representatives, will be contacted by the City and must jointly agree to any significant plan revisions prior to implementation. 100 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Common Name Scientific Name Status American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus American Black Duck Anas rubripes American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos American Woodcock Scolopax minor Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bay-breasted Warbler Dendroica castanea Bell's Vireo Vireo bellii Black Tern Chlidonias niger Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax Black-throated Blue Warbler Dendroica caerulescens Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis Cape May Warbler Dendroica tigrina Common Loon Gavia immer Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor Common Tern Sterna hirundo Connecticut Warbler Oporornis agilis Dickcissel Spiza americana Dunlin Calidris alpina Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla Forster's Tern Sterna forsteri Franklin's Gull Larus pipixcan Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus King Rail Rallus elegans Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Louisiana Waterthrush Seiurus motacilla Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Northern Pintail Anas acuta Northern Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Spr O O O O U U R U U U O R O U U U O R U O R O O O O C O U U U O O U O Sum Fall R U R U U U R O U R U U U O U U U O C U O O O O C O U U U O O U O O O U U U R U U U O R O U U U O R U O R O O C O U O R O U O C U O R U U R U U U Win O O O THR MN Status SPC SPC SPC THR SPC SPC THR END THR SPC Fed 101 SPC = Special Concern THR = Threatened END = Endangered (Source: Harper, MN DNR, pers. comm.) C = Common -present, relatively easy to find U = Uncommon - observed, may be difficult to find O = Occasional -may or may not be present in any year R = Rare -has occurred at least once, may or may not be expected to recur Appendix F: Bird Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) Found at Fort Snelling State Park �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Appendix F: cont’d Common Name Olive-sided Flycatcher Ovenbird Peregrine Falcon Piping Plover Prothonotary Warbler Red-headed Woodpecker Red-necked Grebe Red-shouldered Hawk Rose-breasted Grosbeak Ruddy Turnstone Rusty Blackbird Sedge Wren Semipalmated Sandpiper Short-billed Dowitcher Short-eared Owl Swamp Sparrow Trumpeter Swan Veery Virginia Rail Western Grebe Whimbrel Whip-poor-will White-rumped Sandpiper White-throated Sparrow Willow Flycatcher Wilson's Phalarope Winter Wren Wood Thrush Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Scientific Name Contopus cooperi Seiurus aurocapillus Falco peregrinus Charadrius melodus Protonotaria citrea Melanerpes erythrocephalus Podiceps grisegena Buteo lineatus Pheucticus ludovicianus Arenaria interpres Euphagus carolinus Cistothorus platensis Calidris pusilla Limnodromus griseus Asio flammeus Melospiza georgiana Cygnus buccinator Catharus fuscescens Rallus limicola Aechmophorus occidentalis Numenius phaeopus Caprimulgus vociferus Calidris fuscicollis Zonotrichia albicollis Empidonax traillii Phalaropus tricolor Troglodytes troglodytes Hylocichla mustelina Sphyrapicus varius Spr U C U R R O U O C R U U O O O C R U U O R R O C U O U U U Sum U O U O O C U O C R U U U U Fall U C U R R O U C R U U O O O C O O U R R C U O U U U Win R END MN Status Fed Status THR END SPC SPC THR THR 102 �Pilot Knob Hill Natural Resource Management Plan Appendix G: Rare Animal Features within 1.5 Miles of Pilot Knob Hill (source: Harper, MN DNR, pers. comm.) Birds Bald Eagle Bell's Vireo Louisiana Waterthrush Peregrine Falcon Reptiles Blanding's Turtle Eastern Fox Snake Milk Snake Insects Karner Blue Butterfly Mussel Fish Black Sandshell Ebonyshell Elktoe Fawnsfoot Hickorynut Higgins Eye Monkeyface Mucket Purple Wartyback Rock Pocketbook Round Pigtoe Scaleshell Sheepnose Wartyback Pallid Shiner Pugnose Shiner Shovelnose Sturgeon Haliaeetus leucocephalus Vireo bellii Seiurus motacilla Falco peregrinus Emydoidea blandingii Elaphe vulpina gloydi Lampropeltis triangulum Lycaeides melissa samuelis Ligumia recta Fusconaia ebena Alasmidonta marginata Truncilla donaciformis Obovaria olivaria Lampsilis higginsii Quadrula sparsa Actinonaias ligamentina Cyclonaias tuberculata Arcidens confragosus Pleurobema sintoxia Leptodea leptodon Plethobasus cyphyus Quadrula nodulata Hybopsis amnis Notropis anogenus Scaphirhynchus platorynchus 103 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context GreatRiverGreeningPKNaturalResourceManagementPlan.pdf Title A name given to the resource Great River Greening's Pilot Knob Natural Resource Management Plan Description An account of the resource The Resource Manargement Plan describes the desired goals and process for restoring and managing Pilot Knob once it had been saved from development Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Wiley Buck, Todd Rexine, Tara Krebs, Tony Randazzo, Daniel Tix Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Great River Greening Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Great River Greening Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 11/1/2007 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Copyright Great River Greening Type The nature or genre of the resource Document Language A language of the resource English Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource .pdf Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Pilot Knob, Mendota Heights, Minnesota Great River Greening Mendota Heights NARF Natural Resource Management pilot knob https://religionsmn.carleton.edu/files/original/f2cd3c5cacd48751dd983f369e1e49d9.pdf 7ee61472e66fd531ad642fbe6d3c1799 PDF Text Text City of Mendota Heights – Pilot Knob Description: Location: Pilot Knob is a 23-acre site that has significant ecological, scenic, cultural and historic value. It provides connectivity and buffering to ecological resources at the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers. The area is well known for bird observation of numerous uncommon and rare species and provides outstanding vistas of the river valleys, historic Fort Snelling and downtown Minneapolis. It is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and serves as a key connection in an existing wildlife habitat corridor. Two Natural and Scenic Area grants and two Remediation Fund grants were awarded to the City to help acquire and protect this area. From Hwy 494, exit on Pilot Knob and head north until dead end. From Minneapolis take Hwy 55 to Hwy 110, turn right on Hwy 13 to Acacia Blvd. Turn right on Acacia to Pilot Knob Road, turn right on Pilot Knob and continue to dead end. Biomes: Deciduous Woods Grant Funding: Information: Natural and Scenic Area Grant 2003, 2005 Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund $300,000 2006 Bonding………………………………………………..$354,057 City of Mendota Heights City Office 651-452-1850 Remediation Fund Grant 2006, 2007 Remediation Fund .............................................. $827,000 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context PilotKnobGrantDocument.pdf Title A name given to the resource State Grants for Pilot Knob Preservation Description An account of the resource Multiple state grants were used to fund the preservation of Pilot Knob, a Native American sacred site in Mendota Heights, Minnesota Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Public Domain Type The nature or genre of the resource Document Language A language of the resource English Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource .pdf Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota Land preservation Mendota Heights NARF pilot knob https://religionsmn.carleton.edu/files/original/8f6964464d642efaf783c9be99dbe534.pdf 2d34399f204b997140a565a0ba2182e5 PDF Text Text Page No. 1 January 7, 2003 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, January 7, 2003 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 7: 30 o' clock p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. OATH OF OFFICE The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office to Mayor John J. Huber, who was elected on November 5, 2002 to a two - ear term of y office, to Councilmember Mary Jeanne Schneeman, who was reelected to a four - ear term of office, and to Councilmember Ultan y Duggan, who was elected to a four - ear term of office. y CALL TO ORDER Mayor Huber called the meeting to order at 7: 45 p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Huber, Councilmembers Duggan, Krebsbach, Schneeman and Vitelli. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The City Council, audience and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Councilmember Krebsbach moved adoption of the revised agenda for the meeting. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Vitelli moved approval of the amended minutes of the regular meeting held on December 17, 2002. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Abstain: Huber, Duggan CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Duggan moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting, revised to move items 5, and 5, to the regular agenda, along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgment of the Building Activity Report for December, 2002. �Page No. 2 January 7, 2003 b. Adoption of Resolution No. 03 -01, " CORPORATE AUTHORIZATION RESOLUTION," to add Mayor Huber to the list of authorized signatures at American Bank.. c. Approval of the appointment of Councilmember Schneeman as the Mendota Heights representative on the Gun Club Lake WMO. d. Approval to schedule the annual Board of Review for April 1, 2003 at 7: 00 p.m. e. Approval of the appointment of Teresa Ganglehoff to permanent status as half time Recreation Programmer, retroactive to December 26, 2002. f. Adoption of Resolution No. 03 -02, " RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 2003 CITY DEPOSITORIES OF FUNDS." g. Adoption of Resolution No. 03 -03, " RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PLEDGED SECURITIES FOR 2003." h. Approval of the list of Rubbish Hauler licenses dated January 7, 2003. i. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated January 7, 2003. j. Approval of the List of Claims dated January 7, 2003 and totaling $99, 356. 82. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 OFF DUTY WORK POLICY Council acknowledged a memo from Police Chief Piotraschke regarding the police department' s off duty work policy for police officers. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if the city would be liable for the actions of a police officer in an off duty position. She also asked whether the officers will be able to schedule through the city and also take on assignments that are not scheduled. Administrator Lindberg responded that the policy would only cover officers who are working at the direction of the city for organizations like St. Thomas Academy, Beth Jacob Synagogue, etc. All extra �Page No. 3 January 7, 2003 duty assignments will be scheduled by the city. The city will pay the officers and bill the organizations. The officers will be covered by the city' s insurance policy except if the officers are working outside the city' s boundaries ( State Fair, etc.). The off duty policy does not extend the city' s liability. Chief Piotraschke informed Council that this issue has been around since May, 1998. It was the former chief' s opinion at the time that the city had as much of a standing liability under the current situation as it would if the city controlled the assignments. He did not believe the revision in the policy adds any liability to the city. Also, because the policy clearly defines the responsibilities for each of the jobs, the majority of the work would fall under extra duty. Officers will not be allowed to negotiate jobs by themselves except for work outside of the city' s service area —like the State Fair, but in those cases the officers would need approval from the Police Chief. The city is bound by the existing policy and actual labor contracts to schedule off duty work in as fair a manner as possible. Councilmember Duggan asked whether there is an extent of duties and limits of duties that an officer would perform and if so, if the officers are aware of them and if the organization they are doing policing for is aware of them. Chief Piotraschke responded that the assignments would be mandated by normal job descriptions. The policy only requires the officers to do what they would normally do as an on -duty officer. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to acknowledge receipt of the policy,on off duty assignments. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONCORD WAY STOP SIGN Council acknowledged a memo from Public Works Director Danielson in response to a request for a stop sign at Concord Way and Lockwood Drive. Mayor Huber noted that the staff recommendation is to deny the request. Councilmember Duggan stated that he is concerned about a tree that appears to be closer to the intersection than it should be, which is similar to the situation on Decorah. He asked staff to see if the tree should be moved or trimmed back as opposed to installing a stop sign. �Page No. 4 January 7, 2003 Councilmember Duggan moved to deny the request for stop sign. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 EMPLOYEE,RECOGNITION On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Huber presented plaques to the following city employees in recognition of their years of service and dedication to the community: Leonard Kanitz and Kathleen Swanson, 30 years; Jim Kilburg, 20 years; Nancy Bauer, Aaron Coates, James Perron, and Kevin Perron, 15 years; Linda Shipton, 10 years, and John Boland and Richard Burrows, 5 years. Although they were not in attendance, the following employees were also recognized: Mike Maczko, 20 years, Richard Gill, 15 years, John Ambrose and Tracy Wilcziek, 5 years. ACTING Mayor Mayor Huber moved that Councilmember Krebsbach be appointed to serve as the Acting Mayor during any absences of the Mayor in the year 2003. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER Council acknowledged and discussed a memo from the City Clerk regarding designation of an official city newspaper for 2003. Council also acknowledged letters of request from Lillie Suburban News ( Southwest Review) and Sun Newspapers. It was noted that the rates charged for legal publications in the Southwest Review are considerably lower than the Sun. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the Southwest Review was the official newspaper for several years and the Sun has been the official newspaper for the past few years. She felt that it may be a time to change back to the Review. Councilmember Duggan informed Council that he as a small claim against the Sun Newspaper because of distribution, so he will abstain from the vote. Councilmember Vitelli moved that Lillie Suburban News ( Southwest Review) be appointed as the city' s official newspaper for 2003. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Abstain: Duggan �Page No. 5 January 7, 2003 NDC4 REPRESENTATIVE Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Lindberg regarding appointment of representatives to the NDC4. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to appoint Councilmember Duggan as the Council representative on the NDC4 and Mr. Mike Sokol as the citizen representative for two years terms through January, 2005. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 EAW PETITION/ Council acknowledged a memo and proposed resolution ordering CASE NO. 02 -50, CLARK an environmental assessment worksheet for a proposed multi family The housing development at the north end of Pilot Knob Road ( " Bluffs," Case No. 02 -50). Council also acknowledged the following communications: letter from the Mendota Mdewakanton Dakota Community; " Oheyawahe or Pilot Knob Preliminary Summary of the Evidence: prepared by Bruce White and Alan Woolworth; letter from Thomas Casey to Dan Schleck; letter from the MAC; letter from Arvo Looking Horse; " Dakota and Ojibwe Land Cession Treaty Sites in Minnesota;" letter from Ann Larson, Lower Sioux Indian Community; letter from Britta Bloomberg, Minnesota Historical Society; email from Tom Weaver; letter from Bruce Kessler, cochair of the Beth Jacob Cemetery Association; email from Leonard Oppenheimer; letter from Gemini Research; letter from the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community; letter from the members of the Social Justice Committee of the Beth Jacob Congregation; letter from Christine Snyder and Stephen Landry; and, letter from Cheryl Fields. As a general statement, Mayor Huber stated that he is sure everyone on the Council has received a lot of information from various people along with many phone calls and they all appreciate it. He asked, however, that in the future all items where a concerned citizen has written information that they want to get to a Council member, the best way to do that is to bring the information to City Hall and let staff distribute it. Then everyone on Council knows that everyone received the information and that staff has the same information. There are times when Council members are gone, and city staff can track them down and get important information to them. Attorney Schleck added that people should understand that things that are delivered to individual Council members at home do not �Page No. 6 January 7, 2003 become part of the official city record. Only items that are submitted to City Hall become part of the city record. Councilmember Vitelli stated that if Council decides to move ahead with an EAW, Council must also define what they want it to focus on. That should include historical significance, wetland, air quality and noise. Attorney Schleck reviewed a letter he sent to Administrator Lindberg on December 27. He stated that the Environmental Quality Board is the state agency that is charged with overseeing this process and they put out good guidance information on how local governmental units are to treat these requests. An EAW is really a determination of the project' s environmental impacts and a comparative analysis of its economic and sociological effects. He gave Council an overview, stating that as the Responsible Government Unit (RGU), Council can decide what are the important items with respect to an individual project. The EAW must take into account local affects. The decision to be made tonight is whether Council deems that an EAW is required for this development on the Garron/Acacia site. There are two types of EAW processes. Some projects require mandatory EAWs and some are discretionary. The decision on whether to do an EAW is discretionary in this case and Council makes the determination if one is required. The purpose of the worksheet is to determine if an Environmental Impact Statement is required. The EAW is a screening process to be used by RGUs so that not a large amount of effort, time and expense is spent on a project that may not need an EIS. If a project may have the potential for significant environmental effects, the RGU should require an EAW. The standard for whether there is the potential for significant effects is not clear cut. The RGU can decide on a case by case basis what warrants review and what does not. The RGU can look at social and economic impacts such as noise, green space preservation, infrastructure issues, traffic, parking, etc. The process does not simply anticipate Council look at contamination to the air, water and soil. It allows RGU' s to look at different things. There is little guidance to say whether an EAW should be done. He reviewed the items that the EQB suggested in its guidelines that may be considered. He stated that the law is written in less than rigid form to allow flexibility by the RGU. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if Council could define the EAW down to one question or if it must respond to all 25 items in the worksheet. �Page No. 7 January 7, 2003 Attorney Schleck responded that of the list of items, to some extent Council must look at what of the items are important with respect to this project and what are the concerns with respect to the community, and that is a Council decision. It is part of the decision that the RGU can make and if, for example, there are certain aspects people feel are important to review and the RGU feels they are not, that is an appealable decision, and phases of the decision are appealable as well. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if what Mr. Schleck is saying is that if Council defines it down, the petitioners can appeal. Attorney Schleck stated that anyone can appeal but they must be able to show standing. Anyone who was one of the original petitioners would probably have standing. The EAW process is designed to be flexible for Council to determine what items are the best to be reviewed if Council chooses to review anything. Councilmember Duggan stated that it seems to him there was an indication there could be establishment of mitigating factors and/ or ways to mitigate or reduce impacts. Attorney Schleck responded that the mitigating factors as they relate to a project are things that should be reviewed as part of the EAW or as part of the decision on whether to require an EAW. The important thing with respect to the decision Council makes is that it is important for a Council to fully document and record why it is making its decision.. If mitigating factors are one of those items, that should come into it. Councilmember Krebsbach asked that if the EAW is done based on the proposal that is before Council but there is a modification to the proposal to create more scenic areas, at what point would a court find an accommodation in a proposal as meeting the worksheet. Attorney Schleck stated that the question is if there are changes to a project that address some of the concerns as they relate to the potential for significant environmental effects, to what extent does that change Council' s review process or its decision. Minnesota Rules 4410 state that if a decision is made to require an EAW, that decision stands for one year after it is made for any similar project proposed for that site. The need to redo an EAW would come down to a Council decision on whether one project is significantly different enough from another to require another EAW. Responding to a question from Councilmember Krebsbach about at what point there �Page No. 8 January 7, 2003 is a level of satisfaction, the end of the EAW process. He stated that the EAW process is designed to identify significant environmental impacts. The decision on whether to require mitigating measures is up to the RGU, and it is also up to the RGU to decides when the scope of the EAW process is complete. If Council chooses to do an EAW, Council also decides when it is complete. Council should be aware that in the EAW process, once it is drafted, it is published for 30 days and the city is to accept comments for 30 days and is required to respond to the comments. With respect to the cost of the study, there is no provision in the statute that requires a developer to pay for the EAW. A developer can volunteer to pay for that work with respect to the EAW. The EIS process requires a project proposer to pay for it. The cost of the EAW is the city' s unless the proposer decides to do it on his own. Mayor Huber asked if Council would like to entertain audience comments at this point. Mayor Huber stated that this is not a public hearing, but he believes many of the audience members would like to comment. He stated that this is not a public hearing but he invited them to speak on the matter with the guideline that they think of two or three things that they think are most important to be addressed. Councilmember Vitelli suggested that the people who come forward, do so to provide Council with new information or information, for example, as to why this might be a historic site, rather than just saying they think there should be an EAW. Many people have called him and eight of ten people could not offer a reason why an EAW should be done. One person did not even know where the site is. He asked the audience to try to add something to Council' s knowledge. Attorney Schleck stated that in determining whether to require an EAW, Council is to consider facts as opposed to opinion. It is important for people to state a fact and not an opinion. