Loading...
Mendota Heights Natural Resources Management Plan-2002Natural Resources Management Plan City of Mendota Heights Prepared by Barr Engineering Co. July 2002 Financial Assistance Metro Greenways Planning Grant, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Land Cover Data Dakota Soil and Water Conservation District City of Mendota Heights Guy Kullander, Parks Project Manager Barr Engineering Co. Diane Hellekson, Landscape Ecologist Fred Rozumalski, Landscape Ecologist Lynda Petrie, GIS Technician Contents 1. Introduction ... 1 2. Citywide Findings and Strategies ... 5 Overview ... 5 Invasive Species Control ... 7 Natural Area Protection and Enhancement ... 12 Education and Enforcement ... 17 3. Focus Area Recommendations ... 21 Valley Park ... 21 Copperfield Ponds ... 24 Rogers Lake ... 26 Other Park Recommendations ... 28 Summary ... 31 4. Resources ... 33 5. Maps ... 35 A. Land Cover: North Section B. Land Cover: South Section C. Green Space Overview and Management Priorities D. Buckthorn Control Priority Areas E. Valley Park F. Copperfield Ponds and Friendly Hills G. Rogers Lake Park H. Southeastern City Parks I. Ivy Hills and Wentworth Parks J. Friendly Marsh Appendices A. Invasive Plant Identification and Control B. Buckthorn program literature C. Prescribed Fire as a Management Tool D. Presettlement Vegetation 1. Introduction Although located in the heart of the metropolitan area, with the majority of its land developed, Mendota Heights constitutes a critical piece in the regional natural resources fabric. With its profusion of city parks and its proximity to large natural areas, including the Mississippi Flyway migratory route, the city is poised to make important contributions to the ecology of the south- central Twin Cities area. Due to the confluence of two efforts in Dakota County, 2001 was an ideal time for Mendota Heights to begin investigating its open spaces and planning for their future. First, the county was just completing its natural re- sources inventory—a detailed digital documentation of land cover. Second, a task force of public and private concerns began researching the Northern Dakota County Greenway, a band of contiguous or nearly contigu- ous green space extending from the central part of the county north to the Mississippi River. Mendota Heights is an essential link in this habitat corridor. (See map on next page.) The wetland complexes shown here in green are an important part of the natural areas in and around Mendota Heights. This existing open space provides a framework for the city's natural resources management decisions. In Mendota Heights, as in other cities in the region, residents are becoming increasingly interested in local environmental issues, and in preserving open spaces for aesthetic and recreational reasons. This management plan responds to these interests, and will help the city make the most of its resources and the time and money spent managing them. The underlying premise of this plan: A well-managed natural landscape is beautiful and healthful for both people and wildlife. Diverse open spaces teeming with life offer unique delights to those who live near them, including a sense of discovery that mown and manicured spaces alone cannot match. Because people like to live near nature—and because natural areas are increasingly scarce in the metro area—property values are high in neighborhoods near ponds, woods and trails. In Barr Engineering- Company 1 and strategies for individual parks and land parcels. The report includes descriptions of natural resources; on -the -ground and programmatic management strategies; maps of the city and three focus areas; and fact sheets on invasive species of concern. METHODOLOGY Barr Engineering staff prepared base maps using 2000 digital orthophoto quads and new Dakota County land cover data. A landscape ecologist spent fall and early winter 2001 and spring 2002 surveying the city's resources. She conducted in-depth investigations of three focus areas (Valley Park, Copperfield Ponds and Rogers Lake) and paid brief visits to all city parks and other open spaces (including schoolyards and public works buildings). Whenever possible, she considered adjacent private land for its impact on park resources. The field notes were organized into areas of concern, both geographically and thematically, and invasive species information was digitized in ArcView 3.2, a GIS software program. The resulting maps, created in ArcMap 8.2, follow page 35. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The City of Mendota Heights and the Metro Greenways Planning Grant Program, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, funded this project. Dakota Soil and Water Conservation District provided invaluable data from its 2001 Natural Resources Inventory (NRI). Leadership came from Guy Kullander, Parks Project Manager for the City of Mendota Heights, and the city's Parks and Recreation Board, chaired by Richard Spicer. Barr Engineering Company 3 2. Citywide Findin:s and Strategies OVERVIEW Land cover maps from the Dakota County Natural Resources Inventory provide a starting point for understanding the resources in Mendota Heights. Land cover maps A and B employ broad categories in the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) to show the general character of the city. Compare these maps with the Presettlement Vegetation map (Appendix D) to get a picture of how much has changed in the past century. Today, more than 70 percent of Mendota Heights is categorized as Artificial Surfaces and Associated Areas, which includes commercial and industrial areas as well as most residential neighbor- hoods. Artificial surfaces are largely impervious surfaces—roads, driveways, parking lots and rooftops—which drain directly into storm sewer systems. Storm - water routed this way carries more pollutants to lakes, streams and the river, and it cannot soak into the ground, where it is available to support plants and recharge aquifers. While artificial areas may include trees and other plants, their wildlife habitat value is limited. Many of these areas, especially those where artificial surface exceeds 50 percent (bright purple shaded), are essentially barriers in the natural resources network. Nonnative plant species, lack of complex vegetation structure, mown grasses and pavement offer little or no food, shelter or safe travel corridors for wildlife. Wild plum in bloom at Wentworth Park, top, and red oak at Hagstrom-King Park. Native species like these offer habitat for wildlife as well as beauty for residents. Cultivated or Maintained Vegetation, with less than 4 percent impervious surface, is the second most common land cover classification. It includes golf courses, cemeteries and recreational parks, among other areas. While this category offers more continuous plant cover than Artificial Surfaces, Barr Engineering Company 5 cultivated vegetation does not generally provide strong ecological value, as nonnative plants and mown turfgrass dominate. This study does not include the vast wetland com- plex in Fort Snelling State Park, as it is not con- trolled by the City. Excluding this area, then, the next most prevalent land cover is forest, found in city parks, alongside roads and surrounding lakes and ponds. Unfortunately, much of Mendota Heights' forest is severely degraded by exotic invasive plants. The same is true of most of the city's small woodland, shrubland and wetland areas. Invasive plants destroy habitat by displacing native plants that provide food and shelter for wildlife. Controlling these species is an essential step in preserving and restoring the integrity of the city's natural areas. Overall control strategies are discussed later in this chapter, with more detailed recommendations in Chapter 3 and the Appendix. View at Friendly Hills Park—picturesque but full of invasive plants such as reed canary grass (foreground), which offer less value for wildlife. As shown on Map C, the quality of natural areas in Mendota Heights is generally not high. None of the surveyed areas can be considered completely intact natural communities—that is, with a wide variety of native plants and few or no exotic plant invaders. A significant quantity of the land, including much of Valley Park, is degraded but restorable. This means that while invasive plants are present and native species have declined, there is enough intact that restoration would mean control and augmentation rather than complete