1
10
5
-
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
�
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
Pilot Knob
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Laura Levitt
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/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
�
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
Pilot Knob
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Laura Levitt
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/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
�
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
Pilot Knob
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Laura Levitt
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/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
�
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
Pilot Knob
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Laura Levitt
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/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
Pilot Knob
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Laura Levitt
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