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she has reviewed the documents that have been provided and has made notes on them. She asked whether she should share them at this meeting. Attorney Schleck responded that the review of the information itself is what the EAW is for. Councilmember Duggan asked at what point Council determines whether a piece of information is anecdote or fact. �Page No. 9 January 7, 2003 Attorney Schleck responded that that is the key issue. There is no standard in case law on what a significant environmental effect is. The RGU is allowed to determine what is significant. Mr. Steve Golias, Deputy Mayor of Mendota, stated that he is present to represent the City of Mendota. He stated that Mendota has a joint powers agreement with Mendota Heights on waste water and he would hope that would be addressed in the EAW. Mendota has concerns over the size and scope of the project. He also asked that Mendota be allowed to be an active participant in the EAW, specifically concerning the waste water that would be coming into Mendota' s sanitary sewer. That water goes into the same system and pumping station that was designed for the 77 dwelling units in Mendota and this would add 154 units to that. That would have significant impact on Mendota. There will also be billing expenses. When the cities entered into the agreement, Mendota was of the understanding it would just be St. Peter' s Church and the immediate adjacent area coming into their system.. Mayor Huber stated that the City Council would still be the RGU, but there is another local government that wants to be involved in the process. They would be in the same role as others who bring up issues: Council would not be sharing the RGU responsibility. Attorney Schleck stated that there is no provision in the law for dual RGU. Council would make the determination on what weight to give Mendota' s comments. Ms. Olivia Herstein, 2370 Lexington Avenue, a member of the Beth Jacob Synagogue, stated that she was present to urge Council to order an EAW. She felt that the property has serious spirtual significance and significant historical value, and she asked for a thorough review of the archeological, historic and environmental importance of the site. As a Mendota Heights resident, she believes Pilot Knob is a historical gem and that this sacred space should be honored. Mr. Tom Casey, legal counsel for the Mendota Dakota Mdewakanton Community, stated that one of the Community' s missions is to promote and support the heritage of their community in Minnesota. They submitted the petition for EAW. He agreed with what Attorney Schleck said, but stated that even in his memo he said Council should order an EAW if the project may have a potential for significant environmental effects, but in fact the rule �Page No. 10 January 7, 2003 says that an EAW shall be ordered if a project may have a potential. That threshold is very low. All his clients need to do is to make a good faith attempt to submit evidence. They do not have to do an EAW in order to ask for an EAW. His clients submitted one inch thick material with the petition and have submitted new material since that time, including the 32 page memo from Bruce White. He asked that Mr. White be given the opportunity to review and summarize that information about the historical significance of the site. He stated that he is a PhD Anthropologist with a Master' s in history and has worked with the Minnesota Historical Society and has been a private consultant since that time. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that in the past that she had assumed that Mr. White was present in his own interest. She asked if he is here in his own interest or if he was retained by the Mendota Mdewakanton Community. Mr. White responded that he has been working with the Community to document its family history. He is not being employed by them to represent them in this issue. He is a consultant for them on other issues. He stated that he is employed by the Milacs Ojibwe and the National Park Service and a number of other agencies, but he is not representing them here. He is representing himself as a historian. He stated that his PhD is in Ethno History. He has worked with the Historical Society to do a study on the interpretation of Fort Snelling and that included Pilot Knob and other areas. Councilmember Krebsbach commented that Mr. White has been present at other meetings, and asked if he was retained to be present at those meetings. Mr. White responded that he was not paid by the Mendota Mdewakanton to come to the meetings. He is paid to work on other projects for them. He is a historian and historians work on things they believe in. Mayor Huber stated that Council wants to focus on the project site and its relationship to the area around it. Council needs to establish the concerns about this particular project and the boundaries it encompasses. Mr. White stated that he came here in December and also appeared at Planning Commission meetings in October and November and spoke about the importance of Pilot Knob. Pilot Knob is a very important historical place based on his experience and knowledge. That is why he prepared documents for the December meeting. He �Page No. 11 January 7, 2003 thought at that time, after attending the meeting, that the EAW was going ahead based on the comments of the City Attorney. As it turned out that was not the case. At the last meeting he presented material to Council and some important and valid questions were raised. The summary he presented for this evening' s agenda is a response to those questions. It is important to say why not only Pilot Knob as a whole is important but why this particular property is a part of Pilot Knob and why this particular property has significance and that is what this report tries to show. It is not exhaustive and he would not want to have Council say that since it has been done why is an EAW needed. At a minimum, what the evidence shows is that there is strong evidence that the proposed Garron/Acacia property does include areas of historical and cultural significance, including, he believes, the Treaty of 1851 site. It also shows that scenic and rural character of Pilot Knob has been protected over the years. This is an important site and he would hope Council would protect it. He believes the evidence shown in the summary and the letters the city received from the Minnesota Historic Preservation Office, the Shakopee Sioux, etc., point out the sacred importance of this site to the Dakota people and its historic importance. He believes this development would seriously damage this site, making its historical and scenic character disappear. He believes the report shows at a minimum that a thorough analysis of the site is necessary. When people talked about Pilot Knob, they used a number of different terms that indicated the importance of the area. It was called Pilot Bluff, Pilot Hill, and Pilot. Ridge as well as Pilot Knob. The Dakota called it the hill most visited. They were talking about the entire hill, not just the area within Acacia Cemetery. It is rare to find a historic site in which white people talk about sacred character of the place for the Indian people. In his experience in doing historical research there are claims sometimes of sacredness that are totally ignored in the historical record, but there are books and articles all saying this site is sacred to the Dakota people. They also talk about the burials there. A picture of Pilot Knob by Seth Eastman shows burial scaffolds there. Seth Eastman put Pilot Knob in almost every picture he did of Fort Snelling. It is rare to find historical documents that talk about the religious uses of places by the Indian people, but there are detailed descriptions of medicine dances on a plateau on Pilot Knob. He would say that it is very likely that was on the Garron property / cacia property. There is much discussion about the Treaty A of 1851 in the report. For years, people said the treaty was signed on the top of Pilot Knob. The research he has done indicates the treaty negotiation took place on a high plane on the slopes of Pilot Knob. The treaty of 1851 was one of two treaties signed by Dakota people in which they sold the remainder of their land in Minnesota —34 �Page No. 12 January 7, 2003 million acres. There was a preservation in the treaty for a reservation in western Minnesota, half of which was later taken away by the senate. At the last meeting Council raised a question of what effect development over the years has had on this property. The evidence shows that this area has not been developed ever. It has been used primarily for farm land up until the present time. Since before the government survey 160 years ago, this land has been used for farm land. It has been skirted and defined by railroads and roads, but the plat maps and aerial photos show that it has been protected as an island. T.H. 55 was expanded quite a bit in recent years, which cut into the north end of the property. There is some fill along the edge for the grade. He showed aerial photographs of the Garron/ Acacia site showing roads that are the descendents of the early trails and the earliest roads in the Mendota area. Highway 55 is the successor of the St. Croix Trail and later the Mendota/Hastings Road. Although the route has been changed along the Garron site, the photo shows the old trail, which is another historical remnant and explains the strange diagonal property line on the site. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the purpose this evening it to determine the facts. She asked Mr. White if he could give Council three facts that relate to this site. Mr. White responded that he gave Council 30 pages with more than _ three facts, but-in quick summary, he stated that: Pilot Knob is an entire hill, not just a knob on the top; it is a fact that this area is known to be sacred to the Dakota; he believes the Treaty of 1851 took place on the Garron site; and this site does not show a great deal of disturbance and has been preserved for more than 160 years. He summarized by saying that there is a lot of evidence from the state historical office that would agree with the conclusions he drew in the report. Councilmember Duggan stated that Mr. White' s submittal that was delivered to Council' s residences on Saturday puts into more sensible form the 35 exhibits that had previously been submitted. Mr. White stated that it includes those 35 exhibits and additional information he and others were able to fmd in the past 30 days. Councilmember Duggan stated that it puts into clearer form all the information that has been presented to Council. He stated that he would like a motion to include the material in the public record. �Page No. 13 January 7, 2003 Administrator Lindberg responded that the material was also delivered to City Hall, so it is part of the public record. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that one fact Mr. White did not include as a fact was whether this site was a burial ground. Mr. White responded that he does not have archeological evidence that the Garron/ Acacia acre site was a burial ground but there is strong evidence that the entire bluff is a sacred place and a burial place. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that Council has a letter from the State Archeologist from the early 1990' s that it was not in fact a burial site nor is there any evidence of human remains there. Mr. White responded that he has no idea what property he was talking about. Councilmember Krebsbach responded that the reference was to the Garron site. Mr. White responded that the letter simply states that the State Archeologist has no evidence that there are burials on the site, and it is only talking about a portion of the site. He suggested that Council would want to get a more complete response to the whole site and not just one part of it. The site is a spiritual site even if there were no evidence of burials found on it. He stated that in preparing this he tried to sift through the evidence and not base the arguments on things where he could not corroborate what was said in the evidence. He did not include anecdotes in the report. He did not put things into the report just because he thought they would help his case — he put them in because he felt they were accurate. Councilmember Vitelli asked why the state historical society and other historical groups in the State of Minnesota have not been more aggressive at determining this site as a national historic site or why they haven' t purchased the land or developed an interpretive center there. Mr. White responded that the city has evidence from the State Historic Preservation Office in the letter from Britta Bloomberg. The letter discusses the questions being talked about here. It refers back to a study done for the Office in 1990 in which they dealt with a question of where on the bluff the Treaty of 1851 occurred. At that time, the contractor working for the preservation office suggested �Page No. 14 January 7, 2003 that the site should be nominated for the National Record of Historic Places, and it was likely lost in the shuffle. Many people are not aware of the importance of a place until it is endangered. Ms. Allisa Chester, a Minneapolis resident, stated that she remembers someone saying at a past meeting that when the Mendota Bridge was done upwards of 15 million tons of dirt was removed. There must have been an archeological study done. Councilmember Krebsbach responded that she had made the comment, and that 200 million square yards of dirt was removed from the bluff. She stated that she was sure the state could not have removed human remains without any acknowledgment. She stated that there has been a sale sign on this property for many years, and also there was significant earth moved when the interchange came in. She stated that she has been a steward of the bluff and was very concerned about the removal of that much soil. Councilmember Duggan stated that in 1922 the Masonic Order purchased Acacia and took off 20 feet of the top. He asked if anyone has approached the Masonic people to see if there is any record of what damage may have been done to grave sites if indeed there were any grave sites there. There have been three different times when this site has perhaps been impacted —the construction of the original bridge, reconstruction, and the changes made by the Masonic Order. Mr. Bob Brown, 1016 Douglas Road and Chairman of the Mendota Mdewakanton Dakota Community, stated that as one of the leaders of the original petitioners, he is present to ask Council to give real consideration to doing an EAW. He stated that what has been submitted in information has barely scratched the surface. He stated on a personal note ( in response to the questions made to Mr. White) that for three years he did not get any pay for being the chairman. He gets a stipend now because the Community received a grant to bring back the Dakota language. He stated that he does what he does for the Community not for money but out of respect for his ancestors. He stated that the homes do not need to get in the ground right away and asked the City to spend the time to do the EAW. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she pursued the question to Dr. White because she feels it is important to know who is retained as a professional to make presentations and who is here as an interested citizen. It is important to know who is speaking as a professional and who is speaking from opinion. �Page No. 15 January 7, 2003 Mr. Golias stated that several times Dr. White talked about the Mendota Community and Mendota. He was talking about the Mendota Indian community and not the City of Mendota. Mr. Jim Anderson, 19626 Iva Street, Cedar, Minnesota, stated that he is the Cultural Chairman of the Mendota Mdewakanton Dakota Community. He stated that he is here because his relatives were buried on Pilot Knob Hill and in the 1920' s a lot of his community' s relatives remains were dug up. He has researched hard to try to find where those relatives are. There is a graveyard on each side of where the road goes through and his relatives are buried in those cemeteries and his relatives were in the ground between those cemeteries. He has come here to ask for the EAW to be done so that the questions the Council and others are asking are answered. If the project is allowed to continue, it will perpetuate the cultural genocide of the Dakota people that has been going on for hundreds of years. He asked from his relatives' past and future that this small area that is left of a once great Dakota nation be protected for the future generations so the sins of the past are not repeated. Indians are the only people in this culture who must fight to protect the graves and the culture of its ancestors. Mr. Ray Fuhrman, MAC Director of Environment, stated that Executive Director Jeff Hamiel submitted a letter to the city. He could not be present tonight. He stated that this site is about 6, 000 feet from the runway and MAC believes residential development in that area is a concern. It is within the 65 DNL contour that is currently being used for mitigation in areas around the airport. There is significant concern over residential development on the site. Councilmember Duggan asked if the objections were as strenuous to the Augusta Shores development as they are to this development, and if not, why not. Mr. Fuhrman responded that he did not believe they were as strong. MAC had concerns but it was probably more of a consideration on MAC' s part that they did not move as aggressively with that. Mr. Hamiel has received some calls from the Augusta Shores area. MAC did submit some documentation to the city at that time but that discussion did not draw on so long. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the letter from Mr. Hamiel references that Minneapolis will be allowed to infill the same distance from the end of the runway. It seems that MAC has one standard for Mendota Heights and another for Minneapolis. �Page No. 16 January 7, 2003 Mr. Fuhrman responded that what MAC refers to as infill — the in Metropolitan Airport Guide Chapter there are different standards for infill development than for new development. If there is an established community with an open lot, that would be consistent with the guide chapter for infill development. He stated that he does not believe MAC is imposing different standards. In this particular case, it is new development. There has been new construction that has taken place in Richfield and Minneapolis with redevelopment that took place. The standard that applied to that dates back to 1998. Those properties would not be eligible for mitigation. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that in her opinion that is a different standard. To be consistent there should not be new construction in those cities in areas that are equidistant from the airport. MAC is not trying to remove residential properties in those cities. Mayor Huber stated that Mr. Fuhrman is saying that the development that is being proposed does not fit the definition of infill, but there has been new construction that happened in Minneapolis and Richfield. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that someone can build a new home on a vacant lot within a developed area the same distance from the runway as the Garron site. They are asking Mendota Heights not to build a new house the same distance away. Mr. Fuhrman does not encourage a new home to go up in Minneapolis or Richfield, but the Aviation Guide Chapter says that if there is an open lot in a developed area, building one home within that area is compatible, versus building an entirely new neighborhood. There is also some inconsistency on the Garron/Acacia site between its zoning and the Comprehensive Guide. Ms. Amy Goebel, a St. Paul resident and member of Beth Jacob, stated that she has an undergraduate in history, she is an attorney and also a teacher. In her role as a teacher she works with children and being a teacher, she is aware that the issue of facts can be very tricky. The overriding fact is that this is a valuable site for a very long time to very many people. The site has historic significance because of the treaty. To her, that means it deserves a study to determine whether any development can be done. There are many stories in popular culture that are fictionalized. There is a community of �Page No. 17 January 7, 2003 people who live here who are Native Americans and it is important to her that they and their culture be valued. Mr. Shawn Fitzgerald, from Lakeville, stated that the Highland Pilot Cemetery in Lakeville has suffered many changes over the years. It was a Catholic Cemetery, and unbaptized babies were buried outside the cemetery, in areas surrounding it, and the entire area was sacred ground. Today no one knows where those babies' graves are. They are probably no longer left, but it is a spiritual area out of respect for one' s ancestors. Councilmember Duggan stated that he is in favor of requiring an EAW for the reasons in the documentation from MAC, concern about impervious surface; the traffic in the area, noise from traffic, noise from the airport and the historicity of the site. Mendota Heights has not done much about the history of the community in any form. Council knows that the site has been for sale for a long time. There is enough information available for Council to direct an EAW. The danger is that if the EAW comes back saying to go ahead and do a development, the Native American community may have lost more. Council has asked how much of the site needs to be dedicated to history. How much do the Native American community need for a commemorative site. Setting aside the entire site is unreasonable. He wondered how many people have visited this site in 2000, and suggested that it was perhaps ten people. If there have been 100 visitors in the last ten years, he questioned why there have not been more people if the land has such cultural and historic significance. He stated that he is in favor of three to five acres being set aside as a cultural and historic area. The city also needs to look at what it has done to maintain the history. Mendota Heights is proud of its history, but little has been done about it. The city has never done one thing to acknowledge these sites. Working with the state, the native American community, the MAC, etc., he thinks Council could cover the issues in the next thirty days. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he feels an EAW should be done but Council needs to address who is going to do the EAW. Mr. Clark will initiate the work and fill out the form. He felt that to be sure this is a fording of fact, the Mendota Mdewakanton Dakota Community must be asked to participate. If they do not contribute to the EAW, it will be empty. There is a lot of work to be done if Council is to make the correct decision. If both entities work on the EAW, the question is who will consolidate the information. In fairness to the developer and those who do the EAW, Council should work up a list of issues. He suggested that those issues include: �Page No. 18 January 7, 2003 cultural history; historical significance in general; sanitary sewer, noise from the question of what additional noise is created in addition to the highway and airport; air quality reduction because of the airport and highway and the number of units; drainage that will be caused to go down the hill to the Mississippi. Councilmember Schneeman stated that the EAW will provide the city with a process for new insights and appreciation for different perspectives. Complete compilation of data is essential, but Council must have the facts. Council must know if there will be significant environmental effects or not. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the biggest question to her that would be a reason for an EAW is the historic significance. The question about whether this is really a burial site and if there are human remains there must be answered. Acacia Cemetery should be able to provide some information in that regard and also about the area identified as Acacia that is not part of the cemetery. The study must include historical significance, an answer to the question of burial sites, and impact on the views and vistas. She recommended that there be some recognized historical compilation so that this process includes some other recognized scholars or organization working with the Mdewakanton community on that material. Mr. Anderson responded that he would like to make sure that all the Dakota communities be involved. Mayor Huber stated that he thinks an EAW needs to be done. He stated that there is a consensus, and there have been comments about areas that Council members want to address. He asked Attorney Schleck if there should be a resolution that has findings on why Council is going forward or list the issues Council wants to be addressed. Attorney Schleck responded that there is a model resolution in the agenda packet that covers the action that is required for tonight, which is simply that an EAW required. Council is making an affirmative decision that the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. It is not necessary to scope the EAW tonight, and he suggested that there should input from a consultant in this area and also from the developer. Mayor Huber stated that he is interested that when Council leaves tonight, they will have at least talked about how the structure will be created. �Page No. 19 January 7, 2003 Attorney Schleck suggested adopting the proposed resolution and at the next meeting, staff can submit a timeline and plan on how to complete the project. Administrator Lindberg stated that she has had discussions with Mr. Clark, but there is no timeline on how long it will take to complete an EAW. It is in the interest of the developer to move this along, and he indicated he would be willing to generate much of the information for the city. Responding to a question about what would happen if the development proposal is withdrawn, she stated that the city does not have an ordinance in place to require a developer to pay for an EAW. If Mr. Clark withdraws the project, there is no project on which to do an EAW. Councilmember Krebsbach asked what happens to the question of whether Council wants the cost to be shared by the Mendota Mdewakanton if the applicant withdraws. Councilmember Duggan responded that the recommendation from Councilmember Vitelli was that the Mendota Mdewakanton participate in the process, but not that they pay for it. Attorney Schleck stated that the city has been designated as the RGU and it is responsible for completing the EAW Minnesota administrative rules say that the project proposer is required to submit all information necessary to complete the EAW. There is no requirement in statute that a proposer pay the entire cost. Council has the ability in the future to pass an ordinance to say that a developer is required to pay the cost for an EAW process. Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of Resolution No. 03 -04, A RESOLUTION ORDERING AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR THE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS " THE BLUFFS," IN THE VICINITY OF THE NORTH END OF PILOT KNOB ROAD, PLANNING CASE #02 -50." . Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 RECESS Mayor Huber called a recess at 10: 15 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10: 22 p.m. CASE NO. 02 -50, RON CLARK Council acknowledged a memo from Administrative Assistant Hollister regarding continued discussion on an application from Ron �Page No. 20 January 7, 2003 Clark Construction and Design for rezoning, preliminary plat, conditional use permit for PUD and variance for " The Bluffs" proposed development. Mr. Clark and Mr. John Uban were present for the discussion. City Attorney Schieck stated that this application has been discussed at several meetings. Now that Council had decided an EAW is required, the reading of the statutes and rules place prohibitions on governmental approvals during the process. The prohibition prohibits a governmental unit from making any final decision as it relates to the project. The law is not very clear as to what final is. The EQB says things like preliminary plat approvals are final decisions and they recommend they not be made. The law does not prevent a governmental unit from giving a conditional approval. Conditional approval is also not defined in the statute but the EQB gives guidelines on what types of reservations a RGU should keep on whether or not to give a conditional approval. It basically comes down to a reservation of rights of the community to say that if a conditional approval is given it would not prevent a RGU from making changes or denying a project in the future depending on the outcome of the EAW. Mr. Uban showed overheads of the development area. He stated that he has been here before to review this project and submitted a letter containing additional information. He stated that he would like to review the latest booklet he has prepared to share some of the comparisons in the logic of the plat. The first plan received a number of comments that drove the developer to make quite a few changes in the plan. Those comments related to hard surface coverage of up to 60% of the site, many more units and a barracks look. The density and hard surface have been reduced, and.the number of buildings and variations of buildings have been changed. Council did not want the developer to perpetuate outdoor activities, so the swimming pool was removed. A commemorative site area was added, and the plan also was revised to 157 units and reduced to about 44% hard surface coverage with curvilinear streets. One of the things Council asked him to test was the setbacks for a normal R 3 project. In an R - zone, there is no conditional that controls hard 3 surface coverage. He looked at the development and placed in red the typical R - setbacks and found that this would not work under 3 those types of setbacks. Based on that observation that the plan was more preferred did not address those types of setbacks, he applied the setbacks and rearranged the buildings. He found that created a more regimented layout. When there is a setback for all front yards and sideyards, there is a more regimented pattern. That was not the l �Page No. 21 January 7, 2003 original direction Council gave Mr. Clark to have a curvilinear system. He found that 150 units can be placed on the site using R 3 and he would not have to deal with hard surface. He then used that number of units and went back to the PUD and hoped hard surface would come back to about 40 %. There are ponds to treat the water, so the water quality leaving the site will be controlled. The setbacks on the perimeter were increased, one of the classic units was eliminated as well as six of the verandas. A number of the street features were kept in place, and the regional trail system. The development anticipates improving Pilot Knob and putting in a colonnade of trees. Two commemorative sites were also provided. At the suggestion of the Park Commission, he provided an overlook that uses the edge along the highway to get the grand view. A retaining wall was created to provide another commemorative site. There are also several other spots for incidental outdoor activities. He stated that he tried to meet all of the criteria he thought Council was looking for and reduced the number of units to 150. He also looked at how he could reduce them more, bearing in mind that he has to keep the project feasible. The developer has agreed to pay the park fee and also build the retaining wall and other things. If he were to take out eight more units, the level of landscaping and his ability to build commemorative sites would be severely restricted. There is a site along Acacia Boulevard that is city property and Mr. Clark anticipates buying that from the city. Not buying the city property would be a way to save money to compensate for the lost eight units. He does not think that would be to the benefit of the city. The plan with 150 units he thinks gives the best aesthetics and the best layout and financial assistance to all the units plus purchasing the city property. Because it had been mentioned there already was a commemorative site on Acacia Cemetery, he went and looked. There is a stone commemorating the panorama of the hill that was done by the Daughters of the American Revolution in the 1920s. The developer proposes two other sites that form a family of sites, one on top and two on the sides. He showed the layout of the one plateau with a commemorative plaque. It is a gathering place where people can look out over the river valley and it is attached to the regional trail system. The other overlook also has a grand view out towards St. Peter' s in the other direction. He has tried to address all of the issues Council raised. Some of them he just cannot do. There has been a request for an EAW, and the developer will provide the data on the preliminary issues, like utilities. Only the city can address some of the issues like the sewer running to Mendota. The developer is dependent on others with respect to the historical and cultural issues. That needs to come from other entities. Issues like that are not usually solved very well in an EAW. He felt the he is �Page No. 22 January 7, 2003 eventually going to look at who is going to buy a portion of the property to do what historical and cultural reference needs to take place on the property. He stated that Mr. Clark is requesting conditional approval on his project. He thinks this is the best possible plan and understands that the EAW may say more land is needed to make this more commemorative. Subject to that, he believes this is the best plan, and he asked for conditional approval based on the outcome of the EAW process. Councilmember Dugan stated that in light of the confusion as to one part of the land being B -1 and one part R -3 and a different comprehensive plan designation, more of a concern is what the impervious surface is of the plan that is now being proposed. Mr. Uban responded that the first plan had about 60% impervious surface and the next plan was for 157 units and 44% impervious surface. This plan has 40% hard surface coverage. Councilmember Duggan stated that one of the comments on December 3 was that the plan be as close as possible to 30% impervious surface. Mr. Uban responded that to get to that point, there would need to be a 25% reduction in the number of units. That is not feasible. Council has told the developer they do not want outdoor activities, like ballfields, just a trail, and the trail plus two overlooks have been provided. The issue is water quality, and a good ponding system will be in place. The only reason for reducing the impervious surface is because it is a PUD, but R - development would not require them to 3 do anything. Councilmember Duggan stated that in the proposed there is about 40% hard surface and that is 60% more than what the PUD ordinance calls for. On this plan, with the landscaping that is indicated, it could be reduced to 142 units. Mr. Uban responded that if Council wishes Mr. Clark to pursue that plan, which is R - he will do so. He stated that he tried to create an 3, interesting area by turning the structures and creating a variety of building sizes. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if the commemorative site is in the same relationship to the trail as the last plan. �Page No. 23 January 7, 2003 Mr. Ubanxesponded that the regional trail is down below and the development' s trail is level with the commemorative area, and that will be part of the regional trail system. Mr. Casey stated that on behalf of the Mdewakanton Community, he is asking Council. not to grant conditional approval. The EQB guidelines day that conditional approval is a distortion of the intended process. He did not see a good reason for conditional approval. He and the city attorney disagree on the point that by giving conditional approval, Council is in reality approving the project. That limits the latitude the city has to change the project in the future. He felt that is a conservative interpretation of the law and suggested Council adopt that interpretation. Every decision has an environmental component. He asked Council to be conservative and not grant conditional approval. He stated that he has not had a chance to review this proposal or comment on it. After the EAW, his clients will have adequate opportunity to review the project with respect to the historical sites. He stated that the Mendota Dakota filed a notice of intervention and asked that no action be taken. Mr. Ron Clark stated that he has never known of a city to work with a developer in an application and go forward with an EAW without having a conditional approval. When he came before Council on November 5, he got a favorable nod to go ahead and has invested 65, 000 since then responding to city comments. For him to invest more money, commit to the future expenditures and start getting in the EAW process without conditional approvals doesn' t make sense. Every city in the metro area has granted conditional approvals. At least Councils then know that if the outcome of the EAW is all right, they have a project. That is the way he has always known the process to work. Councilmember Duggan stated that he thought at the last meeting a decision was made to hold it over to some other time. Mayor Huber stated that his opinion is that Council passed a resolution ordering the EAW and mulled that decision over carefully. In his opinion, as part of the resolution, Council has decided based on testimony that this project has the potential for significant environmental effects. That is what the resolution says and he takes that seriously. He stated that he understands that at the December 17 meeting there was discussion with respect to the 60 day rule. When Council ordered the EAW, that froze the clock on the 60 day rule. In his mind, Council has made a fording that the project has the potential for significant environmental effects and the process also �Page No. 24 January 7, 2003 sets out that the review process must be extended while the EAW process goes on. He would not be comfortable giving any additional approvals over what the previous Council gave on December 3. He is not willing to further engage the city in the approval process when he does not know what the review process will bring out. Councilmember Schneeman stated that her experience with an EAW process in Nevis, Minnesota, is that she was told that while the EAW was going forth, they could not make any promises. She thought that was state law. Attorney Schleck responded that no final decision can be made by a RGU while the EAW process is taking place. The question is what is a final decision. It is not clear whether preliminary plat approval is a final decision. The EQB feels that it is. That is also the case with preliminary zoning approvals. The EQB believes those decisions can not be made while the EAW is taking place. He did not understand what additional rights the proposed resolution before Council would convey. The resolution that was passed on December 3 conveys the same things that are requested tonight. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he comes down on the side of not supporting conditional approval because there is the likelihood there are significant historical and cultural questions on the site. He is bothered by the fact that Council does not have a plan for the EAW, and just adopted a resolution. Even if Mr. Clark comes back with an EAW, the Council needs to bite the bullet eventually for this site and will have to pay for a consultant to listen to the input of the Native American community and the developer. In his opinion, Council should do that whether or not there is a development. Council needs to figure out what to do with the site. He feels it is reasonably likely that Council will find issue with the historical and cultural impacts on the site. He stated that if he were the developer, he would walk away. He stated that it is unfortunate because he thinks this is the best residential development proposal Council will ever see for this site. By the next meeting there better be a plan on what to do in the EAW. He stated that he is still open to this development if the EAW says there are not issues. He is not concerned about the air noise. Councilmember Duggan stated that Council will be reviewing the EAW plan at the next meeting. Perhaps the developer would come back to the meeting a month from now. Mayor Huber stated that he agrees with Councilmember Vitelli from the standpoint that the process must keep moving forward. Staff �Page No. 25 January 7, 2003 needs to do a time line. This is a very complex thing that the city is going to try to prepare. He cautioned Mr. Clark that his concern about giving conditional approval is based on the fact that Council needs to find out what comes out of the EAW. Until the EAW is completed, he would have a hard time telling Mr. Clark that Council will be giving him an answer in 30 days. Until Council starts to see what information comes back, it is difficult to tell Mr. Clark with any level of certainty as to when Council could give him some approvals or what kinds of mitigation needs to be looked at. Mr. Uban suggested that a compromise would be to keep this moving and everyone work together. He felt that in the end, the land that is most impacted by the historical character is the Garron site. He asked for conditional approval on the Acacia site but not on the Garron site. That is possibly the area where he will anticipate changes. That would allow Mr. Clark to continue working with the city and developing the information the city needs for the EAW. Mayor Huber responded that he cannot say that he is more concerned about the Garron site than the Acacia site. In his opinion, this project as presented to Council is one piece of property. He could not say okay to one half and not the other. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the Acacia site was proposed to make the Garron site feasible economically. To pull off the Garron site now would be a totally different issue. She was not ready to approve the depth of the resolution, stating that given the history of the development that has come before Council for this site. Council has tried very hard to protect the bluff and gave concept approval on December 3 that did not have the weight of a preliminary plat or zoning but gives Mr. Clark an idea of where Council stands. Councilmember Schneeman stated that the purpose of doing an EAW is to give Council the information to work with. She felt badly that one was not done a long time ago, and stated that she does not think Council can give Mr. Clark a response at this time. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that if it is really that the site is of historical significance, that is beyond the city and is a totally different issue. Councilmember Duggan stated that by at least keeping the possibility open to conditional approval similar to December 3, Mr. Clark has the chance to come back in a month and see what has been �Page No. 26 January 7, 2003 accomplished on the EAW and decide whether to continue. He stated that he would not like Mr. Clark to walk away thinking this is lost. He further stated that Mr. Clark is probably the best developer Council has seen to work with on this site. Mr. Clark stated that he is looking for approval beyond the step that was taken on December 3. Councilmember Duggan responded that it is a risk for everyone and that he would like to see Mr. Clark have the chance to stay involved for at least another month. Mayor Huber stated that there is a proposal before Council that Council is in the process of reviewing. The EAW extends the review process but Council is simply in the process of reviewing the proposal. Everyone knows how the land is zoned and how it is designated in the comprehensive plan, and everyone knows what that means to the land owner with respect to his expectation to develop it with residential units. He stated that he would be uncomfortable with giving an approval while the city is in the middle of the review process. He stated that he understands the EAW extends the process for a longer time than the developer is comfortable with, but all actions Council has taken to this point have been appropriate and within Council' s rights and at the root, Council must do what the law says it must do. To do anything more at this point is inappropriate. The clock is frozen on the proposal and Council really does not have to take any particular action on the planning application this evening. Councilmember Duggan asked Attorney Schleck for options. He asked whether Council can let the resolution sit and not vote on it, and what happens to it then. Attorney Schleck responded that if Council does not act on the proposed resolution, it can be brought back by a Councilmember for consideration at a later time or it simply dies. Councilmember Duggan stated that Mr. Clark can come back at a future meeting with a request for the same resolution. SWAN DRIVE NAME CHANGE Council acknowledged a memo from Public Works Director Danielson in response to a request from Mr. Jerry Nelson, 894 Wagon Wheel Trail, for a street name change for the portion. of Swan Drive from Wagon Wheel Trail to Cheri Lane. Mr. Nelson was present for the discussion. �Page No. 27 January 7, 2003 Mr. Nelson stated that Swan Drive starts at Wagon Wheel and goes along his property line and then stops. It starts again a distance away. There are always people getting lost looking for Swan Drive. Recently, an ambulance drove back and forth flashing its lights and the driver could not find the house he was looking for. Several minutes later the police came to show him where the house was. Mayor Huber stated that Council should get input from the people who live in the area before changing the name. He recommended that staff canvass the people who border on Swan Drive and send them a letter telling them Council is considering changing the name and ask them for feedback and suggestions for names. Further discussion was tabled to the first meeting in February. REICH DRIVEWAY Council acknowledged a memo from Public Works Director Danielson in response to a complaint from Dr. Charles Reich about his driveway, which he had resurfaced in conjunction with the Ivy Falls street reconstruction project. Council also acknowledged a letter from Dr. Reich, 1292 Sylvandale Road, and a letter from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT). Dr. Reich reviewed his letter and the driveway situation, which he stated began in the summer of 2000 when the street was reconstructed. He stated that he had his driveway replaced by the contractor who did the street project. His driveway developed some large cracks and he contacted the city engineer and the contractor and told them if nothing was done it would just get worse. Valley Paving told him the preferred to come back the next spring. Dr. Reich appeared at the October, 2000 hearing on the project and recommended that the contractor not be paid for the work until the situation was resolved. He stated that there were many requests similar to his and he understood that the city would take care of their concerns. Following the meeting he received a letter from Valley saying that roots caused the problem and they would come out in the spring and cut the roots and seal the creaks. They did that in the spring. After last winter, the cracks opened up again and now big holes are starting to appear. He asked Valley to come back and they said they would come last summer but did not. He was considering litigation and decided to send his December 5, 2002 letter to the city administrator. He met with her and she suggested he appear before Council In the meantime, the city' s insurance adjuster came out and asked if he would consider getting estimates on cutting out the cracks in the asphalt and filling the hole thing in. He did not like that solution but agreed to do it. He then called several contractors �Page No. 28 January 7, 2003 but no one has come to look at it. He stated he is present this evening because he is not happy with the job that was done and is looking for restitution. He has paid two years of the assessment and thinks it is fair for the city to forgive the remainder of the driveway assessment and he will have the driveway replaced. Mayor Huber responded that he understands Dr. Reich is having a difficult time getting the work done and Council is aware that an offer was made to split the cost between the LMCIT, Dr. Reich and the contractor. He asked Dr. Reich if he is aware of the recommendation from LMCIT. Dr. Reich responded that he is, but wants the driveway replaced and not just patched. Administrator Lindberg stated that the LMCIT proposal was to fill the cracks and then put a layer of seal coat on top. Public Works Director Danielson stated that he did not discuss the plan with the adjustor, but believes he was talking about removing the tree toots and cracks and then putting a layer over the top. Dr. Reich stated that he is not interested in that solution. He has seen enough driveways to know what that looks like. It will be a \. patchwork quilt and he is not sure the seams won' t open again. Councilmember Duggan stated that he thinks the city should go to Valley Paving and tell them they did not do an adequate job and must redo it at their expense. The city should bring its weight on the contractor to get him to do it. He stated that he suspects that Dr. Reich would not want Valley to come back and do it unless it is supervised by the city. Dr. Reich stated that the only reason he is here is because his contract is with the city. His issue is not with the city, it is with Valley Paving. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he would support splitting the cost three ways for a patch. When a resident does not opt for an entirely new driveway, there will be patches. He stated that he lives on Sylvandale also and would not ask the city to do an entirely new driveway but would support a patch that fixes the problem. City Attorney Schleck stated that he reviewed the language in the driveway replacement agreement that was signed by everyone whose �Page No. 29 January 7, 2003 driveways were replaced to identify the important provisions in the contract. There is a provision that says that the property owner would indemnify the city and its contractor as that relates to the project except for the negligent or willful act of the city or any of its officers. The LMCIT adjustor said he did not find any willful act. Dr. Reich responded that his wife watched them do the driveway and did not seem any aggregate put in. Councihnember Krebsbach asked Dr. Reich if he is saying that he will withdraw the complaint if the city does not impose the remainder of the assessment. Dr. Reich responded that there are huge cracks running across the driveway within two months after it was done. He contracted for a new driveway, and the new cracks start as far away from the tree as they could get. He stated that the remainder of the driveway assessment is about $3, 500. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if there is any precedent. Attorney Schleck responded that there is nothing that would prevent the Council from adjusting the assessment. Mayor Huber stated that there is nothing that would keep Council from establishing a precedent based on Dr. Reich' s decision on whether to sue. Councilmember Schneeman stated that it seems that is what Dr. Reich should do based on the city attorney' s comments. Attorney Schleck stated that if there is a point where it appears that the matter would go to a law suit, he would recommend Council retire to closed session. Council should even go to closed session if there is a threat of a lawsuit, and if there is to be any more discussion, perhaps it should occur in closed session. If Council prefers to agree with Dr. Reich' s request tonight, he would not suggest closed session, but if Council preference is to do anything else, he recommended calling for a closed session either this evening or two weeks from tonight. Mayor Huber responded that his feeling is that no decision will be made tonight. If Dr. Reich has talked to the contractor already without any response, nothing will happen in two weeks. He suggested a closed session after the January 21 meeting. �Page No. 30 January 7, 2003 Mayor Huber moved to schedule a closed session for discussion on the issue on January 21 after the regular Council meeting. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Huber directed staff to contact Dr. Reich after the closed session. JOINT WORKSHOP Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Lindberg regarding a request from the Airport Relations Commission for a workshop with Council to discuss the Rogers Lake neighborhood and issues with the MAC. Councilmember Vitelli asked what the objective the ARC hopes to achieve. Administrator Lindberg responded that the commission would like to opportunity for Council to hear from representatives from Rogers Lakeside East on their issues with MAC. It would be an educational process on new information that Mr. Guy Heide has acquired. Councilmember Vitelli stated that this item was discussed at an emergency ARC meeting that he did not attend. He did not see how Council can satisfy the Rogers Lake group' s desires. Council made a decision late last year that Council should not get in the middle of the dispute. The only think the group can be asking for to have a workshop on the issue is to get Council involved. Administrator Lindberg responded that in her memo she outlined a motion by Commissioner Roszak that the city eventually send a letter to MAC but before Council would agree to do that, Council would need to be given more information. Councilmember Vitelli asked if Council is going to be asked to be the judge and jury on the issue. Before Council can endorse a memo, it needs to address the issue with enough thoroughness, and he does not think Council should do that. Administrator Lindberg stated that the city did send a letter to MAC but the Rogers Lake group are looking for an additional letter asking the MAC to review the net material Mr. Heide has presented. �Page No. 31 January 7, 2003 Councilmember Vitelli stated that he would be willing to take the j time and listen to the information but does not know what Council would do with it. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that her guess is that the ARC wants a workshop because they do not want to be at a regular Council meeting. She stated that she met with MAC representative Bert McKasy and MAC legal counsel along with Mr. Heide and Mr. Mike Kosel. The apparent affect of the workshop would be to pass on information to Council. When Council holds a workshop, it is generally to give a commission more direction. If the ARC has information and they think it is valid, it should be passed on to Mr. McKasy. She did not know if Council is in a position to judge the validity of the information. Councilmember Duggan stated that it would be appropriate for he and Mayor Huber to have a copy of the minutes of the meeting at which Mr. Heide appeared before Council so that they have a better ability to deal with the matter. Administrator Lindberg stated that another option would be fore Council to attend the February ARC meeting and ask Mr. Kosel and Mr. Heide to attend and make the presentation. Senator Metzen and Representative Pugh will be at the meeting also. Mayor Huber stated that there are several options: attend the ARC meeting, meet in workshop, or present the information at a Council meeting. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that another option is to forward the information to Council and Council will pass it on to the MAC. MAC is the real audience for the information. Administrator Lindberg stated that the ARC' s concern is that a letter be sent on behalf of the city. The ARC feel that would have to come directly from Council. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that Council has already engaged the Rogers Lake group with MAC. This would just be a continuation of that discussion. Council opened the discussion with MAC on Rogers Lake and they can continue that discussion. Attorney Schleck stated that he does not know that Council can say this is valid information. There has been no investigation by the city. For the city to act as a conduit for the information is fine but he feels �Page No. 32 January 7, 2003 the group is asking Council to take the position that the information is valid. \ Administrator Lindberg responded that the Rogers Lake group is looking at something stronger than Council did in December. They are looking for the city to say this is strong evidence. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the city does not have the expertise to make that determination. She further stated that she does not have a problem with hearing the information. Mayor Huber asked whether the information should be presented to the Council. He felt that the best way to do that would be to have Councilmembers Krebsbach and Vitelli review it and report back to Council on what they think the best action to take would be, or perhaps he and the Council members should attend the ARC meeting. He did not want the ARC to think Council is not interested in meeting with them in a workshop, and stated that he would be willing to attend the ARC meeting along with any Council members who wish to attend. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that a workshop is usually broad based, not to resolve a particular issue. The best way to deal with this is to place the issue on the ARC agenda and any Council members can attend the meeting. City Attorney Schleck stated that he does not think the city should be giving an opinion on the veracity of the information. Attending the ARC meeting and hearing the discussion is fine. Mayor Huber agreed, stating that Council will attend the meeting and listen to the presentation but will not make any decision. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he is attending this evening' s ARC meeting and will recommend to them that Mr. Heide and Mr. Kosel meet with MAC again and let them know what they found. There may be a simple explanation from MAC, and a meeting with MAC and the Rogers Lake group will keep the channel of communications open. Councilmember Krebsbach agreed and stated that she would go with them to the meeting with MAC. �Page No. 33 January 7, 2003 TEAM BUILDING WORKSHOP Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Lindberg regarding a proposed off site City Council goal setting/team building workshop. It was the consensus that a workshop be conducted on February 25 and that Dennis Cheesebrow be retained to facilitate the session. Administrator Lindberg stated that it has been suggested to her that the workshop be conducted off site, and she has contacted Mendakota Country Club and DARTS in West St. Paul for meeting room space. Dodge Nature Center also has facilities. She stated that she will bring some proposals on location back to Council. Council directed Administrator Lindberg to also check on availability of a room at the Northern Dakota County Service Center. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Schneeman stated that she saw several children playing on city ponds today and was very concerned because of the poor ice conditions. She asked parents to please keep their children off of the ponds. Mayor Huber announced that there are openings on various city advisory commissions and any interested residents should submit a letter of interest by February 15. i Council briefly discussed the Police Chief recruitment and selection process. Administrator Lindberg stated that she will prepare a tentative process for Council consideration at the next meeting. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before Council, Councilmember moved that the meeting be adjourned. Councilmember seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 12: 14 a.m. Ka een M. Swanson City Clerk ATTEST: John J. May er � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Mendota Heights City Council Meeting 01-07-2003.pdf Title A name given to the resource Mendota Heights City Council Meeting Minutes 01-07-2003 Description An account of the resource Historian Bruce White presents information about Pilot Knob to the Mendota Heights City Council in hopes of convincing them to order an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the site. The council discusses this information and other information pertaining to Pilot Knob. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource City of Mendota Heights Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived City of Mendota Heights Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available City of Mendota Heights Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1/7/2003 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Public Domain Type The nature or genre of the resource Document Language A language of the resource English Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource .pdf Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota Mendota Heights NARF pilot knob https://religionsmn.carleton.edu/files/original/22bee1ecf0b29e83d7196848b13b7809.pdf 66059776c6b1da00419830c1640b4d67 PDF Text Text NATIONAL REGISTER BULLETIN Technical information on the the National Register of Historic Places: survey, evaluation, registration, and preservation of cultural resources U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Cultural Resources National Register, History and Education Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties �The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation's natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to tribes. This material is partially based upon work conducted under a cooperative agreement with the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers and the U.S. Department of the Interior. Cover photographs: Many traditional cultural properties are used for practical purposes by those who value them. This sedge preserve in northern California, for example, is tended and harvested by Porno Indian basketmakers as a vital source of material for making their world famous baskets. The preserve was established at Lake Sonoma by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (Richard Lerner) This bedrock mortar in central California plays an essential role in processing Black Oak acorns. (Theodoratus Cultural Research) �NATIONAL REGISTER BULLETIN GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING AND DOCUMENTING TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PROPERTIES BY PATRICIA L. PARKER Cultural Anthropologist and Archeologist, American Indian Liaison Office National Park Service and THOMAS F. KING Senior Archeologist and Director of the Office of Program Review, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (formerly) Consultant, Archeology and Historic Preservation (currently) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER, HISTORY AND EDUCATION NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 1990; REVISED 1992; 1998 �TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction 1 II. Traditional Cultural Values in Preservation Planning 5 III. Identifying Traditional Cultural Properties Establishing the level of effort Contacting traditional communities and groups Fieldwork Reconciling Sources 6 6 7 8 9 IV. Determining Eligibility Step-by-Step Step One: Ensure that the entity under consideration is a property Step Two: Consider the property's integrity Step Three: Evaluate the property with reference to the National Register Criteria Step Four: Determine whether any of the National Register criteria considerations (36 CFR 60.4) make the property ineligible 11 11 12 12 V. Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties General Considerations Completing Registration Forms 19 19 22 VI. Conclusion 23 VII. Recommended Bibliography and Sources 24 VIII. Appendix I, A Definition of "Culture" 26 IX. Appendix II, Professional Qualifications: Ethnography 27 X. Appendix III, List of National Register Bulletins 28 14 �I. INTRODUCTION WHAT ARE TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PROPERTIES? The National Register of Historic Places contains a wide range of historic property types, reflecting the diversity of the nation's history and culture. Buildings, structures, and sites; groups of buildings, structures or sites forming historic districts; landscapes; and individual objects are all included in the Register if they meet the criteria specified in the National Register's Criteria for Evaluation (36 CFR 60.4). Such properties reflect many kinds of significance in architecture, history, archeology, engineering, and culture. There are many definitions of the word "culture," but in the National Register programs the word is understood to mean the traditions, beliefs, practices, lifeways, arts, crafts, and social institutions of any community, be it an Indian tribe, a local ethnic group, or the people of the nation as a whole.1 One kind of cultural significance a property may possess, and that may make it eligible for inclusion in the Register, is traditional cultural signifi- cance. "Traditional" in this context refers to those beliefs, customs, and practices of a living community of people that have been passed down through the generations, usually orally or through practice. The traditional cultural significance of a historic property, then, is significance derived from the role the property plays in a community's historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices. Examples of properties possessing such significance include: • a location associated with the traditional beliefs of a Native American group about its origins, its cultural history, or the nature of the world; • a rural community whose organization, buildings and structures, or patterns of land use reflect the cultural traditions valued by its longterm residents; • an urban neighborhood that is the traditional home of a particular cultural group, and that reflects its beliefs and practices; • a location where Native American religious practitioners have historically gone, and are known or thought to gotoday, to perform ceremonial activities in accordance with traditional cultural rules of practice; and • a location where a community has traditionally carried out economic, artistic, or other cultural practices important in maintaining its historic identity. A traditional cultural property, then, can be defined generally as one that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that community's history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community. Various kinds of traditional cultural properties will be discussed, illustrated, and related specifically to the National Register Criteria later in this bulletin. 1 For a detailed definition, see Appendix I. Numerous African Americans left the South to migrate to the Midwest. The A.M.E. Church (on left) and District No. 1 School remain in Nicodemus Historic District in Nicodemus, Kansas, which was declared a National Historic Landmark by the Secretary of the Interior in 1976. (Clayton B. Fraserfor the Historic American Buildings Survey) 1 �PURPOSE OF THIS BULLETIN Traditional cultural values are often central to the way a community or group defines itself, and maintaining such values is often vital to maintaining the group's sense of identity and self respect. Properties to which traditional cultural value is ascribed often take on this kind of vital significance, so that any damage to or infringement upon them is perceived to be deeply offensive to, and even destructive of, the group that values them. As a result, it is extremely important that traditional cultural properties be considered carefully in planning; hence it is important that such properties, when they are eligible for inclusion in the National Register, be nominated to the Register or otherwise identified in inventories for planning purposes. Traditional cultural properties are often hard to recognize. A traditional ceremonial location may look like merely a mountaintop, a lake, or a stretch of river; a culturally important neighborhood may look like any other aggregation of houses, and an area where culturally important economic or.artistic activities have been carried out may look like any other building, field of grass, or piece of forest in the area. As a result, such places may not necessarily come to light through the conduct of archeological, historical, or architectural surveys. The existence and significance of such locations often can be ascertained only through interviews with knowledgeable users of the area, or through other forms of ethnographic research. The subtlety with which the significance of such locations may be expressed makes it easy to ignore them; on the other hand it makes it difficult to distinguish between properties having real significance and those whose putative significance is spurious. As a result, clear guidelines for evaluation of such properties are needed. In the 1980 amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act, the Secretary of the Interior, with the American Folklife Center, was directed to study means of: preserving and conserving the intangible elements of our cultural heritage such as arts, skills, folklife, and folkways... The German Village Historic District in Columbus, Ohio, reflects the ethnic heritage of 19th century German immigrants. The neighborhood includes many simple vernacular brick cottages with gable roofs. (Christopher Cline) and to recommend ways to: This bulletin has been developed as one aspect of the Service's response to the Cultural Conservation report and preserve, conserve/and encourage the Secretary's direction. It is inthe continuation of the diverse traditional prehistoric, historic, ethnic, tended to be an aid in determining and folk cultural traditions that un- whether properties thought or alleged derlie and are a living expression of to have traditional cultural signifiour American heritage. (NHPA 502; cance are eligible for inclusion in the National Register. It is meant to assist 16 U.S.C. 470a note) Federal agencies, State Historic PresThe report that was prepared in re- ervation Officers (SHPOs), Certified sponse to 502, entitled Cultural Conser- Local Governments, Indian Tribes, vation, was submitted to the President and other historic preservation practiand Congress on June 1,1983, by the tioners who need to evaluate such Secretary of the Interior. The report properties when nominating them for recommended in general that tradiinclusion in the National Register or tional cultural resources, both those when considering their eligibility for that are associated with historic prop- the Register as part of the review proerties and those without specific prop- cess prescribed by the Advisory erty referents, be more systematically Council on Historic Preservation unaddressed in implementation of the der 106 of the National Historic PresNational Historic Preservation Act ervation Act. It is designed to suppleand other historic preservation aument other National Register guidthorities. In transmitting the report, ance, particularly How to Apply the Nathe Secretary directed the National tional Register Criteria for Evaluation Park Service to take several actions to and Guidelines for Completing National implement its recommendations. Register of Historic Places Forms. It Among other actions, the Service was should be used in conjunction with directed to prepare guidelines to asthese two Bulletins and other applisist in the documentation of intangcable guidance available from the Naible cultural resources, to coordinate tional Register, when applying the the incorporation of provisions for the National Register Criteria and preparconsideration of such resources into ing documentation to support nomiDepartmental planning documents nations or determinations that a and administrative manuals, and to given property is or is not eligible for encourage the identification and inclusion in the Register. documentation of such resources by This Bulletin is also responsive to States and Federal agencies. the American Indian Religious Free- �dom Act (AIRFA) of 1978, which requires the National Park Service, like other Federal agencies, to evaluate its policies and procedures with the aim of protecting the religious freedoms of Native Americans (Pub. L. 95341 2). Examination of the policies and procedures of the National Register suggests that while they are in no way intended to be so interpreted, they can be interpreted by Federal agencies and others in a manner that excludes historic properties of religious significance to Native Americans from eligibility for inclusion in the National Register. This in turn may exclude such properties from the protections afforded by 106, which may result in their destruction, infringing upon the rights of Native Americans to use them in the free exercise of their religions. To minimize the likelihood of such misinterpretation, this Bulletin gives special attention to properties of traditional cultural significance to Native American groups, and to discussing the place of religion in the attribution of such significance. The fact that this Bulletin gives special emphasis to Native American properties should not be taken to imply that only Native Americans ascribe traditional cultural value to historic properties, or that such ascription is common only to ethnic minority groups in general. Americans of every ethnic origin have properties to which they ascribe traditional cultural value, and if such properties meet the National Register criteria, they can and should be nominated for inclusion in the Register. This Bulletin does not address cultural resources that are purely "intangible"—i.e. those that have no property referents—except by exclusion. The Service is committed to ensuring that such resources are fully considered in planning and decision making by Federal agencies and others. Historic properties represent only some aspects of culture, and many other aspects, not necessarily reflected in properties as such, may be of vital importance in maintaining the integrity of a social group. However, the National Register is not the appropriate vehicle for recognizing cultural values that are purely intangible, nor is there legal authority to address them under 106 unless they are somehow related to a historic property. The National Register lists, and 106 requires review of effects on, tangible cultural resources—that is, historic properties. However, the attributes that give such properties significance, such as their association with historical events, often are intangible in nature. Such attributes cannot be ignored in evaluating and managing historic properties; properties and their intangible attributes of significance must be considered together. This Bulletin is meant to encourage its users to address the intangible cultural values that may make a property historic, and to do so in an evenhanded way that reflects solid research and not ethnocentric bias. Finally, no one should regard this Bulletin as the only appropriate source of guidance on its subject, or interpret it rigidly. Although traditional cultural properties have been listed and recognized as eligible for inclusion in the National Register since the Register's inception, it is only in recent years that organized attention has been given to them. This Bulletin represents the best guidance the Register can provide as of the late 1980s, and the examples listed in the bibliography include the best known at this time.2 It is to be expected that approaches to such properties will continue to evolve. This Bulletin also is meant to supplement, not substitute for, more specific guidelines, such as those used by the National Park Service with respect to units of the National Park System and those used by some other agencies, States, local governments, or Indian tribes with respect to their own lands and programs. 