re-creation. To restore the land ranked "severely degraded," on the other hand, would be a much more aggres- sive undertaking. Since invasive plants dominate and hydrologic regimes may be permanently disrupted, restoration would mean large-scale invasive plant eradication then complete replanting of native species. Despite the current shortcomings in plant community quality, Mendota Heights' location and combination of resources is helping support such species as great blue heron, egret and chorus frogs, all observed during the survey. Deer, too, are present in several parks. (While many people 6 Mendota Heights Natural Resources Management Plan enjoy seeing these beautiful animals, a too -large deer population can wreak havoc on ground layer vegetation and shrubs, and thwart restoration efforts. Contact the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Area Manager, 651-296-5290, for control suggestions.) By following the recommendations in this report, Mendota Heights residents will be more likely to continue to enjoy wildlife as part of their day-to-day experience. Great blue herons find food in the city's ponds and Map C, which illustrates the priority areas for manage - wetlands. ment and restoration, is defined in part by the Suburban Dakota County Greenway, which aims to reconnect natural areas from central Dakota County to the river. With its proximity to the Mississippi River and its large natural areas, as well as Dodge Nature Center, Mendota Heights is a critical link in this Greenway. The Greenway, in turn, can potentially enrich natural communities in Mendota Heights, improving quality of life for both people and wildlife. The management and restoration priorities set forth in this report are also informed by the current quality of individual parks and natural areas, and the presence of relatively rare native species. By focusing its management efforts on these highest quality areas first, Mendota Heights will help ensure that they survive, and help prevent more costly, labor-intensive restoration work later 011. Both management and restoration efforts can be informed by the Presettlement Vegetation map (Appendix D), which shows general plant community types that once existed in the area. The citywide management strategy is organized into three general areas: A) invasive species control; B) enhancement of existing natural areas; and C) education and enforcement. A. INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL In Mendota Heights, as in most every Twin Cities municipality, invasive species pose the most imme- diate threat to natural resources. Setting priorities and understanding control methods is one part of tackling this problem. But logistical considerations, such as finding sufficient staff and funding to mount control projects, is often the limiting factor. Buckthorn is the most significant invasive species enemy in Mendota heights. Controlling it will help increase diversity and beauty in forests and woodlands. Barr Engineering Company 7 Volunteer assistance and grant programs, used separately or in conjunction, can help defray costs of controlling invasive species. Volunteer efforts. Local homeowner associations, garden clubs, school groups and others can be dedicated and enthusiastic stewards, when their efforts are effectively organized and focused on a specific goal. Various metro communities, including the City of Minneapolis, have organized "buckthorn bash" events, which assist both natural resources management and education efforts. (See Appendix B for contacts and program examples.) Once invasive plants are controlled in a given area, replanting may be necessary, and with proper training and supervision, volunteers can help with that, too. Grant programs. The following programs could help Mendota Heights defray up to half the cost of invasive species control efforts. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Exotic Species Program may also have funding suggestions. Call 651-296-2835. • Environmental Partnerships. Contact: DNR Area Grant Manager, St. Paul, 651-772-7982. Encour- ages environmental service projects and related education activities through public and private partnerships. Private organizations, cities, counties, townships, and school districts may apply. Applicants must fund at least 50 percent of the project through non -state contributions of cash, materials, or in-kind services. The maximum grant is $20,000. • Conservation Partners Grant Program. Contact: DNR Area Grant Manager, 651-772.7982. Aims to improve fish, wildlife, and native plant habitats and to fund research and surveys that improve such habitats. Private organizations, cities, counties, townships, and school districts may apply. Applicants must fund at least 50 percent of the total project through non -state contributions of cash, materials, or in-kind services. The maximum grant is $20,000. • Community Conservation Cost -Share Grant Program. Contact: Dakota Soil and Water Conservation District. 651-480-7779. Fifty percent matching grants of up to $5,000 available for projects that preserve or restore natural resources in nonagricultural areas of Dakota County. Grants are awarded on the basis of the project's benefit to water quality, erosion control, wildlife habitat and other criteria. Available to individual or groups of property owners/occupants. Buckthorn The most daunting invasive plant problem in Mendota Heights is common buckthorn, sometimes found in conjunction with its relative, glossy buckthorn. This plant is rampant in the metropolitan area, invading woodlands, forests and fields. When left uncontrolled, it crowds out native shrubs and herbaceous plants and prevents native trees from regenerating. The result: a thicket of a single species that provides limited habitat and contributes to erosion due to the lack of groundcover beneath it. At this point, buckthorn invasion of Mendota Heights natural areas is serious, but not insurmountable. 8 Mendota Heights Natural Resources Management Plan Top, a mature female buckthorn tree, with a ring of green seedlings. Bottom, a profusion of buckthorn seedlings in Copperfield Ponds area. Buckthorn is easy to identify in fall, when it remains green long after other trees and shrubs lose their leaves. Citywide Control Strategy Because buckthorn poses a long-term problem, a methodical approach to eradica- tion in Mendota Heights will be most effective. The following recommendations list control areas in order of priority. For locations of the top priority items, refer to Map D, as well as larger scale focus area maps. 1. Focus first on areas with the least infes- tation (Friendly Hills ponds, Hwy. 13 ravine and slopes, Ivy Hills prairie). This will help preserve their high quality and reduce the need for extensive control efforts in the future. 2. Next, control buckthorn in the highest quality areas of the Suburban Dakota County Greenway (portions of Valley Park, Copperfield Ponds). Again, the idea is to preserve the best quality areas that remain before buckthorn has an opportunity to reduce species richness even further. Control all buckthorn plants in these places, along with fruiting specimens that occur in adjacent (possibly low -quality) areas. This eliminates the local seed source and helps prevent reinfestation. 3. Target natural areas outside corridor that are vulnerable due to the presence of desirable species. (Rogers Lake Park, Hagstrom-King Park). 4. Dense concentrations of buckthorn are next in line, first in areas where removal is unlikely to elicit resident objections (Wentworth Park), which may emerge where the trees serve as a screen (Kensington Park for example). Continue homeowner education efforts, leading up to further buckthorn eradication in residential areas. 