2 It is notable that most of these examples are unpublished manuscripts. The literature pertaining to the identification and evaluation of traditional cultural properties, to say nothing of their treatment, remains a thin one. These sandbars in the Rio Grande River are eligible for inclusion in the National Register because they have been used for generations by the people ofSandia Pueblo for rituals involving immersion in the river's waters. (Thomas F. King) �ETHNOGRAPHY, ETHNOHISTORY, ETHNOCENTRISM Three words beginning with "ethno" will be used repeatedly in this Bulletin, and may not be familiar to all readers. All three are derived from the Greek ethnos, meaning "nation;" and are widely used in the study of anthropology and related disciplines. Ethnography is the descriptive and analytic study of the culture of particular groups or communities. An ethnographer seeks to understand a community through interviews with its members and often through living in and observing it (a practice referred to as "participant observation"). Ethnohistory is the study of historical data, including but not necessarily limited to, documentary data pertaining to a group or community, using an ethnographic perspective. Ethnographic and ethnohistorical research are usually carried out by specialists in cultural anthropology, and by specialists in folklore and folklife, sociology, history, archeology and related disciplines with appropriate technical training.3 Ethnocentrism means viewing the world and the people in it only from the point of view of one's own culture and being unable to sympathize with the feelings, attitudes, and beliefs of someone who is a member of a different culture. It is particularly important to understand, and seek to avoid, ethnocentrism in the evaluation of traditional cultural properties. For ex3 For a detailed discussion of the qualifications that a practitioner of ethnography or ethnohistory should possess, see Appendix II. ample, Euroamerican society tends to emphasize "objective" observation of the physical world as the basis for making statements about that world. However, it may not be possible to use such observations as the major basis for evaluating a traditional cultural property. For example, there may be nothing observable to the outsider about a place regarded as sacred by a Native American group. Similarly, such a group's belief that its ancestors emerged from the earth at a specific location at the beginning of time may contradict Euroamerican science's belief that the group's ancestors migrated to North America from Siberia. These facts in no way diminish the significance of the locations in question in the eyes of those who value them; indeed they are irrelevant to their significance. It would be ethnocentric in the extreme to say that "whatever the Native American group says about this place, I can't see anything here so it is not significant" or "since I know these people's ancestors came from Siberia, the place where they think they emerged from the earth is of no significance." It is vital to evaluate properties thought to have traditional cultural significance from the standpoint of those who may ascribe such significance to them, whatever one's own perception of them, based on one's own cultural values, may be. This is not to say that a group's assertions about the significance of a place should not be questioned or subjected to critical analysis, but they should not be rejected based on the premise that the beliefs they reflect are inferior to one's own. EVALUATION, CONSIDERATION, AND PROTECTION One more point that should be remembered in evaluating traditional cultural properties—as in evaluating any other kind of properties—is that establishing that a property is eligible for inclusion in the National Register does not necessarily mean that the property must be protected from disturbance or damage. Establishing that a property is eligible means that it must be considered in planning Federal, federally assisted, and federally licensed undertakings, but it does not mean that such an undertaking cannot be allowed to damage or destroy it. Consultation must occur in accordance with the regulations of the Advisory Council (36 CFR Part 800) to identify, and if feasible adopt, measures to protect it, but if in the final analysis the public interest demands that the property be sacrificed to the needs of the project, there is nothing in the National Historic Preservation Act that prohibits this. This principle is especially important to recognize with respect to traditional cultural properties, because such properties may be valued by a relatively small segment of a community that, on the whole, favors a project that will damage or destroy it. The fact that the community as a whole may be willing to dispense with the property in order to achieve the goals of the project does not mean that the property is not significant, but the fact that it is significant does not mean that it cannot be disturbed, or that the project must be foregone. �II. TRADITIONAL CULTURAL VALUES IN PRESERVATION PLANNING Traditional cultural properties, and the beliefs and institutions that give them significance, should be systematically addressed in programs of preservation planning and in the historic preservation components of land use plans. One very practical reason for this is to simplify the identification and evaluation of traditional cultural properties that may be threatened by construction and land use projects. Identifying and evaluating such properties can require detailed and extensive consultation, interview programs, and ethnographic fieldwork as discussed below. Having to conduct such activities may add considerably to the time and expense of compliance with 106, the National Environment Policy Act, and other authorities. Such costs can be reduced significantly, however, by early, proactive planning that identifies significant properties or areas likely to contain significant properties before specific projects are planned that may affect them, identifies parties likely to ascribe cultural value to such properties, and establishes routine systems for consultation with such parties. The Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for Preservation Planning empha- size the need for organized public participation in context development (48 FR 44717). The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Guidelines The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Preservation Planning provide for Public Participation in Historic Pres- for the establishment of "historic contexts'7 as a basic step in any preservation planning process be it planning for the comprehensive survey of a community or planning a construction project. A historic context is an organization of available information about, among other things, the cultural history of the area to be investigated, that identifies "the broad patterns of development in an area that may be represented by historic properties" (48 FR 44717). The traditions and traditional lifeways of a planning area may represent such "broad patterns," so information about them should be used as a basis for historic context development. ervation Review (ACHP 1988) provide detailed recommendations regarding such participation. Based on these standards and guidelines, groups that may ascribe traditional cultural values to an area's historic properties should be contacted and asked to assist in organizing information on the area. Historic contexts should be considered that reflect the history and culture of such groups as the groups themselves understand them, as well as their history and culture as defined by Euroamerican scholarship, and processes for consultation with such groups should be integrated into routine planning and project review procedures. �III. IDENTIFYING TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PROPERTIES Some traditional cultural properties are well known to the residents of an area. The San Francisco Peaks in Arizona, for example, are extensively documented and widely recognized as places of extreme cultural importance to the Hopi, Navajo, and other American Indian people of the Southwest, and it requires little study to recognize that Honolulu's Chinatown is a place of cultural importance to the city's Asian community. Most traditional cultural properties, however, must be identified through systematic study, just as most other kinds of historic properties must be identified. This section of the Bulletin will discuss some factors to consider in identifying traditional cultural properties.4 ESTABLISHING THE LEVEL OF EFFORT Any comprehensive effort to identify historic properties in an area, be the area a community, a rural area, or the area that may be affected by a construction or land-use project, should include a reasonable effort to identify traditional cultural properties. What constitutes a "reasonable" effort depends in part on the likelihood that such properties may be present. The likelihood that such properties may be present can be reliably assessed only on the basis of background Honolulu's Chinatown reflects the cultural values and traditions of its inhabitants not knowledge of the area's history, ethonly in its architectural details but also in its organization of space and the activities nography, and contemporary society that go on there. (Ramona K. Mullahey) developed through preservation planning. As a general although not in4 For general guidelines for identification see the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Identification (48 FR 44720-23), Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning (National Register of Historic Places bulletin) and Identification in Historic Preservation Review: a Decisionmaking Guide (ACHP/DOI1988). �variable rule, however, rural areas are more likely than urban areas to contain properties of traditional cultural importance to American Indian or other native American communities, while urban areas are more likely to contain properties of significance to ethnic and other traditional neighborhoods. Where identification is conducted as part of planning for a construction or land-use project, the appropriate level of effort depends in part on whether the project under consideration is the type of project that could affect traditional cultural properties. For example, as a rule the rehabilitation of historic buildings may have relatively little potential for effect on such properties. However, if a rehabilitation project may result in displacement of residents,"gentrification" of a neighborhood, or other sociocultural impacts, the possibility that the buildings to be rehabilitated, or the neighborhood in which they exist, may be ascribed traditional cultural value by their residents or others should be considered. Similarly, most day-to-day management activities of a land managing agency may have little potential for effect on traditional cultural properties, but if the management activity involves an area or a kind of resource that has high significance to a traditional group—for example, timber harvesting in an area where an Indian tribe's religious practitioners may continue to carry out traditional ceremonies—the potential for effect will be high. These general rules of thumb aside, the way to determine what constitutes a reasonable effort to identify traditional cultural properties is to consult those who may ascribe cultural significance to locations within the study area. The need for community participation in planning identification, as in other forms of preservation planning, cannot be over-emphasized. CONTACTING TRADITIONAL COMMUNITIES AND GROUPS An early step in any effort to identify historic properties is to consult with groups and individuals who have special knowledge about and in- terests in the history and culture of the area to be studied. In the case of traditional cultural properties, this means those individuals and groups who may ascribe traditional cultural significance to locations within the study area, and those who may have knowledge of such individuals and groups. Ideally, early planning will have identified these individuals and groups, and established how to consult with them. As a rule, however, the following steps are recommended: BACKGROUND RESEARCH An important first step in identifying such individuals and groups is to conduct background research into what is already recorded about the area's history, ethnography, sociology, and folklife. Published and unpublished source material on the historic and contemporary composition of the area's social and cultural groups should be consulted; such source material can often be found in the anthropology, sociology, or folklife libraries of local universities or other academic institutions. Professional and nonprofessional students of the area's social and cultural groups should also be consulted—for example, professional and avocational anthropologists and folklorists who have studied the area. The SHPO and any other official agency or organization that concerns itself with matters of traditional culture—for example, a State Folklorist or a State Native American Commission—should be contacted for recommendations about sources of information and about groups and individuals to consult. MAKING CONTACT Having reviewed available background data, the next step is to contact knowledgeable groups and individuals directly, particularly those groups that are native to the area or have resided there for a long time. Some such groups have official repre- Federal agencies and others have found a variety of ways to contact knowledgeable parties in order to identify and evaluate traditional cultural properties. Generally speaking, the detail and complexity of the methods employed depend on the nature and complexity of the properties under consideration and the effects the agency's management or other activities may have on them. For example: • The Black Hills National Forest designated a culturally sensitive engineer to work with local Indian tribes in establishing procedures by which the tribes could review Forest Service projects that might affect traditional cultural properties; • The Air Force sponsored a conference of local traditional cultural authorities to review plans for deployment of an intercontinental missile system in Wyoming, resulting in guidelines to ensure that effects on traditional cultural properties would be minimized. • The New Mexico Power Authority employed a professional cultural anthropologist to consult with Native American groups within the area to be affected by the Four Corners Power Project. • The Ventura County (California) Flood Control Agency consulted with local Native American groups designated by the State Native American Heritage Commission to determine how to handle human remains to be exhumed from a cemetery that had to be relocated to make way for a flood control project. • The Utah State Historic Preservation Officer entered into an agreement with the American Folklife Center to develop a comprehensive overview of the tangible and intangible historic resources of Grouse Creek, a traditional Mormon cowboy community. • The Forest Service contracted for a full-scale ethnographic study to determine the significance of the Helkau Historic District on California's Six Rivers National Forest. �sentatives—the tribal council of an Indian tribe, for example, or an urban neighborhood council. In other cases, leadership may be less officially defined, and establishing contact may be more complicated. The assistance of ethnographers, sociologists, folklorists, and others who may have conducted research in the area or otherwise worked with its social groups may be necessary in such cases, in order to design ways of contacting and consulting such groups in ways that are both effective and consistent with their systems of leadership and communication. It should be clearly recognized that expertise in traditional cultural values may not be found, or not found solely, among contemporary community leaders. In some cases, in fact, the current political leadership of a community or neighborhood may be hostile to or embarrassed about traditional matters. As a result, it may be necessary to seek out knowledgeable parties outside the community's official political structure. It is of course best to do this with the full knowledge and cooperation of the community's contemporary leaders; in most cases it is appropriate to ask such leaders to identify members of the community who are knowledgeable about traditional cultural matters, and use these parties as an initial network of consultants on the group's traditional values. If there is serious hostility between the group's contemporary leadership and its traditional experts, however, such cooperation may not be extended, and efforts to consult with traditional authorities may be actively opposed. Where this occurs, and it is necessary to proceed with the identification and evaluation of properties—for example, where such identification and evaluation are undertaken in connection with review of an undertaking under 106— careful negotiation and mediation may be necessary to overcome opposition and establish mutually acceptable ground rules for consultation. Again, the assistance of anthropologists or others with training and experience in work with the community, or with similar communities, may be necessary. FIELDWORK Fieldwork to identify properties of traditional cultural significance involves consultation with knowledge8 The Helkau Historic District, in the Six Rivers National Forest of California, is eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of its association with significant cultural practices of the Tolowa, Yorok, Karuk, and Hoopa Indian tribes of the area, who have used the district for generations to make medicine and communicate with spirits. (Theodoratus Cultural Research) able parties, coupled with field inspection and recordation of locations identified as significant by such parties. It is often appropriate and efficient to combine such fieldwork with surveys to identify other kinds of historic properties, for example archeological sites and properties of architectural significance. If combined fieldwork is conducted, however, the professional standards appropriate to each kind of fieldwork should be adhered to, and appropriate expertise in each relevant discipline should be represented on the study team. The kinds of expertise typically needed for a detailed ethnographic study of traditional cultural properties are outlined in Appendix II. Applicable research standards can be found in Systematic Fieldwork, Volume 2: Ethnographic Analysis and Data Management. (Werner and Schoepfle 1986) CULTURALLY SENSITIVE CONSULTATION Since knowledge of traditional cultural values may not be shared readily with outsiders, knowledgeable parties should be consulted in cultural contexts that are familiar and reasonable to them. It is important to understand the role that the information being solicited may play in the culture of those from whom it is being solicited, and the kinds of rules that may surround its transmittal. In some societies traditional information is regarded as powerful, even dangerous. It is often believed that such information should be transmitted only under particular circumstances or to particular kinds of people. In some cases information is regarded as a valued commodity for which payment is in order, in other cases offering payment may be offensive. Sometimes information may be regarded as a gift, whose acceptance obligates the receiver to reciprocate in some way, in some cases by carrying out the activity to which the information pertains. It may not always, or even often, be possible to arrange for information to be sought in precisely the way those being consulted might prefer, but when it is not, the interviewer should clearly understand that to some extent he or she is asking those interviewed to violate their cultural norms. The interviewer should try to keep such violations to a minimum, and should be patient with the reluctance that those interviewed may feel toward sharing information under conditions that are not fully appropriate from their point of view. Culturally sensitive consultation may require the use of languages other than English, the conduct of �community meetings in ways consistent with local traditional practice, and the conduct of studies by trained ethnographers, ethnohistorians, sociologists, or folklorists with the kinds of expertise outlined in Appendix II. Particularly where large projects or large land areas are involved, or where it is likely that particularly sensitive resources may be at issue, formal ethnographic studies should be carried out, by or under the supervision of a professionally qualified cultural anthropologist. FIELD INSPECTION AND RECORDATION It is usually important to take knowledgeable consultants into the field to inspect properties that they identify as significant. In some cases such properties may not be discernible as such to anyone but a knowledgeable member of the group that ascribes significance to them; in such cases it may be impossible even to find the relevant properties, or locate them accurately, without the aid of such parties. Even where a property is readily discernible as such to the outside observer, visiting the property may help a consultant recall information about it that he or she is unlikely to recall during interviews at a remote location, thus making for a richer and more complete record. Where the property in question has religious significance or supernatural connotations, it is particularly important to ensure that any visit is carried out in accordance with appropriate modes of behavior. In some cases, ritual purification is necessary before a property can be approached, or spirits must be propitiated along the way. Some groups forbid visits to such locations by menstruating women or by people of inappropriate ages. The taking of photographs or the use of electronic recording equipment may not be appropriate. Appropriate ways to approach the property should be discussed with knowledgeable consultants before undertaking a field visit. To the extent compatible with the cultural norms of the group involved, traditional cultural properties should be recorded on National Register of Historic Places forms or their equivalent.5 Where items normally included in a National Register nomination or request for a determination of eligibility cannot be included (for ex- ample, if it is culturally inappropriate to photograph the property), the reasons for not including the item should be explained. To the extent possible in the property's cultural context, other aspects of the documentation (for example, verbal descriptions of the property) should be enhanced to make up for the items not included. If making the location of a property known to the public would be culturally inappropriate, or compromise the integrity of the property or associated cultural