5. The last priority for control is the remaining, low -quality areas within corridor, which will require significant effort to improve—probably both eradication and replanting. For large areas 9 Barr Engineering Company start by eliminating the fruiting (female) plants to prevent further spread by seed. Buckthorn removal is a long-term management issue and, as such, control efforts should be documented and progress monitored regularly. For details on identifying and managing buckthorn and other problem plants, see Appendix A, Invasive Species Identification and Management. Private residents are important partners in controlling buck- thorn, so education efforts, detailed under Section C of this chapter, should be an integral part of the city's control program. In order to eliminate seed sources, residents must control buckthorn on their own property, especially those adjacent areas undergoing city buckthorn control efforts. Since nonnative honeysuckle often occurs in conjunction with buckthorn, the two species can be efficiently targeted at the same time. Garlic mustard: Eradicate small patches now to avoid big problems later. Dodge Nature Center in Mendota Heights offers advice and support with buckthorn removal, including low-cost rental of weed wrenches, which are excellent for pulling saplings. Consult the center's environmental awareness web page: www.dodgenaturecenter.org/enviraware.htm or call 651-455-4531 buckthorn identification and control assistance. Other Invasive Species While buckthorn is the most pervasive invasive plant in Mendota Heights, the following species are also contributing to a decline in ecological quality. • Garlic mustard • Siberian elm • Crown vetch • Spotted knapweed • Purple loosestrife • Birdsfoot trefoil • Black locust • Amur maple • Nonnative honeysuckle • Sweet clover • Smooth brome • Canada thistle • Reed canary grass In general, these plants should be controlled as part of site-specific management efforts, set forth in Chapter 3. However some species, in certain locations in the city, should be targets of immediate, aggressive control efforts to prevent their spread. 10 Mendota Heights Natural Resources Management Plan Garlic mustard, for example, appears to be in relatively early stages of invasion in the city. Control these aggressive plants as soon as possible (particularly in Valley Park) before they become a more intractable problem. Sweet clover, a common biennial that spreads by seed, can be controlled by mowing. In Ivy Park it poses a particular threat to a prairie planting, and thus deserves a concerted control effort soon. Another priority for control is Canada thistle, which poses the most pressing concern in Ivy Park and at Copperfield Ponds (see Maps F and I). Not only is the plant painful to encounter, it is in a position to begin spreading to other open spaces in the vicinity and displacing more desirable species. Along with crown vetch and purple knapweed, bridsfoot trefoil is an aggressive component of many seed mixes used along public roadways. Crown vetch, which has been widely planted for erosion control along roadways, creeps by above- ground stolons into adjacent areas. Wherever this species is next to a natural area (such as Marie Avenue and Valley Park) managers should prevent it from encroaching on native vegetation. Other invasive species, such as reed canary grass and smooth brome, are so well -entrenched and/ or ubiquitous that they should only be controlled in special circumstances. For instance, if reed canary grass begins to encroach on a restored area like Rogers Lake, it should be eradicated there. If grading or construction occurs in an area infested with these plants, the city could use the oppor- tunity to eradicate offending species and replant natives, thus increasing diversity and improving habitat value. The seeds of amur maple are numerous and spread to natural forests and woodlands. Reed canary grass is present in all wetlands and most pond edges in Mendota Heights. Smooth brome is common along roadsides, along with a suite of other invasive species such as purple knapweed and birdsfoot trefoil. One final special case among invasives is the ornamental exotic amur maple, which has been planted extensively in Kensington Park. While this plant is easy to grow and very attractive, it is a prolific seed -producer, and thus easily in - Barr Engineering Company 11 vades natural areas, especially forests, where it crowds out native plants. This plant is a particular problem at Copperfield Ponds and in Kensington Park, where many specimens were planted. The trees in Copperfield should be removed soon. Although the Kensington specimens are not immedi- ately adjacent a critical natural area, they do offer a seed source that will continue to pose problems elsewhere. At the very least, the city should halt further introduction of this plant on city property. When existing specimens are gone, they should be replaced with an alternative species, such as serviceberry. See maps for specific locations of invasive plants. Section C discusses education efforts that will assist in the battle against invasive plants. B. NATURAL AREA PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT In conjunction with invasive plant control efforts, the city may wish to take additional, substantive steps to preserve and increase biodiversity. Some of these steps are as simple as reducing mown areas to create buffers around stormwater ponds while others could involve fundraising, volunteer coordination and large-scale plantings. Why are these additional efforts recommended? Native shrubs, like these dogwoods at Wentworth Park, can be planted to increase divsersity on other city property. In some of the least damaged areas of Valley Park, for example, invasive removal will spur a degree of "self-recovery"—a sufficient number of native species are still present to recolonize small areas where, say, buckthorn has been removed. However, where extensive areas of exotic plants have been removed and plant communities are severely degraded, habitat value and ecological function will not improve without human intervention. Reintroducing native species where they have been lost is one important step. In places where natives have already been introduced, such as Rogers Lake and Ivy Park, establishing an ongoing maintenance program is essential. If the sites are not cared for, undesirable plants such as reed canary grass, sweet clover and even buckthorn will rapidly overcome them—and the degradation process will be in full swing once again. The decline of restored areas not only reduces habitat 12 Mendota Heights Natural Resources Management Plan (and, potentially, soil stability and stormwater infiltration), but creates an eyesore. This makes for less attractive neighborhoods and con- tributes to public misunderstanding of the natural landscape. Enhancing open spaces, on the other hand, enhances people's experience with nature and their understanding of its beauty and complexity. Not incidentally, high-quality functional natural areas are important places for children to learn and play. 1. Reduce Lawn Size. In areas where lawn is not actively used for recreation, plant species that increase habitat and infiltration. A neat, mown edge provides a frame for this planted prairie. Mown lawn can be eliminated in many areas that are not actively used for recreation. It could be as simple as reducing the mown area around a pond (to increase filtering of water running down- hill), or as involved as a carefully designed prairie restoration. In non -recreational areas that re- ceive some foot traffic or a neater look, the city could reseed with a lower, fine -textured grass such as red fescue, which makes an attractive, low -maintenance "long lawn" that can be mown as little as once a year. Lawn reduction could be employed in the following areas: As a buffer on slopes around ponds (Wentworth Park, Ivy Hills, Rogers Lake, Hagstrom-King and Friendly Hills). Unmown areas, especially deep- rooted native plants, do a better job of encourag- ing infiltration and intercepting sediment and other pollutants that would otherwise end up in the water. The simplest strategy is to simply allow the grass to grow longer in a band around ponds. Establish new mowing perimeters, then periodically check for invasive plants, such as buckthorn or thistles, and pull or spot treat as necessary (see Appendix for control suggestions for problem species). The pond at Wentworth Park is crying out for `Iakescaping" —using native species to create an algae -battling buffer zone. Barr Engineering Company 13 Occasional mowing, in spring and/or fall, can also be employed for weed control and neatness. Alternatively, a more ambitious restoration could be employed. This would mean killing turf and planting native species that are suited to the site's sun and moisture conditions. The DNR - published book Lakescaping for Wildlife and Water Quality offers instructions on establishing this type of buffer zone. • At large non -recreational public properties, such as schools, city utilities and garages. The delineation of mown areas should be determined by where people congregate and play, the lay of the land and visibility/safety issues. In some of these areas, rainwater gardens could be introduced as well, to decreased runoff entering the stormwater system and flowing, untreated, into lakes and streams. 2. Create Demonstration Planting Areas Establishing native demonstration plantings in highly visible areas would provide beauty for residents as well as communicate the city's natural resources values. Well-designed and well-main- tained plantings could offer an attractive entryway or gathering place and serve to stimulate resident interest in bringing native species into their yards, thus further reinforcing the greenway network. Rather than yet another patch of weeds—which are much the same in every park—visitors would see the seasonal transformation of a variety of native plants. The idea is to focus people's attention on what an ecologically healthy system looks like, thus communicating the advantages of a diverse, ecologi- cally sound landscape. Some potential locations for this demonstration plantings: • Wentworth Park. Eradicate invasives and plant a native demonstration area in the degraded "wild" patch near parking area. A short path and plant ID signs could enhance the educational aspect of this effort. This demonstration garden at the Hennepin County transfer station, shown in its first year, incorporates educational signs about sustainable home landscaping. • Copperfield Pond. An open meadow area, east of Huber Drive near Cheyenne and Decorah Lanes, is currently dominated by nonnative grasses and other weeds (including aggressive thistle). Highly visible, near road and trails, it would be an ideal site for a prairie planting, which would 14 Mendota Heights Natural Resources Management Plan serve to buffer the ponds and introduce native species into a significant wildlife habitat patch. The same planting could be extended south along Huber Drive, to create an entryway at the south trailhead. • Valley Park. The undistinguished entrance to this major park offers little preview of what de- lights lie beyond. The area adjacent the parking area, playground and bridge could be greatly enhanced with vegetation "editing" and judicious replanting. While redesign could incorporate path and streambank improvements—both potentially expensive efforts—even a series of simple improvements would help communicate the value of the park. • Public works building. In conjunction with lawn reduction, prairie patches could be incorporated to the large, sunny open areas around this building. A planting here should be designed to maximize visibility to passersby on Lexington Avenue and facilitate simple maintenance of remaining lawn. • City Hall. The building's front entrance could be enhanced by butterfly gardens or other native plantings to communicate the city's interest in stewardship and to showcase native species and sustainable landscape techniques. Buckthorn could be removed in the back of the building, or elsewhere, by city staff and council members to demonstrate a commitment to the city's green spaces. 3. Maintain and Protect Previously Restored Areas and Other High -Quality Sites The process of native plant community restoration does not end at the time of planting. For any restoration to succeed, regular maintenance is essential. Specific maintenance plans should be required for any city restoration efforts, in order to make wise use of the original investment, establish ecological integrity and provide a beautiful landscape that will garner admiration rather than complaints from residents. The same care should apply to special existing pockets of habitat and native plant diversity. Three areas deserving special maintenance focus are listed here. • Rogers Lake. Following DNR planting, management reverts to the city. This will entail well- informed weeding or spot -spraying three times a season for the first three years (educate work- ers on native plant identification), then monitoring and yearly spot treatment of weeds. More information on Rogers Lake area included in Chapter 3. • Ivy Hills Park. Given the expense and effort already invested, it makes good sense to focus maintenance efforts on the deteriorating prairie plantings around the stormwater pond. Employ professionals for maintenance, or educate city workers about which plants to encourage, which to battle. Controlled burning may be appropriate. Once the vigor of this area is reestablished, it could be augmented with smaller native plantings elsewhere in the park, particularly in the weedy, unkempt areas around trees. • Protect, maintain city -owned patch south of Hwy. 13. While this small parcel is outside the Green- way area, it is worth special consideration for its value in erosion control and as a small habitat 15 Barr Engineering Company patch. While it is far from pristine, it boasts several plants that are rare in the city, including Pennsylvania sedge and yarrow. Ideally, the city would acquire the adjacent privately held woodland, where a surprising variety of wildflowers, such as bloodroot and rue anemone, remain. Funding and Technical Assistance Potential funding sources for enhance- ment/restoration projects include: • Conservation Partners Grant Program. Contact: DNR Area Grant Manager, 651-772.7982. Aims to improve fish, wildlife, and native plant habitats and to fund research and surveys that improve such habitats. Private organizations, cities, counties, townships, and school districts may apply. Applicants must fund at least 50 percent of the total project through non -state contributions of cash, materials, or in-kind services. The maximum grant is $20,000. Bloodroot, a early -blooming native woodland plant, is found just a few steps off Hwy. 13, but due to invasive species encroachment and other disturbances, is rare in the city's wooded parks. • Prairie Stezvardship Planning Assistance. Contact: Bonestroo Associates (for Minn. DNR): 651-604- 4812 or 651-604-4763. Offers technical assistance to landowners with qualifying native prairie acreage or those who wish to restore five or more acres to prairie. Consultant will help land- owners formulate goals, identify plants and suggest educational material, then provide a whole - property stewardship plan or specific site activity plan. Advice on finding implementation assistance is also available Natural and Scenic Area Grant Program. Contact: DNR Natural and Scenic Area Grant Manager, 651-296-4705. The purpose of this program is to increase, protect, and enhance natural and scenic areas. Cities, counties, townships, and school districts may apply. Projects include pur- chase of land or conservation easements. Some funds may be used for interpretive, educational, or boundary signs; or protective fencing. Applicants must fund at least 50 percent of the project through non -state sources. The maximum grant is $500,000. • Community Conservation Cost -Share Grant Program. Contact: Dakota Soil and Water Conservation District. 651-480-7779. Fifty percent matching grants of up to $5,000 available for projects that preserve or restore natural resources in nonagricultural areas'of Dakota County. Grants are awarded on the basis of the project's benefit to water quality, erosion control, wildlife habitat and other criteria. Available to individual or groups of property owners/occupants. • Minnesota Re -Leaf Contact: DNR Metro Forestry (651) 772-7565. To assist Minnesota communi- ties with planting and caring for their trees, to increase energy conservation, to reduce atmo- 16 Mendota Heights Natural Resources Management Plan spheric carbon dioxide, and to achieve other environmental benefits. Purchase and planting of predominantly native trees to conserve energy, benefit wildlife, and establish community windbreaks; educational programs in conjunction with these activities; and conducting tree inventories for land use and comprehensive planning. Local government, private organizations, schools are eligible. C. EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT The people who live and work in Mendota Heights are an important component of the city's natural resources health. Education can help reduce behaviors detrimental to the environment and promote positive ones. Enforcement of existing environmental statutes will help add "teeth" to education efforts. This report identifies three general audiences for such efforts, starting with environmental educa- tion for the city employees. 