values (for example, by encouraging tourists to intrude upon the conduct of traditional practices), the "Not for Publication" box on the National Register form should be checked; this indicates that the reproduction of locational information is prohibited, and that other information contained in the nomination will not be reproduced without the permission of the nominating authority. In the case of a request for a determination of eligibility in which a National Register form is not used, the fact that the information is not for publication should be clearly speci- fied in the documentation, so that the National Register can apply the same controls to this information as it would to restricted information in a nomination.6 RECONCILING SOURCES Sometimes an apparent conflict exists between documentary data on traditional cultural properties and the testimony of contemporary consultants. The most common kind of conflict occurs when ethnographic and ethnohistorical documents do not identify a given place as playing an important role in the tradition and culture of a group, while contemporary members of the group say the property does have such a role. More rarely, documentary sources may indicate that a property does have cultural significance while contemporary sources say it does not. In some cases, too, contemporary sources may disagree about the significance of a property. Much of the significance of traditional cultural properties can be learned only from testimony of the traditional people who value them, like this old man being interviewed in Truk. (Micronesia Institute) 5 For general instructions on the completion of National Register documentation, see How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Form. 6 Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act provides the legal authority to withhold National Register information from the public when release might "create a substantial risk of harm, theft, or destruction." For detailed guidelines concerning restricting access to information see the National Register bulletin entitled, Guidelines for Restricting Information About Historic and Prehistoric Resources. �Where available documents fail to identify a property as culturally significant, but contemporary sources identify it as such, several points should be considered. (a)Ethnographic and ethnohistorical research has not been conducted uniformly in all parts of the nation; some areas are better documented than others simply because they have been the focus of more research. (b)Ethnographic and ethnohistorical documents reflect the research interests of those who prepared them; the fact that one does not identify a property as culturally important may reflect only the fact that the individual who prepared the report had research interests that did not require the identification of such properties. (c) Some kinds of traditional cultural properties are regarded by those who value them as the loci of supernatural or other power, or as having other attributes that make people reluctant to talk about them. Such properties are not likely to be recorded unless someone makes a very deliberate effort to do so, or unless those who value them have a special reason for revealing the information—for example, a perception that the property is in some kind of danger. Particularly because properties of traditional cultural significance are often kept secret, it is not uncommon for them to be "discovered" only when something threatens them—for example, when a change in land-use is proposed in their vicinity. The sudden revelation by representatives of a cultural group which may also have other economic or political interests in the proposed change can lead quickly to charges that the cultural significance of a property has been invented only to obstruct or otherwise influence those planning the change. This may be true, and the possibility that traditional cultural significance is attributed to a property only to advance other, unrelated interests should be carefully considered. However, it also may be that until the change was proposed, there simply was no reason for those who value the property to reveal its existence or the significance they ascribe to it. Where ethnographic, ethnohistorial, historical, or other sources identify a property as having cultural significance, but contemporary sources say that it lacks such significance, the interests of the contemporary sources should be carefully considered. Individuals who have economic interests in the potential development of an area may be strongly motivated to deny its cultural significance. More subtly, individuals who regard traditional practices and beliefs as backward and contrary to the 7 For excellent examples of studies designed in whole or in part to identify and evaluate traditional cultural properties based on both documentary sources and the testimony of consultants, see Bean and Vane 1978; Carroll 1983; Johnston and Budy 1983; Stoffle and Dobyns 1982,1983; Theodoratus 1979. 10 best contemporary interests of the group that once ascribed significance to a property may feel justified in saying that such significance has been lost, or was never ascribed to the property. On the other hand, of course, it may be that the documentary sources are wrong, or that the significance ascribed to the property when the documents were prepared has since been lost. Similar consideration must be taken into account in attempting to reconcile conflicting contemporary sources. Where one individual or group asserts that a property has traditional cultural significance, and another asserts that it does not or where there is disagreement about the nature or extent of a property's significance, the motives and values of the parties, and the cultural constraints operating on each, must be carefully analyzed. In general, the only reasonably reliable way to resolve conflict among sources is to review a wide enough range of documentary data, and to interview a wide enough range of authorities to minimize the likelihood either of inadvertent bias or of being deliberately misled. Authorities consulted in most cases should include both knowledgeable parties within the group that may attribute cultural value to a property and appropriate specialists in ethnography, sociology, history, and other relevant disciplines.7 �IV. DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY: STEP BY STEP Whether a property is known in advance or found during an identification effort, it must be evaluated with reference to the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (36 CFR Part 60) in order to determine whether it is eligible for inclusion in the Register. This section discusses the process of evaluation as a series of sequential steps. In real life of course, these steps are often collapsed into one another or taken together. STEP ONE: ENSURE THAT THE ENTITY UNDER CONSIDERATION IS A PROPERTY Because the cultural practices or beliefs that give a traditional cultural property its significance are typically still observed in some form at the time the property is evaluated, it is sometimes perceived that the intangible practices or beliefs themselves, not the property, constitute the subject of evaluation. There is naturally a dynamic relationship between tangible and intangible traditional cultural resources, and the beliefs or practices associated with a traditional cultural property are of central importance in defining its significance. However, it should be clearly recognized at the outset that the National Register does not include intangible resources themselves. The entity evaluated must be a tangible property—that is, a district, site, building, structure, or object.8 The relationship between the property and the beliefs or practices associated with it should be carefully considered, however, since it is the beliefs and practices that may give the property its significance and make it eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Construction by human beings is a necessary attribute of buildings and structures, but districts, sites, and objects do not have to be the products of, or contain, the work of human beings in order to be classified as properties. For example, the National Register defines a "site" as "the location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined, or vanished, where the location itself possesses historic, cultural, or archeological value regardless of the value of any existing structure."9 Thus a property may be defined as a "site" as long as it was the location of a significant event or activity, regardless of whether the event or activity left any evidence of its occurrence. A culturally significant natural landscape may be classified as a site, as may the specific location where significant traditional events, activities, or cultural observances have taken place. A natural object such as a tree or a rock outcrop may be an eligible object if it is associated with a significant tradition or use. A concentration, linkage, or continuity of such sites or objects, or of structures comprising a culturally significant entity, may be classified as a district. In considering the eligibility of a property that contains no observable evidence of human activity, however, the documentary or oral evidence for the association of the property with traditional events, activities or observances should be carefully weighed and assessed. The National Register discourages the nomination of natural features without sound documentation of their historical or cultural significance. STEP TWO: CONSIDER THE PROPERTY'S INTEGRITY In order to be eligible for inclusion in the Register, a property must have "integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association" (36 CFR Part 60). In the case of a traditional cultural property, there are two fundamental questions to ask about integrity. First, does the property have an integral relationship to traditional cultural practices or beliefs; and second, is the condition of the property such that the relevant relationships survive? INTEGRITY OF RELATIONSHIP Assessing the integrity of the relationship between a property and the beliefs or practices that may give it significance involves developing some understanding about how the group that holds the beliefs or carries out the practices is likely to view the property. If the property is known or likely to be regarded by a traditional cultural group as important in the retention or transmittal of a belief, or to the performance of a practice, the property can be taken to have an integral relationship with the belief or practice, and vice-versa. For example, imagine two groups living along the shores of a lake. Each group practices a form of baptism to mark an individual's acceptance into the group. Both carry out baptism in the lake. One group, however, holds that baptism is appropriate in any body of water that is available; the lake happens to be available, so it is used, but another lake, a river or creek, or a swimming pool would be just as acceptable. The second group regards baptism in this particular lake as essential to its acceptance of an individual as a member. Clearly the lake is integrally related to the second group's practice, but not to that of the first. 8 See How to Apply the National Register Cri- teria for Evaluation for discussion of property types. ) See How to Complete the National Register Form. 11 �INTEGRITY OF CONDITION Like any other kind of historic property, a property that once had traditional cultural significance can lose such significance through physical alteration of its location, setting, design, or materials. For example, an urban neighborhood whose structures, objects, and spaces reflect the historically rooted values of a traditional social group may lose its significance if these aspects of the neighborhood are substantially altered. In some cases a traditional cultural property can also lose its significance through alteration of its setting or environment. For example, a location used by an American Indian group for traditional spirit questing is unlikely to retain its significance for this purpose if it has come to be surrounded by housing tracts or shopping malls. A property may retain its traditional cultural significance even though it has been substantially modified, however. Cultural values are dynamic, and can sometimes accommodate a good deal of change. For example, the Karuk Indians of northwestern California continue to carry on world renewal rites, ancient ceremonies featuring elaborate dances, songs, and other ritual activities, along a stretch of the Klamath River that is now the site of a highway, a Forest Service Ranger Station, a number of residences, and a timber cutting operation. Specific locations important in aspects of the ceremony remain intact, and accommodation has been reached between the Karuk and other users of the land. The State Department of Transportation has even erected "Ritual Crossing" signs at locations where the Karuk religious practitioners cross the highway, and built shallow depressions into the roadway which are filled with sand in advance of the ceremony, so the feet of the practitioners need not be profaned by contact with man-made macadam. As this example shows, the integrity of a possible traditional cultural property must be considered with reference to the views of traditional practitioners; if its integrity has not been lost in their eyes, it probably has sufficient integrity to justify further evaluation. Some kinds of traditional cultural significance also may be retained regardless of how the surroundings of a 12 Cannonball Island, off Cape Alava on the coast of Washington State, is a traditional cultural property of importance to the Makah Indian people. It was used in the past, and is still used today, as a navigation marker for Makah fisherman, who established locations at sea by triangulation from this and other landmarks. It also was a lookout point for seal and whale hunters and for war parties, a burial site, and a kennel for dogs raised for their fur. (Makah Cultural and Research Center Archives) property may be changed. For example, the First African Baptist Church Cemetery in Philadelphia, rediscovered during archeological work in advance of highway construction in 1985, has considerable cultural significance for the congregation that traces descent from those interred in the Cemetery, and for Philadelphia's African American community in general, even though its graves had been buried under fill and modern construction for many decades. It should also be recalled that even if a property has lost integrity as a possible traditional cultural property, it may retain integrity with reference to some other aspect of significance. For example, a property whose cultural significance has been lost through disturbance may still retain archeological deposits of significance for their information content, and a neighborhood whose traditional residents no longer ascribe significance to it may contain buildings of architectural importance. STEP THREE: EVALUATE THE PROPERTY WITH REFERENCE TO THE NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA Assuming the entity to be evaluated is a property, and that it retains integrity, it is next necessary to evaluate it against the four basic National Register Criteria set forth in the National Register regulations (36 CFR Part 60). If the property meets one or more of the criteria, it may be eligible; if it does not, it is not eligible.10 CRITERION (A): ASSOCIATION WITH EVENTS THAT HAVE MADE A SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION TO THE BROAD PATTERNS OF OUR HISTORY. The word "our" in this criterion may be taken to refer to the group to which the property may have traditional cultural significance, and the word "history" may be taken to include traditional oral history as well as recorded history. For example, Mt. Tonaachaw on Moen Island in Truk, Federated States of Micronesia, is in the National Register in part because of association with oral traditions about the establishment of Trukese society. "Events" can include specific moments in history of a series of events reflecting a broad pattern or theme. 10 For general guidelines, see How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. �For example, the ongoing participation of an ethnic or social group in an area's history, reflected in a neighborhood's buildings, streetscapes, or patterns of social activity, constitutes such a series of events. The association of a property with significant events, and its existence at the time the events took place, must be documented through accepted means of historical research. The means of research normally employed with respect to traditional cultural properties include ethnographic, ethnohistorical, and folklore studies, as well as historical and archeological research. Sometimes, however, the actual time a traditional event took place may be ambiguous; in such cases it may be impossible, and to some extent irrelevant, to demonstrate with certainty that the property in question existed at the time the traditional event occurred. For example, events recounted in the traditions of Native American groups may have occurred in a time before the creation of the world as we know it, or at least before the creation of people. It would be fruitless to try to demonstrate, using the techniques of history and science, that a given location did or did not objectively exist in a time whose own existence cannot be demonstrated scientifically. Such a demonstration is unnecessary for purposes of eligibility determination; as long as the tradition itself is rooted in the history of the group, and associates the property with traditional events, the association can be accepted. a Cahuilla Indian demigod who figures importantly in the tribe's traditions and is said to occupy an obsidian cave high in the canyon. CRITERION (C)(2): REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WORK OF A MASTER. CRITERION (O(l): 11 EMBODIMENT OF THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A TYPE, PERIOD, OR METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION. A property identified in tradition or suggested by scholarship to be the work of a traditional master builder or artisan may be regarded as the work of a master, even though the precise identity of the master may not be known. This subcriterion applies to properties that have been constructed, or contain constructed entities—that is, buildings, structures, or built objects. For example, a neighborhood that has traditionally been occupied by a particular ethnic group may display particular housing styles, gardens, street furniture or ornamentation distinctive of the group. Honolulu's Chinatown, for example, embodies the distinctive cultural values of the City's Asian community in its architecture, landscaping, signage, and ornamentation. CRITERION (C)(3): POSSESSION OF HIGH ARTISTIC VALUES. A property made up of or containing art work valued by a group for traditional cultural reasons, for example a petroglyph or pictograph site venerated by an Indian group, or a building whose decorative elements reflect a local ethnic groups distinctive modes of expression, may be viewed as having high artistic value from the standpoint of the group. 11 Note: Criterion (C) is not subdivided into subcriteria (1), (2), etc. in 36 CFR Part 60.4. The subdivision given here is only for the convenience of the reader. CRITERION (B): ASSOCIATION WITH THE LIVES OF PERSONS SIGNIFICANT IN OUR PAST. Again, the word "our" can be interpreted with reference to the people who are thought to regard the property as traditionally important. The word "persons" can be taken to refer both to persons whose tangible, human existence in the past can be inferred on the basis of historical, ethnographic, or other research, and to "persons" such as gods and demigods who feature in the traditions of a group. For example, Tahquitz Canyon in southern California is included in the National Register in part because of its association with Tahquitz, In Trukese tradition, the Tonaachaw Historic District was the location to which Sowukachaw, founder of the Trukese society, came and established his meetinghouse at the beginning of Trukese history. The mountain, in what is now the Federated States of Micronesia, is a powerful landmark in the traditions of the area. (Lawrence E. Aten) 13 �CRITERION (C)(4): REPRESENTATIVE OF A SIGNIFICANT AND DISTINGUISHABLE ENTITY WHOSE COMPONENTS MAY LACK INDIVIDUAL DISTINCTION. A property may be regarded as representative of a significant and distinguishable entity, even though it lacks individual distinction, if it represents or is an integral part of a larger entity of traditional cultural importance. The larger entity may, and usually does, possess both tangible and intangible components. For example, certain locations along the Russian River in California are highly valued by the Porno Indians, and have been for centuries, as sources of high quality sedge roots needed in the construction of the Pomo's world famous basketry. Although the sedge fields themselves are virtually indistinguishable from the surrounding landscape, and certainly indistinguishable by the untrained observer from other sedge fields that produce lower quality roots, they are representative of, and vital to, the larger entity of Porno basketmaking. Similarly, some deeply venerated landmarks in Micronesia are natural features, such as rock outcrops and groves of trees; these are indistinguishable visually (at least to the outside observer) from other rocks and trees, but they figure importantly in chants embodying traditional sailing directions and lessons about traditional history. As individual objects they lack distinction, but the larger entity of which they are a part—Micronesian navigational and historical tradition—is of prime importance in the area's history. CRITERION (D): HISTORY OF YIELDING, OR POTENTIAL TO YIELD, INFORMATION IMPORTANT IN PREHISTORY OR HISTORY. Properties that have traditional cultural significance often have already yielded, or have the potential to yield, important information through ethnographic, archeological, sociological, folkloric, or other stud14 I Many traditional cultural properties look like very little on the ground. The small protuberance in the center of this photo, known to residents of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington State as Goose Egg Hill, is regarded by the Yakima Indians of the area as the heart of a goddess who was torn apart by jealous compatriots. They scattered her pieces across the landscape, creating a whole complex of culturally significant landforms. (Thomas F. King) ies. For example, ethnographic and ethnohistorical studies of Kaho'olawe Island in Hawai'i, conducted in order to clarify its eligibility for inclusion in the National Register, have provided important insights into Hawai'ian traditions and culture and into the history of twentieth century efforts to revitalize traditional Hawai'ian culture. Similarly, many traditional American Indian village sites are also archeological sites, whose study can provide important information about the history and prehistory of the group that lived there. Generally speaking, however, a traditional cultural property's history of yielding, or potential to yield, information, if relevant to its significance at all, is secondary to its association with the traditional history and culture of the group that ascribes significance to it. STEP 4: DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF THE NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA CONSIDERATIONS (36 CFR 60.4) MAKE THE PROPERTY INELIGIBLE Generally speaking, a property is not eligible for inclusion in the Register if it represents a class of properties to which one or more of the six "criteria considerations" listed in 36 CFR 60.4 applies, and is not part of a district that is eligible. In applying the criteria considerations, it is important to be sensitive to the cultural values involved, and to avoid ethnocentric bias, as discussed below. CONSIDERATION A: OWNERSHIP BY A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION OR USE FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES. A "religious property," according to National Register guidelines, requires additional justification (for nomination) because of the necessity to avoid any appearance of judgement by government about the merit of any religion or belief."12 Conversely, it is necessary to be careful not to allow a similar judgement to serve as the basis for determining a property to be ineligible for inclusion in the Register. Application of this criteria consideration to traditional cultural properties is fraught with