1. City staff Education can take the form of in-house training sessions and on-site demonstrations. Classes or workshops will help in the areas noted below while fact sheets or a training manual could be developed for ongoing reference. Education sessions could: • Help maintenance crews to recognize invasive plants and prevalent native species and understand techniques for effective control, • Inform staff about specific maintenance regimes for newly restored areas. They should know appropriate timing and Education sessions in the field can help maintenance workers better understand how to manage native and invasive plants techniques for herbicide application, as well as for controlled burns and mowing. Be sure new mowing perimeters (around ponds, for example) are communicated to all crew members. • Teach controlled burn techniques. • Teach best practices for maintaining trees (e.g., mulching, winter protection against sun scald, avoiding damage to trunks). • Explain the overarching principles of natural resources management, so workers are armed with the "whys," as well as the "hows." An understanding of the underpinnings of this ap- Barr Engineering Company 17 proach is likely to encourage more responsive management. Policy -level tactics for improving natural resources include: • Encouraging city landscape designers to specify native shrubs and trees when possible, and remove amur maple from their list of desirable species to plant. • Enforcing regulations that prohibit environmentally damaging practices, such as cutting native vegetation on public property and dumping yard debris in city -owned natural areas, especially wetlands. This practice upsets the natural balance of decomposition and regeneration, and can suppress beneficial ground layer plants and encourage erosion. 2. Residents Start with neighborhood workshops on the functions of natural areas and the price we pay when they are not cared for. Incorporate information on practical stewardship practices that residents can begin using immediately. This type of workshop, in the past held under the auspices of the Depart- ment of Natural Resources and Soil and Water Conservation Districts, have inspired residents in various parts of the metro area to take leadership in improving the ecology of their neighborhoods, as well as discourage damaging practices like debris dumping or overfertilizing lawns. Specific topics that could be emphasized are listed below. These issues also could be communi- cated in brochures or articles in local newsletters. • The advantages of native plants, and how to plant and care for them. This is especially appro- priate for residents in neighborhoods adjacent to water bodies or habitat patches. Potential target audiences include: - neighborhoods adjacent wetlands and ponds, - owners of wooded properties east of Wachtler Avenue and along Hwy 13. - homes on Wentworth Avenue and Wagon Wheel Trail with stormwater swales rather than curb and gutter. Depending on soils, these could be transformed into a showy series of runoff -cleansing rainwater gardens. • The problem of increased stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces and the solution that rainwater gardens can offer. • Invasive plant management (particularly buckthorn). A seminar and on-site workshop could be augmented with brochures or information sheets, and city staff could help facilitate "buckthorn bash" efforts in focused areas. Buckthorn, for example, is a serious problem in backyards east of Kensington Park. • Environmentally friendly yard management, including low -input lawn care (which encourages 18 Mendota Heights Natural Resources Management Plan limited use of fertilizers and pesticides), composting rather than dumping of debris, which smothers ground layer plants and contributes excess nutrients to natural areas. (Dumping occurs in many parks, including Friendly Marsh, Friendly Hills, Copperfield Ponds, Valley Park). 3. Schools Explore partnerships with such schools as Somerset Hills, Friendly Hills, St. Thomas—each of these properties has opportunity for habitat/plant community improvement, which could be effectively linked to an education program. Friendly Hills, for example, is surrounded by buck- thorn. Although children could not be involved in cutting and herbicide application, they could pull seedlings and do "before" and "after" studies of the woodland response to the control efforts. Sibley High School, with its huge expanses of mown turfgrass, offers numerous opportunities for restoration and experimentation. Some of the non -recreational mown areas on school grounds could be converted to prairie or other natural plantings. Students could participate in planting and some maintenance efforts that could in turn be linked to science and cultural curriculum. Funding for Education Efforts The following DNR grant program is aimed specifically at education -related environmental efforts, particularly those than emphasize multilevel community involvement. • Environmental Partnerships. Contact: DNR Metro, St. Paul, 651-772-7982. Encourages environ- mental service projects and related education activities through public and private partnerships. Private organizations, cities, counties, townships, and school districts may apply. Applicants must fund at least 50 percent of the project through non -state contributions of cash, materials, or in-kind services. The maximum grant is $20,000. The other assistance programs, listed on page 16 may also apply to education efforts if a restoration or physical control of species is a component.. Barr Engineering Company 19 3. Focus Areas Recommendations The following three focus areas were selected for their locations relative to the Northern Dakota County Greenway, habitat diversity and potential for restoration. Listed in rough order of priority, these park recommendations are followed by a brief summary of recommendations for managing other city properties. VALLEY PARK This diverse 95 -acre park is Mendota Heights' largest and most strategically located, linking the Minnesota River Valley with other Dakota County resources. Due to its size and diversity of habi- tats, Valley Park offers rich opportunities for both wildlife and nature -watchers. Unfortunately, the park is the victim of various disturbances: invasive plants abound, and stormwater drainage from surrounding roads and buildings has resulted in wetland alterations and severe channel erosion. The most intractable damage has occurred south of Marie Avenue; reclaiming that area would be an enormously complex task. Better to focus effort in the north- ern portion of the park, where more native plant diversity remains and connections to the river and flyways are more critical. Since wetlands throughout the area are dominated by nonnative cattails and reed canary grass, for which large- scale eradication is prohibitively expensive, most management effort should be focused on uplands. Although much of the park is now closed - canopy forest, Land Survey records from the late 19th century suggest that it once included fewer trees in many upland areas. (See Appendix D.) The presettlement plant community of what is now Valley Park was generally savanna, or oak openings, which consist of scattered oaks and Aster blooming amid young birch in Valley Park. Native wild- flowers like this will reproduce once invasive plants are removed. Barr Engineering Company 21 prairie grasses with some areas of brush and closed -canopy oak forest. Keep these original plant communities in mind when proceeding with the following management suggestions, which are listed in order of priority. See Map E for specific locations. 1. First priority: Eradicate garlic mustard in the northern segment of park. This aggressive weed is still in relatively short supply in Valley Park, so it should be controlled now, before it takes over large portions of the forest floor and displaces native species. Be sure to hire experienced contrac- tors or seek expert advice in order to achieve success early. As with all invasive plant management efforts, monitoring and follow-up are essential. 2 Black locust is not yet pervasive, but is rapidly gaining ground in the far north end of park, on mounded areas of disturbed soil. Left uncontrolled, this aggressive tree forms large patches with interconnected root systems, and eagerly spreads to adjacent areas, crowding out desirable plants. See Appendix A for tips on eradicating this thorny nuisance. 3 Begin buckthorn control efforts, first in least infested areas in the north -central part of park, then entry area off Marie Avenue. For heavily infested areas in the rest of the park, determine manageable sections (size depending on volunteer effort and budget for a given time period). Focus first on eradicating fruiting specimens in a given section, then control remaining plants in subsequent years. In areas where buckthorn is readily visible, incorporate signage to explain the control process and reasons for removing it. This will set the stage for future invasive control efforts both within Valley Park and elsewhere in the city. Remove nonnative honeysuckle at the same time as buckthorn. For ongoing buckthorn management and to help restore selected areas to savanna, consider con- trolled fire as a management tool. This will help control a variety of invasive plants as well as aggressive trees such as boxelder. A properly controlled fire will not kill bur and pin oaks, and will encourage growth of any native prairie plants that remain in the ground layer. (See Appendix C.) Fire may be appropriate in the more open, southern portions of Valley Park as well as in selected areas north of Marie Avenue. 4. The banks of a channel immediately north of Marie are damaged due to high stormwater vol- ume and insufficient vegetation. In order to slow runoff and reduce erosion, slopes here should be planted in deep-rooted native vegetation or at least left unmown. 5. Several areas exhibit serious streambank erosion; in the west central area of the park, bank cuts 22 Mendota Heights Natural Resources Management Plan are up to 15 feet high. The hydrology that has created this problem is beyond the scope of this report. Solutions lie not on the site, but in the larger watershed, where stormwater mitigation efforts could be taken. One possibility is to retrofit neighborhoods with rainwater gardens and other stormwater infiltration practices, which can be implemented in conjunction with street work. Efforts like this will reduce the destructive volume of stormwater flowing into parks. In the meantime, most streambank vegetation should be left intact to stabilize soils. Do, however, remove buckthorn and black locust, which contribute to erosion by discouraging ground level vegetation. Control garlic mustard as well. If invasive removal leaves areas of exposed soil, espe- cially on steep slopes, use erosion control material such as jute or coir "blankets" while the site heals. If hydrology in the park is stabilized as a result of upstream efforts, restorative plantings may be appropriate to reclaim damaged banks. However, in the short term, when stormwater volume and velocity remain high, plantings on these disturbed banks are unlikely to succeed. 6. Siberian elm is prevalent throughout the park. In areas where buckthorn is being removed, target Siberian elm along with female (fruiting) boxelder, which produce a profusion of fast -germinating seeds. While boxelder is native, it is so aggressive that is tends to reduce diversity in disturbed natural areas. Where large areas of invasives are removed, revegetate with native plants to boost recovery and discourage re -infestation. Controlled burns may be appropriate to discourage unwanted tree seedlings. Implement a policy of remov- ing Siberian elm and fruiting boxelder whenever opportuni- ties occur, say, during construc- tion disturbance or after storm damage. Mature oaks in northern Valley Park. While these trees are thriving, they will not readily regenerate unless steps are taken to control exotic invasive species around them. 7. Spotted knapweed is present on the far east end of Valley Park, near the terminus of Wentworth Avenue at Wachtler. While this is not an isolated occurrence, it would behoove the city to eradicate Barr Engineering Company 23 this apparently small patch to prevent spread. Then, in conjunction with buckthorn and other invasive control efforts, remove other knapweed as it is encountered. Knapweed produces a chemi- cal that kills other plants, so, once established, it quickly reduces native plant diversity. 8. Discourage dumping of yard debris, which occurs in some areas where backyards abut the park. This could be addressed by education efforts (see page 18) and informing residents that the prob- lem exists near their property. Park property boundaries could be marked with discrete, attractive stakes. As a last resort, issue fines to offenders. 9. Remove invasive plants at park entrance and redesign path and streambanks. As discussed on page 14, an attractive entryway, especially one that incorporates educational signage, help commu- nicate the values of the park and explain the larger stewardship efforts taking place. COPPERFIELD PONDS This series of ponds, wild areas and trails is a multifaceted jewel in the city's open space system. Although invasive exotic plants are fairly entrenched, a variety of native species still thrives here, offering food, shelter and nesting areas for songbirds, waterfowl and other animals. Desirable species include bur and red oak, gray and redtwig dogwood, chokecherry, elderberry, raspberry and dogbane. Native, fast -spreading sumac is also well -represented, and may warrant management when the exotic invasives have been controlled. The exotic invasive species of concern here are buckthorn (common and glossy), including several large, heavy -fruiting specimens; honeysuckle; amur maple; Siberian elm (especially south of the small pond and alongside the southern portion of the trail). Other weedy species include smooth brome, bluegrass, thistle, birdsfoot trefoil and spotted knapweed. Goldenrod is prevalent in open areas, which is not necessarily harmful, but will challenge the diversity of any native prairie plantings that are introduced. Reed canary grass dominates several pond edges, along with nonnative cattails. The strategy for improving the resources at Although in better repair than the eroded channel at the north end of park, this channel between the two Copperfield ponds could still benefit from weed control (burdock is visible here) and revegetation with native herbaceous plants or shrubs. 24 Mendota Heights Natural Resources Management Plan Copperfield Ponds is twofold: first, controlling damage (invasive species and erosion) and second, augmenting natural areas and establishing new plantings. See Map F for locations. Damage Control 1. Since buckthorn is plentiful here, and contributes to the look and feel of this pedestrian -friendly park, a gradual but rigorous control strategy is recommended. This is a several -year process, and will require ongoing follow up to keep the plant in check. See Appendix A for techniques. • First, pull seedlings and saplings in least infested areas to prevent spread and expose ground to other species. • Next control fruiting specimens, the generally large female plants that pepper the woods and are prominent along the path between ponds. The prolific fruits produce seeds that are rapidly spread by birds. • Finally, remove remaining buckthorn in the park, beginning with areas closest to native plants. 2. Amur maple and Siberian elm. It is important to remove these opportunistic species to prevent their establishment in areas opened up by buckthorn removal. Amur maple occurs midway be- tween trailheads and in the wooded area immediately west of ponds. Siberian elm is dispersed throughout the park, but most noticeable in the southern portion, between ponds and flanking the southern Huber Drive trailhead. Given the visibility and, to the uneducated eye, attractive appear- ance of this grove a trees, informational signage near the removal site would be helpful, followed by rapid restoration with native trees and/or herbaceous plants. 3. Control thistles east of large pond. (See suggestion 1 under Restoration, below.) 4. Discourage leaf and brush dumping (near Huber Drive north trailhead), same as for Valley Park (number 8 on page 23): educate, inform and fine offenders. 5. Cut back aggressive grape that is strangling dogwood shrubs west of path, about 200 feet south of trailhead. Periodically cut back grape if it threatens to overtake other native shrubs. 