the potential for ethnocentrism and discrimination. In many traditional societies, including most American Indian societies, the clear distinction made by Euroamerican society between religion and the rest of culture does not exist. As a result, properties that have traditional cultural significance are regularly discussed by those who value them in terms that have religious connotations. Inyan Karan Mountain, for example, a National Register property in the Black Hills of South Dakota, is sig- 12 How to Complete the National Register Form. �nificant in part because it is the abode of spirits in the traditions of the Lakota and Cheyenne. Some traditional cultural properties are used for purposes that are definable as religious in Euroamerican terms, and this use is intrinsic to their cultural significance. Kootenai Falls on the Kootenai River in Idaho, part of the National Register-eligible Kootenai Falls Cultural Resource District, has been used for centuries as a vision questing site by the Kootenai tribe. The Helkau Historic District in northern California is a place where traditional religious practitioners go to make medicine and commune with spirits, and Mt. Tonaachaw in Truk is an object of spiritual veneration. The fact that such properties have religious connotations does not automatically make them ineligible for inclusion in the Register. Applying the "religious exclusion" without careful and sympathetic consideration to properties of significance to a traditional cultural group can result in discriminating against the group by effectively denying the legitimacy of its history and culture. The history of a Native American group, as conceived by its indigenous cultural authorities, is likely to reflect a kind of belief in supernatural beings and events that Euroamerican culture categorizes as religious, although the group involved, as is often the case with Native American groups, may not even have a word in its language for "religion." To exclude from the National Register a property of cultural and historical importance to such a group, because its significance tends to be expressed in terms that to the Euroamerican observer appear to be "religious" is ethnocentric in the extreme. In simplest terms, the fact that a property is used for religious purposes by a traditional group, such as seeking supernatural visions, collecting or preparing native medicines, or carrying out ceremonies, or is described by the group in terms that are classified by the outside observer as "religious" should not by itself be taken to make the property ineligible, since these activities may be expressions of traditional cultural beliefs and may be intrinsic to the continuation of traditional cultural practices. Similarly, the fact that the group that owns a property—for example, an American Indian tribe—describes it in religious terms, or constitutes a group of traditional religious practitioners, should not automatically be taken to exclude the property from inclusion in the Register. Criteria Consideration A was included in the Criteria for Evaluation in order to avoid allowing historical significance to be determined on the basis of religious doctrine, not in order to exclude arbitrarily any property having religious associations. National Register guidelines stress the fact that properties can be listed in or determined eligible for the Register for their association with religious history, or with persons significant in religion, if such significance has "scholarly, secular recognition."13 The integral relationship among traditional Native American culture, history, and religion is widely recognized in secular scholarship.14 Studies leading to the nomination of traditional cultural properties to the Register should have among their purposes the application of secular scholarship to the association of particular properties with broad patterns of traditional history and culture. The fact that traditional history and culture may be discussed in religious terms does not make it less historical or less significant to culture, nor does it make properties associated with traditional history and culture ineligible for inclusion in the National Register. CONSIDERATION B: RELOCATED PROPERTIES. Properties that have been moved from their historically important locations are not usually eligible for inclusion in the Register, because "the significance of (historic properties) is embodied in their locations and settings as well as in the (properties) themselves" and because "one basic purpose of the National Register is to encourage the preservation of historic properties as living parts of their communities."15 This consideration is relevant but rarely applied formally to traditional cultural properties; in most cases the property in question is a site or district which cannot be relocated in any event. Even where the property can be relocated, maintaining it on its original site is often crucial to maintaining its importance in traditional culture, and if it has been moved, most traditional authorities would regard its significance as lost. Where a property is intrinsically portable, however, moving it does not 13 How to Complete the National Register Form. 14 For example see U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 1983; Michaelson 1986. 15 How to Complete the National Register Form. The fact that a property has religious connotations does not automatically disqualify it for inclusion in the National Register. This Shaker community in Massachusetts, for example, while religious in orientation, is included in the Register because it expresses the cultural values of the Shakers as a society. (Historic American Buildings Survey) 15 �Some traditional cultural properties may be moveable, like this traditional war canoe still in use in the Republic ifPalua. (Papua Historic Preservation Officer) destroy its significance, provided it remains "located in a historically appropriate setting."16 For example, a traditionally important canoe or other watercraft would continue to be eligible as long as it remained in the water or in an appropriate dry land context (e.g., a boathouse). A property may also retain its significance if it has been moved historically.17 For example, totem poles moved from one Northwest Coast village to another in early times by those who made or used them would not have lost their significance by virtue of the move. In some cases, actual or putative relocation even contributes to the significance of a property. The topmost peak of Mt. Tonaachaw in Truk, for example, is traditionally thought to have been brought from another island; the stories surrounding this magical relocation are parts of the mountains cultural significance. In some cases it may be possible to relocate a traditionally significant property and still retain its significance, provided the property's "historic and present orientation, immediate setting, and general environment" are carefully considered in planning and executing the move.18 At Lake Sonoma in California, for example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers relocated a number of boulders contain16 ing petroglyphs having artistic, archeological, and traditional cultural significance to protect them from inundation. The work was done in consultation with members of the local Porno Indian tribe, and apparently did not destroy the significance of the boulders in the eyes of the tribe.19 CONSIDERATION C: BIRTHPLACES AND GRAVES. Birthplaces and graves of famous persons are not usually eligible for inclusion in the Register as such. If the birthplace or gravesite of a historical person is significant for reasons other than its association with that person, however, the property can of course be eligible.20 Thus in the case of a traditional cultural property, if someone's birth or burial within the property's boundaries was incidental to the larger traditional significance of the property, the fact that it occurred does not make the property ineligible. For example, in South Texas, the burial site of Don Pedrito Jaramillo, a well documented folk healer who practiced at the turn of the century, has for more than seventy years been a culturally significant site for the performance of traditional healing rituals by Mexican American folk healers. Here the cultural significance of the site as a center for healing is related to the intangible belief that Don Pedrito's spirit is stronger there than in other places, rather than to the fact of his burial there. On the other hand, it is possible for the birth or burial itself to have been ascribed such cultural importance that its association with the property contributes to its significance. Tahquitz Canyon in southern California, for example, is in a sense the traditional "birthplace" of the entire Cahuilla Indian people. Its status as such does not make it ineligible; on the contrary, it is intrinsic to its eligibility. Mt. Tonaachaw in Truk is according to some traditions the birth- 16 How to Complete the National Register Form. 17 How to Complete the National Register Form. 18 How to Complete the National Register Form. 19 The location to which a property is relocated, and the extent to which it retains its integrity after relocation, must be carefully considered in judging its continued eligibility for inclusion in the National Register. See How to Complete the National Register Form for general guidelines. 20 How to Complete the National Register Form. �place of the culture hero Souwooniiras, whose efforts to organize society among the islands of Truk Lagoon are the stuff of Trukese legend. The association of his birth with the mountain does not make the mountain ineligible; rather, it contributes to its eligibility. CONSIDERATION D: CEMETERIES. Cemeteries are not ordinarily eligible for inclusion in the Register unless they "derive (their) primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design values, or from association with historic events."21 Many traditional cultural properties contain cemeteries, however, whose presence contributes to their significance. Tahquitz Canyon, for example, whose major significance lies in its association with Cahuilla traditional history, contains a number of cemeteries that are the subjects of great concern to the Cahuilla people. The fact that they are present does not render the Canyon ineligible; on the contrary, as reflections of the long historical association between the Cahuilla and the Canyon, the cemeteries reflect and contribute to the Canyon's significance. Thus the fact that a traditional cultural property is or contains a cemetery should not automatically be taken to render it ineligible. struction in no way diminishes the island's eligibility. CONSIDERATION F: COMMEMORATION. Like other properties, those constructed to commemorate a traditional event or person cannot be found eligible for inclusion in the Register based on association with that event or person alone.23 The mere fact that commemoration is involved in the use or design of a property should not be taken to make the property ineligible, however. For example, traditional meetinghouses in the Republic of Palau, included in the National Register, are typically ornamented with "story boards" commemorating traditional events; these derive their design from traditional Palauan aesthetic values, and thus contribute to the cultural significance of the structures. They connect the structures with the traditional history of the islands, and in no way diminish their cultural, ethnographic, and architectural significance. CONSIDERATION G: SIGNIFICANCE ACHIEVED WITHIN THE PAST 50 YEARS. Properties that have achieved significance only within the 50 years preceding their evaluation are not eligible for inclusion in the Register unless "sufficient historical perspective exists to determine that the property is exceptionally important and will continue to retain that distinction in the future."24 This is an extremely important criteria consideration with respect to traditional cultural values. A significance ascribed to a property only in the past 50 years cannot be considered traditional. As an example, consider a mountain peak used by an Indian tribe for communication with the supernatural. If the peak has been used by members of the tribe for many years, or if it was used by members of the tribe in prehistory or early history, it may be eligible, but if its use has begun only within the past 50 years, it is probably not eligible. 21 How to Complete the National Register Form. 22 How to Complete the National Register Form. 23 How to Complete the National Register Form. 24 How to Complete the National Register Form. CONSIDERATION E: RECONSTRUCTION. A reconstructed property—that is, a new construction that ostensibly reproduces the exact form and detail of a property or portion of a property that has vanished, as it appeared at a specific period in time—is not normally eligible for inclusion in the Register unless it meets strict criteria.22 The fact that some reconstruction has occurred within the boundaries of a traditional cultural property, however, does not justify regarding the property as ineligible for inclusion in the Register. For example, individuals involved in the revitalization of traditional Hawaiian culture and religion have reconstructed certain religious structures on the island of Kaho'olawe; while the structures themselves might not be eligible for inclusion in the Register, their con- Several hundred persons visit this shrine to Don Pedrito Jaramillo, curandero (faith healer), yearly to seek his healing spirit. (Curtis Tunnell, Texas Historical Commission) 17 �Tahquitz Canyon, in southern California, is included in the National Register because of its association with the traditions of the Cahuilla Indians. The ancestors of the Cahuilla came into this world from a lower one at the beginning of time, and an evil spirit, named Tahquitz, is believed to live in the upper reaches of the canyon. (Thomas F. King) The fact that a property may have gone unused for a lengthy period of time, with use beginning again only recently, does not make the property ineligible for the Register. For example, assume that the Indian tribe referred to above used the mountain peak in prehistory for communication with the supernatural, but was forced to abandon such use when it was confined to a distant reservation, or when its members were converted to Christianity. Assume further that a revitalization of traditional religion has be- 18 gun in the last decade, and as a result the peak is again being used for vision quests similar to those carried out there in prehistory. The fact that the contemporary use of the peak has little continuous time depth does not make the peak ineligible; the peak's association with the traditional activity reflected in its contemporary use is what must be considered in determining eligibility. The length of time a property has been used for some kinds of traditional purposes may be difficult to es- tablish objectively. Many cultural uses may have left little or no physical evidence, and may not have been noted by ethnographers or early visitors to the area. Some such uses are explicitly kept from outsiders by members of the group ascribing significance to the property. Indirect evidence and inference must be weighed carefully, by or in consultation with trained ethnographers, ethnohistorians, and other specialists, and professional judgements made that represent one's best, goodfaith interpretation of the available data. �V. DOCUMENTING TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PROPERTIES GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Generally speaking, documentation of a traditional cultural property, on a National Register nomination form or in eligibility documentation, should include a presentation of the results of interviews and observations that systematically describe the behavior, beliefs, and knowledge that are germane to understanding the property's cultural significance, and an organized analysis of these results. The data base from which the formal nomination or eligibility determination documents are derived should normally include appropriate tape recordings, photographs, field notes, and primary written records. Obtaining and presenting such documentation can present special challenges, however. First, those who ascribe significance to the property may be reluctant to allow its description to be committed to paper, or to be filed with a public agency that might release information about it to inappropriate people. Second, documentation necessarily involves addressing not only the physical characteristics of the property as perceived by an outside observer, but culturally significant aspects of the property that may be visible or knowable only to those in whose traditions it is significant. Third, boundaries are often difficult to define. Fourth, in part because of the difficulty involved in defining boundaries, it is important to address the setting of the property. THE PROBLEM OF CONFIDENTIALITY Particularly where a property has supernatural connotations in the minds of those who ascribe significance to it, or where it is used in ongoing cultural activities that are not readily shared with outsiders, it may be strongly desired that both the nature and the precise location of the property be kept secret. Such a desire on the part of those who value a property should of course be respected, but it presents considerable problems for the use of National Register data in planning. In simplest terms, one cannot protect a property if one does not know that it is there. The need to reveal information about something that one's cultural system demands be kept secret can present agonizing problems for traditional groups and individuals. It is one reason that information on traditional cultural properties is not readily shared with Federal agencies and others during the planning and environmental review of construction and land use projects. However concerned one may be about the impacts of such a project on a traditional cultural property, it may be extremely difficult to express these concerns to an outsider if one's cultural system provides no acceptable mechanism for doing so. These difficulties are sometimes hard for outsiders to understand, but they should not be underrated. In some cultures it is sincerely believed that sharing information inappropriately with outsiders will lead to death or severe injury to one's family or group. As noted above, information on historic properties, including traditional cultural properties, may be kept confidential under the authority of 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act.25 This may not always be enough to satisfy the concerns of those who value, but fear the results of releasing information on, traditional cultural properties. In some cases these concerns may make it necessary not to nominate such properties formally at all, or not to seek formal determinations of eligibility, but simply to maintain some kind of minimal data in planning files. For example, in planning deployment of the MX missile system in Wyoming, the Air Force became aware that the Lakota Indian tribe in the area had concerns about the project's impacts on traditional cultural properties, but was unwilling to identify and document the precise locations and significance of such properties. To resolve this problem, Air Force representatives met with the tribe's traditional cultural authorities and indicated where they wanted to construct the various facilities required by the deployment; the tribe's authorities indicated which of these locations were likely to present problems, without saying what the nature of the problems might be. The Air Force then designed the project to minimize use of such areas. In a narrow sense, obviously, the Air Force did not go through the process of evaluation recommended by this Bulletin; no specific properties were identified or evaluated to determine their eligibility for inclusion in the National Register. In a broader sense, however, the Air Force's approach represents excellent practice in the identification and treatment of traditional cultural prop25 For details regarding maintaining confidentiality, see Guidelines for Restricting Information About Historic and Prehistoric Resources. 19 �erties. The Air Force consulted carefully and respectfully with those who ascribed traditional cultural significance to properties in the area, and sought to accommodate their concerns. The tribe responded favorably to this approach, and did not take undue advantage of it. Presumably, had the tribe expressed concern about such expansive or strategically located areas as to suggest that it was more interested in impeding the deployment than in protecting its valued properties the Air Force would have had to use a different approach. In summary: the need that often exists to keep the location and nature of a traditional cultural property secret can present intractable problems. These must be recognized and dealt with flexibly, with an understanding of the fact that the management problems they may present to Federal agencies or State Historic Preservation Officers may pale into insignificance when compared with the wrenching cultural conflicts they may present to those who value the properties. DOCUMENTING VISIBLE AND NON-VISIBLE CHARACTERISTICS Documentation of a traditional cultural property should present not only its contemporary physical appearance and, if known, its historical appearance, but also the way it is described in the relevant traditional belief or practice. For example, one of the important cultural locations on Mt. Tonaachaw in Truk is an area called "Neepisaram," which physically looks like nothing but a grassy slope near the top of the mountain. In tradition, however, it is seen as the ear of "kuus," a metaphorical octopus identified with the mountain, and as the home of "Saraw," a warrior spirit/barracuda. Obviously a nomination of "Neepisaram" would be incomplete and largely irrelevant to its significance if it identified it only as a grassy slope near the top of the mountain. PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE Describing the period of significance for a traditional cultural property can be an intellectual challenge, particularly where the traditions of a Native American or Micronesian group are involved. In such cases 20 there are often two different kinds of "periods." One of these is the period in which, in tradition, the property gained its significance—the period during which the Cahuilla people emerged from the lower world through Tahquitz Canyon, or the period when civilization came to Truk through the magical arrival of the culture-bearer Sowukachaw on Mt. Tonaachaw. Such periods often have no fixed referent in time as it is ordinarily construed by Euroamerican scholarship.26 To the Cahuilla, their ancestors simply emerged from the lower world at the beginning of human life on earth, whenever that may have been. A Trukese traditional authority will typically say simply that Sowukachaw came to Truk "noomw noomw noomw" (long, long ago). It is usually fruitless, and of little or no relevance to the eligibility of the property involved for inclusion in the National Register, to try to relate this sort of traditional time to time as measured by Euroamerican history. Traditional "periods" should be defined in their own terms. If a traditional group says a property was created at the dawn of time, this should be reported in the nomination or eligibility documentation; for purposes of National Register eligibility there is no need to try to establish whether, according to Euroamerican scholarship or radiocarbon age determination, it really was created at the dawn of time. The second period that is often relevant to a traditional property is its period of use for traditional purposes. Although direct, physical evidence for such use at particular periods in the past may be rare in the case of properties used by native American groups, it is usually possible to fix a period of use, at least in part, in ordinary chronological time. Establishing the period of use often involves the weighing of indirect evidence and inference. Interviews with traditional cultural authorities are usually the main sources of data, sometimes, supplemented by the study of historical accounts or by archeological investigations. Based on such sources of data it should be possible at least to reach supportable inferences about whether generations before the present one have used a property for traditional 26 Except, perhaps, by some of the more esoteric subfields of cosmology and quantum mechanics. purposes, suggesting that it was used for such purposes more than fifty years ago. It is