6. Several eroding areas near the north trailhead could be impacting water quality by allowing sediment, pollutants and nutrients (from fertilizers and other upland sources) to enter ponds. The channel that has formed in the gravel path at the northern trailhead is accepting too much runoff from the adjacent asphalt path; regrade path to better distribute the flow. In the same vicinity, close to Huber Drive, bank erosion is occurring near a stormwater inlet. The likely result of stormwater flushes, this erosion is a symptom of a larger scale problem involving Barr Engineering Company 25 upstream runoff issues. While solving the erosion problem would require addressing larger water- shed issues, soil loss could be decreased by controlling buckthorn in the area and establishing vigorous native ground level vegetation. Restoration and Management 1. The open meadow west of Huber Drive poses an ideal opportunity for a prairie restoration. Woody plants are beginning to move in and, if left unchecked, will eventually overtake this pleas- ant break in the forested character of the park. Even if restoration is not undertaken, thistles here should be controlled to prevent their spread to other parts of the park. Prescribed fire could be a useful tool here and elsewhere in the park. 2. The south trailhead, now dominated by brome and Siberian elm, with a smattering of purple knapweed and birdsfoot trefoil, would be another good candidate for native plantings. Prairie would be an attraction option, but in areas where Siberian elm 3removed, a grove of fast-growing aspen, for example, also may be t \; appropriate. a V 3. Monitor sumac to ensure it does not encroach on other native plants. If necessary, cut back periodically or control with burning to make way for other species. The sumac will continue to resprout, so herbicide will be necessary if the city wishes to remove it in a particular area. ROGERS LAKE This thicket of sumac at Copperfield Park may need to be controlled in order to prevent it taking over other native species in adjacent areas. This park is noteworthy for a DNR -funded shoreline restoration, which is helping to filter runoff, provide habitat and prevent shoreline erosion. However, algae bloom continues in the area, prob- ably as a result of nutrients entering from the surrounding watershed, through a large shoreline culvert. In addition to addressing watershed issues (such as high runoff volume and lawn fertilizer use) to improve water quality, the city could more effectively manage the landscape immediately surrounding the pond, which holds stormwater before it flows to the lake. 26 Mendota Heights Natural Resources Management Plan The narrow strip of woods on the east side of the lake is dominated by common species like ash, silver maple and elm, as well as occasional oak, redtwig dogwood and rose. Alas, the area is also rife with inva- sive species, mainly buckthorn, honeysuckle and the occasional Siberian elm. Open areas west of the trail are dominated by nonnative species that have apparently spread from adjacent freeway plantings. See Maps G for details. A hint of what could be at Rogers Lake: This mature native shoreline offers habitat, runoff filtration and beauty. In any new shoreline planting, ongoing maintenance is a critical part of the restoration process. 1. While the shoreline restoration is progressing well, black locust, cottonwood and burdock have already begun to invade. Maintenance is critical, especially now, while the plants are still becoming established. The DNR has agreed to monitor and maintain the site for five years, with city assis- tance. The sooner city workers can be trained to care for this planting, the better. Active city in- volvement now will ensure prompt weed removal (which could become part of regular park maintenance rounds) and prepare for 2006, when maintenance of the area transfers to the city. 2. The entire western side of the lake is rife with invasive plants, but the most pressing area of concern is immediately adjacent the shoreline. Here, giant ragweed, burdock and other seed - producing plants are poised to challenge restoration area. Eradicate these trouble species, or at the very least, cut them before they produce seeds this season. Trail edges are an important interface between people and nature. This trail balances neatness (pavement and a narrow mown edge) and wild diversity (willow, dogwood, chokecherry and other plants) to create a pleasant experience for visitors. 3. Filter runoff entering the stormwa- ter pond by establishing a wider buffer strip around it. This is espe- cially important on the steep adjacent slopes, which are unusable for recreation and dangerous to mow. These slopes and other areas adjacent pond may simply be left unmown, or 27 Barr Engineering Company planted in native species. Either way, the area will need to be monitored for invasive species, such as thistle, sweet clover and buckthorn. In addition, lawn could be reduced around parking lot and other areas not used for active recre- ation. Ideally, highly visible areas, such as the space between parking lot and Wagon Wheel Drive, would be planted with prairie grasses and wildflowers or other attractive native vegetation. 4. Remove invasive plants around the stormwater pond. First, tackle buckthorn, which is fortu- nately in short supply, and thistle. Then remove Siberian elm, the most prevalent invasive around pond, taking care to preserve dogwood and willow. 5. Black locust dominates the northwest corner of the park, adjacent tennis courts. Control of this tree is difficult, but important, as it will only continue to spread and crowd out desirable plants. See Appendix A for techniques. Be prepared for long-term follow-up, and plant native species on this slope. 6. Manage invasive species west of lake and up to freeway fence. First eradicate fruiting female buckthorn. Then contain the spread of invasive species on the freeway edge. Use herbicide to keep crown vetch at bay, and mow seeding species such as sweet clover. Only later begin to remove additional buckthorn, honeysuckle and Siberian elm. OTHER PARK RECOMMENDATIONS Friendly Hills Park (Map F) • Control buckthorn and other woody invasive around pond while they are still in short supply. • Decrease mown lawn between two arms of pond. • Plant new oaks on the knoll near ballfield, with islands of native plants around them. Since the existing oaks are showing their age, it makes sense to let new trees get a start now before the old ones are gone. The mature oaks at Friendly Hills park are beautiful but not immortal. Plant new trees among the old to prepare for their inevitable demise, and consider planted islands or 28 Mendota Heights Natural Resources Management Plan • Consider planting native "islands" around these knoll oaks. Low shrubs, such as dwarf bush honeysuckle, or a mix of plants that tolerate dry soils and shade would help control erosion on the hillside and protect tree trunks from damage. • Begin an invasive species awareness program for neighbors immediately surrounding park, where buckthorn thrives. Hagstrom-King Park (Map H) • Control buckthorn around pond and in uplands to encourage regeneration of oaks. • Remove purple loosestrife before it spreads further. • Control thistle and prickly ash on slopes, replant with showy prairie grasses and wildflowers. • Extend unmown buffer around pond Kensington Park (Map H) • Control purple knapweed and sweet clover in meadow around pond. • Consider removing amur maple, which threaten adjacent woodlands. • Institute buckthorn awareness program in neighborhood; several areas would be ideal for a neighborhood "buckthorn bash." (See Appendix B.) Ivy Hills Park (Map I) • Control sweet clover and Canada thistle to reduce threat to native grasses and wildflowers. • Eradicate honeysuckle, cottonwood seedlings and other plants incompatible with prairie. • Remove fruiting buckthorn in adjacent woodland to prevent spread to prairie. • Kill weeds and plant natives in unmown islands around mature trees. Wentworth Park (Map I) • Create wider buffer along shoreline of west pond. Since the pond is a focal point on the trail, a native planting would be the best solution, introducing beautiful blooms and foliage to enhance the already -attractive area. • Eradicate patch of aggressive, spreading fleeceflower, replant with native species. • Create a demonstration garden in the wild, wooded patch near parking lot. (See page 14) In Wentworth Park, a patch of fleeceflower emerges in May. Persistent effort will be necessary to control this aggressive exotic plant Barr Engineering Company 29 Friendly Marsh Park (Map j) • While managing the huge swaths of reed canary grass and nonnative cattails is unfeasible, the mixed hardwood swamp could be managed to encourage more diversity. This would mean buckthorn, honeysuckle and Siberian elm control, and introducing native shrubs and herba- ceous plants. • Control purple loosestrife where it occurs in small patches. • Begin buckthorn control by removing the species in islands around trees, and fruiting speci- mens in adjacent woods. • Discourage dumping of leaves and other debris in wetland. • Eradicate any amur maple on city property (northern section of park), and/or encourage control by landowners adjacent. • Implement controlled burns to help control invasives and reduce excess fuel (which contributes to unplanned wildfires). See Appendix C. 30 Mendota Heights Natural Resources Management Plan SUMMARY OF MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS This generalized list should not replace detailed recommendations in preceding chapters. Nor should it necessarily override efforts at individual parks that gain momentum out of this sequence. Concurrent efforts are recommended whenever possible, particularly education and invasive plant eradication programs. 