seldom possible to determined when the traditional use of property began, however—this tends to be lost, as it were, in the mists of antiquity. BOUNDARIES Defining the boundaries of a traditional cultural property can present considerable problems. In the case of the Helkau Historic District in northern California, for example, much of the significance of the property in the eyes of its traditional users is related to the fact that it is quiet, and that is presents extensive views of natural landscape without modern intrusions. These factors are crucial to the medicine making done by traditional religious practitioners in the district. If the boundaries of the district were defined on the basis of these factors, however, the district would take in a substantial portion of California's North coast Range. Practically speaking, the boundaries of a property like the Helkau District must be defined more narrowly, even though this may involve making some rather arbitrary decisions. In the case of the Helkau District, the boundary was finally drawn along topographic lines that included all the locations at which traditional practitioners carry out medicine-making and similar activities, the travel routes between such locations, and the immediate viewshed surround this complex of locations and routes. In defining boundaries, the traditional uses to which the property is put must be carefully considered. For example, where a property is used as the Helkau District is used, for contemplative purposes, viewsheds are important and must be considered in boundary definition. In an urban district significant for its association with a given social group, boundaries might be established where residence or use by the group ends, or where such residence or use is no longer reflected in the architecture or spatial organization of the neighborhood. Changes in boundaries through time should also be taken into consideration. For example, archeological evidence may indicate that a particular cultural practice occurred within particular boundaries in the past, but the practice today may occur within dif- �ferent boundaries perhaps larger, perhaps smaller, perhaps covering different areas. The fact that such changes have taken place, and the reasons they have taken place, if these can be ascertained, should be documented and considered in developing a rationale for the boundaries identified in the nomination or eligibility documentation. DESCRIBING THE SETTING The fact that the boundaries of a traditional cultural property may be drawn more narrowly than they would be if they included all significant viewsheds or lands on which noise might be intrusive on the practices that make the property significant does not mean that visual or auditory intrusions occurring outside the boundaries can be ignored. In the context of eligibility determination or nomination, such intrusions if severe enough may compromise the property's integrity. In planning subsequent to nomination or eligibility determination, the Advisory Council's regulations define "isolation of the property from or alteration of the character of the property's setting" as an adverse effect "when that character contributes to the property's qualification for the National Register" (36 CFR 800.9(b)(2)). Similarly, the Council's regulations define as adverse effects "introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that are out of character with the property or alter its setting" (36 CFR 800.9 To assist in determining whether a given activity outside the boundaries of a traditional cultural property may constitute an adverse effect, it is vital that the nomination form or eligibility documentation discuss those qualities of a property's visual, auditory, and atmospheric setting that contribute to its significance, including those qualities whose expression extends beyond the boundaries of the property as such into the surrounding environment. Individual structures can have traditional cultural significance, like this Yapese men's house, used by Yapese today in the conduct of deliberations on matters of cultural importance. (Yap State Historic Preservation Office) 21 �COMPLETING REGISTRATION FORMS The following discussion is organized with reference to the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (NPS 10-900), which must be used in nominating properties to the National Register. To the extent feasible, documentation supporting a request for a determination of eligibility should be organized with reference to, and if possible using, the Registration Form as well. Where the instructions given in the National Register bulletin entitled How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, are sufficient without further discussion, this is indicated. 1. Name of Property The name given a traditional cultural property by its traditional users should be entered as its historic name. Names, inventory reference numbers, and other designations ascribed to the property by others should be entered under other names/ site number. 2. Location Follow How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, but note discussion of the problem of confidentiality above. 22 3. Classification 9. Major Bibliographical References Follow How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. Follow How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. Where oral 4. State/Federal Agency Certification Follow How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. 5. National Park Service Certification To be completed by National Register. 6. Function or Use Follow How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. 7. Description Follow How to Complete the National Register Registration Form as appli- cable. It may be appropriate to address both visible and non-visible aspects of the property here, as discussed under General Considerations above; alternatively, non-visible aspects of the property may be discussed in the statement of significance. sources have been employed, append a list of those consulted and identify the locations where field notes, audio or video tapes, or other records of interviews are housed, unless consultants have required that this information be kept confidential; if this is the case, it should be so indicated in the documentation. 10. Geographical Data Follow How to Complete the National Register Registration Form as appli- cable, but note the discussion of boundaries and setting under General Considerations above. If it is necessary to discuss the setting of the property in detail, this discussion should be appended as accompanying documentation and referenced in this section. 11. Form Prepared By 8. Statement of Significance Follow How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. Follow How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, being care- Accompanying Documentation ful to address significance with sensitivity for the viewpoints of those who ascribe traditional cultural significance to the property. Follow How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, except that if the group that ascribes cultural significance to the property objects to the inclusion of photographs, photographs need not be included. If photographs are not included, provide a statement explaining the reason for their exclusion. �VI. CONCLUSION The National Historic Preservation Act, in its introductory section, establishes that "the historical and cultural foundations of the Nation should be preserved as a living part of our community life in order to give a sense of orientation to the American people"27 (16U.S.C470(b)(2)). The cultural foundations of America's ethnic and social groups, be they Native American or historical immigrant, merit rec7 ognition and preservation, particularly where the properties that represent them can continue to function as living parts of the communities that ascribe cultural value to them. Many such properties have been included in the National Register, and many others have been formally determined eligible for inclusion, or regarded as such for purposes of review under 106 of the Act. Federal agencies, State Historic Preservation Officers, and others who are involved in the inclusion of such properties in the Register, or in their recognition as eligible for inclusion, have raised a number of important questions about how to distinguish between traditional cultural properties that are eligible for inclusion in the Register and those that are not. It is our hope that this Bulletin will help answer such questions. 16U.S.C. 470(b)(2). 23 �VII. RECOMMENDED BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES FEDERAL STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and National Park Service 1988 Identification of Historic Properties: a Decision making Guide for Managers. ACHP, Washington, DC. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 1989 Public Participation in Section 106 Review: a Guide for Agency Officials. ACHP, Washington, DC. National Park Service 1983 Archeology and Historic Preservation; Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines. 48 FR 44716-42. National Park Service 1988 The Section 110 Guidelines: Guidelines for Federal Agency Responsibilities Under Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 53 FR 4727-46. National Park Service National Register bulletins: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation How to Complete the National Register Registration Form Guidelines for Restricting Information About Historic and Prehistoric Resources PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL MANUALS Bartis, P. 1979 Folklife and Fieldwork. American Folklife Center, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. 24 Langanese, L.L. and Celya Frank 1981 Lives: an Anthropological Approach to Biography. Navato. Chandler and Sharp, Inc. Stoffle, R.W., M.C. Jake, MJ. Evans and P.A. Bunte 1981 Establishing Native American Concerns in Social Impact Assessments. Social Impact Assessment 65/66:3-10, New York. Werner, O. and M. Schoepfle 1987 Systematic Fieldwork, Volumes I and II. Sage Publications. EXAMPLES Bean, Lowell J. and Sylvia B. Vane (eds.) 1978 Persistence and Power: A Study of Native American Peoples in the Sonoran Desert and the Devers-Palo Verde High Voltage Transmission Line. Report prepared by Cultural Systems Research, Inc., Menlo Park, CA for Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead, CA. Bean, Lowell J. and Sylvia B. Vane (eds.) 1979 Native Americans of Western Riverside County, California and the Devers-Mira Loma 500 kV Transmission Line Route (Lamb Canyon-Mira Loma Section). Report prepared by Cultural Systems Research, Inc., Menlo Park, CA, for Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead, CA. Bean, Lowell J. and Sylvia B. Vane (eds.) 1979 Allen-Warner Valley Energy System: Western Transmission System Ethnographic and Historical Resources. Report prepared by Cultural Systems Research Inc., Menlo Park, CA, for Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead, CA. Bean, Lowell J., Sylvia B. Vane, Michael Lerch and Jackson Young 1981 Native American Places in the San Bernardino National Forest, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California. Report prepared by Cultural Systems Research, Inc., Menlo Park, CA, for the USDA Forest Service, South Zone Contracting Office, Arcadia, CA (Contract No. 539JA9-0-212). Carroll, Charles H. 1982 An Ethnographic Investigation of Sites and Locations of Cultural Significance to the Navajo People to be Affected by PNM's Four Corners to Ambrosia to Pajarito 500 kV Transmission Project. Public Service Company of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Carroll, Charles H. 1983 The Ute Mountain Ethnographic Study. Public Service Company of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Carter, T. and C. Fleischhauer 1988 The Grouse Creek Cultural Survey: Integrating Folklife and Historic Preservation Field Research. American Folklife Center, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Goldberg, S.K. and D.J. Theodoratus 1985 Cultural Resources of the Crane Valley Hydroelectric Project Area, Madera County, California. Volume I: Ethnographic, Historic, and Archaeological Overviews and Archaeological Survey. Report prepared by Info tec Research, Sonora CA, and Theodoratus Cultural Research, Fair Oaks, CA, for the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, CA. �Hufford M. 1986 One Space, Many Places: Folklife and Land Use in New Jersey's Pinelands National Reserve. American Folklife Center, Library of Congress, Washington, DC Johnston, James and Elizabeth Budy 1983 Lost Creek Canyon Native American Sites. National Register of Historic Places Eligibility Evaluation. Manuscript. USDA Forest Service, Lassen National Forest, CA. McCarthy, H. C. Blount, E. McKee and D.J. Theodoratus 1985 Ethnographic and Historic Survey for the Big Creek Expansion Project. Report prepared by Theodoratus Cultural Research, Fair Oaks, CA, for Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead, CA. National Park Service 1985 Promised Land on the Solomon: Black Settlement at Nicodemus, Kansas. National Park Service, Rocky Mountain Region. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Stoffle, Richard W. and Henry E Dobyns (eds.) 1982 Nuvagantu. Nevada Indians Comment on the Intermountain Power Project, Utah Section. Intermountain-Adelanto Bipole 1 Transmission Line. Ethnographic (Native American) Resources. Report submitted by the Applied Urban Field School, University of Wisconsin, Parkside, Kenosha, WI, to Applied Conservation Technology, Inc. Stoffle, Richard W. and Henry E. Dobyns (eds.) 1983 PauxantTuvip. Utah Indians Comment on the Intermountain Power Project, Utah Section. Intermountain-Adelanto Bipole I Transmission Line. Ethnographic (Native American) Resources. Report submitted by the Applied Urban Field School, University of Wisconsin, Parkside, Kenosha, WI, to Applied Conservation Technology, Inc. Stoffle, Richard W., et al. 1984 Toyavita Piavuhuru Koroin: Ethnohistory and Native American Religious Concerns in the Fort Carson-Pinon Canyon Maneuver Area. Report submitted by the Applied Urban Field School, University of Wisconsin, Parkside, Kenosha, WI, to the National Park OTHER Service. Association on American Indian Theodoratus Cultural Research, Inc./ Affairs Archaeological Consulting and 1988 American Indian Religious Research Services, Inc. Freedom. Special Supplement to 1984 Cultural Resources Overview of Indian Affairs, Number 116, New the Southern Sierra Nevada: An Ethnographic,Linguistic, Archaeologi- York, NY cal and Historical Study of the Sierra Loomis, O.H. National Forest, Sequoia National 1983 Cultural Conservation: the Forest, and Bakersfield District of the Protection of Cultural Heritage in the Bureau of Land Management. Report United States. American Folklife to the U.S. Department of AgriculCenter, Library of Congress, ture, Forest Service, South Central Washington, DC Contracting Office, Bishop CA. Michaelson, Robert S. Theodoratus, D.J., CM. Blount, 1986 American Indian Religious A.L. Hurtado, P.N. Hawkes and Freedom Litigation: Promise and Peril. M.Ashman Journal of Law and Religion 3:471978 Balsam Meadow Cultural 76. Resource Study: Ethnology and U.S. Commission on Civil Rights History. Report prepared by 1983 Religion in the Constitution: Theodoratus Cultural Research, A Delicate Balance. Clearinghouse Fair Oaks, CA, for Southern Publication No. 80, U.S. CommisCalifornia Edison Company, sion on Civil Rights, Washington, Rosemead, CA. DC Theodoratus, D.J. et al. U.S. Department of the Interior 1979 Cultural Resources of the 1979 American Indian Religious Chimney Rock Section, GasquetFreedom Act: Federal Agencies Task Orleans Road, Six Rivers National Force Report. Washington, DC. Forest. Report prepared by Theodoratus Cultural Research, Walker, Deward E., Jr. Fair Oaks, CA, for USDA Forest 1987 Protection of American Indian Service. Sacred Geography: Toward a Functional Understanding of Indian Theodoratus, D.J. Religion Focusing on a Protective 1982 Ethnographic Cultural Resources Investigation of the Big Creek- Standard of Integrity. Paper preSpringville-Magunden and Big Creek- sented at the Workshop on Sacred Geography, Harvard Center for the Rector-Vestal-Magunden TransmisStudy of World Religions, May 5-6, sion Corridors. Report prepared by Cambridge, MA. Theodoratus Cultural Research, Fair Oaks, CA, for Southern White, D.R.M. (ed.) California Edison Company, 1982 Proceedings of the First National Rosemead, CA. Conference of the Task Force on Cultural Resource Management. Woods CM. Edison Electric Institute, Washing1982 APS/SDG&E Interconnection ton, DC. Project Native American Cultural Resources: Miguel to the Colorado River and Miguel to Mission Tap. Report prepared by Wirth Associates, Inc., San Diego, CA, for San Diego Gas and Electric Company, San Diego, CA. York, Frederick F. 1981 An Ethnographic Survey of the Public Service Company of New Mexico's Proposed New Town Site and Its Environs. Human Environmental Resource Services Corporation, Anthropological Series Number 1, Albuquerque. 25 �VIII. APPENDIX I A DEFINITION OF "CULTURE" Early in this Bulletin a shorthand definition of the word "culture" is used. A longer and somewhat more complex definition is used in the National Park Service's internal cultural resource management guidelines (NPS-28). This definition is consistent 26 with that used in this Bulletin, and may be helpful to those who require further elucidation of the term. The definition reads as follows: "Culture (is) a system of behaviors, values, ideologies, and social arrangements. These features, in addition to tools and expressive elements such as graphic arts, help humans interpret their universe as well as deal with features of their environments, natural and social. Culture is learned, transmitted in a social context, and modifiable. Synonyms for culture include "lifeways," "customs," "traditions," "social practices," and "folkways." The terms "folk culture" and "folklife" might be used to describe aspects of the system that are unwritten, learned without formal instruction, and deal with expressive elements such as dance, song, music and graphic arts as well as storytelling." �IX. APPENDIX II PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS: ETHNOGRAPHY When seeking assistance in the identification, evaluation, and management of traditional cultural properties, agencies should normally seek out specialists with ethnographic research training, typically including, but not necessarily limited to: I. Language skills: it is usually extremely important to talk in their own language with those who may ascribe value to traditional cultural properties. While ethnographic fieldwork can be done through interpreters, ability in the local language is always preferable. II. Interview skills, for example: • The ability to approach a potential informant in his or her own cultural environment, explain and if necessary defend one's research, conduct an interview and minimize disruption, elicit required information, and disengage from the interview in an appropriate manner so that further interviews are welcome; and • The ability to create and conduct those types of interviews that are appropriate to the study being carried out, ensuring that the questions asked are meaningful to those being interviewed, and that answers are correctly understood through the use of such techniques as translating and back-translating. Types of interviews normally carried out by ethnographers, one or more of which may be appropriate during evaluation and documentation of a traditional cultural property, include: • semi-structured interview on a broad topic; • semi-structured interview on a narrow topic; • structured interview on a well defined specific topic; open ended life history/life cycle interview; and • genealogical interview. III. Skill in making and accurately recording direct observations of human behavior, typically including: • The ability to observe and record individual and group behavior in such a way as to discern meaningful patterns; and • The ability to observe and record the physical environment in which behavior takes place, via photography, mapmaking, and written description. IV. Skill in recording, coding, and retrieving pertinent data derived from analysis of textural materials, archives, direct observation, and interviews. Proficiency in such skills is usually obtained through graduate and post-graduate training and supervised experience in cultural anthropology and related disciplines, such as folklore/folklife. 27 �X. APPENDIX III LIST OF NATIONAL REGISTER BULLETINS The Basics How to Apply National Register Criteria for Evaluation * Guidelines for Completing National Register of Historic Places Form Part A: How to Complete the National Register Form * Part B: How to Complete the National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form Researching a Historic Property * Property Types Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Historic Aids to Navigation * Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating and Registering America's Historic Battlefields Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archeological Sites Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Cemeteries and Burial Places How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes * Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating and Registering Historic Mining Sites How to Apply National Register Criteria to Post Offices * Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Properties Associated with Significant Persons Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Properties That Have Achieved Significance Within the Last Fifty Years Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes * Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties * Nominating Historic Vessels and Shipwrecks to the National Register of Historic Places Technical Assistance Contribution of Moved Buildings to Historic Districts; Tax Treatments for Moved Buildings; and Use of Nomination Documentation in the Part I Certification Process Defining Boundaries for National Register Properties* Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning * How to Improve the Quality of Photographs for National Register Nominations National Register Casebook: Examples of Documentation * Using the UTM Grid System to Record Historic Sites The above publications may be obtained by writing to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20240. Publications marked with an asterisk (*) are also available in electronic form on the World Wide Web at www.cr.nps.gov/nr, or send your request by e-mail to nr_reference@nps.gov. 28 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context NationalRegisterBulletin38.pdf Title A name given to the resource National Register Bulletin 38 Subject The topic of the resource . Description An account of the resource National Register Bulletin 38 or "Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties gives the guidelines for evaluating if a site can be put on the National Register of Historic Places based on its "traditional cultural significance." Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Patricia L. Parker and Thomas F. King Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived National Park Service Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register Publications Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1998 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Public Domain Type The nature or genre of the resource Document Language A language of the resource English Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource .pdf Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant United States NARF National Register Traditional Cultural Property https://religionsmn.carleton.edu/files/original/2925ecb419690145d7db9842f1da6b22.pdf 225838a9511acfc20c051c3e81a70946 PDF Text Text � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MinnStarDevelopmentAppPK.pdf Title A name given to the resource MinnStar Application for the Development of Pilot Knob Description An account of the resource MinnStar Builder's application to the City of Mendota Heights to build a housing development on Pilot Knob Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Pilot Knob Preservation Association Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available City of Mendota Heights Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 11/5/2002 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Public Domain Type The nature or genre of the resource Document Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource .pdf Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Pilot Knob, Mendota Heights, Minnesota NARF pilot knob