1. Invasive Species: Immediate Intervention A. Garlic mustard: North end of Valley Park B. Garlic mustard: Along path southeast of Cullen Ave./Timmy St. intersection. C. Purple loosestrife: Small patch on Hagstrom-King pond 2. Maintenance Regimes for Vulnerable Areas A. Rogers Lake shoreline restoration B. Ivy Hills Park pond area C. City property and adjacent private property south of Hwy. 13, northeast of Wachtler Ave. 3. Education Efforts (In conjunction with all of above buckthorn removal efforts) A. City maintenance staff B. Residents: Informational flyers, workshops on upcoming management changes, yard design and invasive eradication. Introduce and support "buckthorn bash" concept (see Appendix B). C. Schools (potential project partners) 4. Adjust City Property Maintenance Practices (Can be instituted anytime following staff/crew education) A. Create buffers around ponds by mowing less closely to shoreline. B. Eradicate fleeceflower in Wentworth Park. C. Start controlling other herbaceous species encroaching on natural areas (e.g. crown vetch, thistle, sweet clover, purple knapweed). Hagstrom-King Park, Kensington Park, other areas. D. Enforce regulations against dumping yard debris on city property. 5. Invasive Eradication at Priority Sites Target Species: buckthorn, amur maple, black locust, honeysuckle, Siberian elm, fruiting boxelder. See specific park recommendations for details on where to begin control efforts. Important: Institute follow-up control and maintenance plans for each site. This may include controlled burning. A. Areas least infested with buckthorn 1. Friendly Hills pond area 2. Hwy. 13 /Wachtler site 3. Ivy Hills Park Barr Engineering Company 31 B. High-quality areas within Northern Dakota County Corridor 1. Valley Park 2. Copperfield Ponds C. Vulnerable areas outside corridor 1. Rogers Lake 2. Hagstrom-King Park (prickly ash and thistle in addition to woody species) 6. Demonstration Plantings (Ideally, begin these immediately following invasive eradication efforts in a given area) A. Copperfield Ponds B. Valley Park C. Wentworth Park D. Rainwater gardens in areas with existing roadside swales E. Buffer zones around selected ponds F. Other public buildings (City Hall, Public Works) 7. Second Priority Invasive Eradication A. Dense concentrations of buckthorn (Wentworth Park, Kensington Park) B. Lower quality areas within corridor (will involve restoration as well as eradication) C. Other city properties 32 Mendota Heights Natural Resources Management Plan 4. Resources People and Organizations • Dakota Soil and Water Conservation District (for erosion control, land management and GIS information) • Jay Riggs, Urban Conservationist, jay.riggs@co.dakota.mn.us or 651-480-7779 • www.dakotaswcd.org • Minnesota Department of Natural Resources • www.dnr.state.mn.us Local Grants Manager, 651- 297-3168 Wildlife Area Manager, 651-296-5290 Area Forester, 651-772-7929 • Friends of the Mississippi River (for information on Northern Dakota County Greenway) • Tom Lewansky, Conservation Director, tlewansky@fmr.org or 651-222-2193 • www.fmr.org • Dodge Nature Center • www.dodgenaturecenter.org • 651-455-4531 • City of Mendota Heights • Guy Kullander, Parks Project Manager • guyk@mendota-heights.com or 651-452-1850 • www.mendota-heights.com Publications and Web Pages • Minnesota Urban Small Sites BMP Manual. www.metrocouncil.org/environment/Watershed/ BMP/manual.htm • Center for Watershed Protection. www.stormwatercenter.net and www.cwp.org • Lakescaping for Wildlife and Water Quality. Published by Minnesota Department of Natural Re- sources. Available at DNR bookstore or call 800-657-3757 to order. • Minnesota's St. Croix River Valley and Anoka Sandplain: A Guide to Native Habitats. Published by Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Available at DNR bookstore or call 800-657-3757 to order.. 33 Barr Engineering Company 5. Maps A. Land Cover: North Section B. Land Cover: South Section C. Green Space Overview and Management Priorities D. Buckthorn Control Priority Areas E. Valley Park F. Copperfield Ponds and Friendly Hills G. Rogers Lake Park H. Southeastern City Parks I. Ivy Hills and Wentworth Parks J. Friendly Marsh Barr Engineering Company .33' �5 0 0 loft ern Da ota ount reenwa 00 to 50'o im.ervious cove I 1 u u tivate. or . ante. c c a) 0 L 0 I Northern Dakota County Greenway 4% to 50% impervious cover More than 50% impervious cover Cultivated or planted no Forests Woodland .4314 Shrubland Herbaceous vegetation Wetland 500 0 500 1,000 Feet 1:16,000 City of Mendota Heights BARR Natural Resources Management Plan B. Land Cover: South Section Dakota Country Natural Resources Inventory :\Pro'ectst23\19\751\Gis\Pro'ect\Mendota Hts bi. .ic2.mxd User: dlh. :arr n.ineerm. Com.an 7/10/20024:01:49 P � : \ 2 us» -a inZ R c : M. A.g. ams 0 ® 0.:(7)t ty CI. > 22 ,z a— :p.� +:.. c � E 0 \> Q)0 \ a=4.a cc 0 a) ca_. x CC 0 ƒ ± 0 CD C m % 0 & 0 0 ..tartin. .oint Northern Dakota County Greenwa r it -owned .arcel $ a).� c7 E C / E @7? $ o c _i E D 0 E m @ _ g co 2 D % £ \ / E o $ 7 \ _ c _ ± % z a 11 ion, native species diversity to preserv- m O O n O M O N 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 N (N. bt r it -owned •arcel fQ a) 0 cif U 0 a) o .0` ^L z L.L i •her • ua it natura area : •. T• • • • i•i- :iC' 1 :tic thorn i•enan e 1. Buc t orn Control Priorit Area .F� E 6:0 (,, 6.0X a �z fx Q m : •rojects 3/19 751 \Gis\ Project\ MH_Valley Park.mxd User: dlh w om.an 7/14/2002 10:34:01 P - nor / /• «. K11 X11 .11, / � -14 .J cn g '- o CU S k 5 CU '— � .g J •- o 2 E 2 k 2 m I U I- E 0 • 0 1 F. •otte• kna•wee• eed cana • rass Q 0 _ > 2k E 0 CD 0 e R % o ® / = -0 .� = c 2 t 0 \ E £ E / / v 0 } / Z' ., co 3 o w U 2cf) . mooth brome, other • Ianted invasive WWI UTIUMNIMPTMRTWITI m ee • cana eras I:\Projects\23\19\751\Gis\Project\MH_Copperfeld_2.mxd User: d1h2 arr Engineei..ny Company 7/11/2002 2:20:06 PM File Ideal location for prairie demonstration planting LL 0 rn O N 0 0 N 0 O O th .44 g O PI .a a) Y a) L co a) = V) E o > > a) D E -2 o '� 00 < U) 2 es > g + + + cu 3 City -owned land Invasive Species Areas Canada thistle Spotted knapweed • © �; l Purple loosestrife Reed canary grass t 1 Reed canary grass 11 1 L 4) t E J 0) m CCIO = N 0 V1 0) (h UI . . .;om.an 7 10/2002 1:04:41 P w 73 CD E a) O_ 73 co QS c c •N 0 V E Q cy) 132 E c a� CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 t1 . 1 1 1. . 1. 1 Zack I. tti r it -owned Ian. O 2 W arlic m -r.I •�'r.AII!L; i i1 ArATAUSITEZ ��TifTF�if�iC� + ® O O • (1) ` VW` ^' '> _. o > `P -co 0 E o L E ^a^ LL o o ea 0 .caL - 0 O E alu O (13 V E. ET U -O -o _c .• .c O �' Cl) Y o 0 0 U (6 64 ,? m m m co is • 1 is •ro'ect MH OtherParks.mxd User: dlh. - LT: 2 cki N 00 r c T a 0 m co 0 0 0 0 0 0 M M O 0 N O O O 0-1 ` City -owned land nvasive • ecies Area Buckthorn with or w/o honeysuckl Amur maple r• moot • rome, other slanted invasive potted kna •wee • Ree• cana •ras ur• e oosestrifr. Barr Engineering Company 7/14/2002 11:25:09 PM File: I:\Projects\23\19\751\Gis\Project\MH_Ivy.mxd User. dlh2 O O O O O City -owned land Invasive Species Areas Invasive Species Points Reed canary grass Fleeceflower Restored area ori Sweet clover • ® O Barr Engineering Company 7/11/2002 2:20:06 PM File: I:\ProjectsS23\19\751\GIs\Project\MH_Copperfield 2.mxd User: d1h2 Invasive Species Areas City -owned land Buckthorn, Siberian elm Smooth brome, Siberian elm Reed canary grass Siberian elm Purple loosestrife 1.4 ccif; vC ezt G1 5 G1 4 et tvp bA ct 0 O ' � y g O uz