Mendota Heights Natural Resource Management Plan -2022CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
FINAL PLAN – JULY 14, 2022
PREPARED FOR:
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
SUBMITTED BY:
RESOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
This page left intentionally blank
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan i
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................. V
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ VII
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Background & Purpose ................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Ecological Restoration & Management ................................................................................... 2
1.2.1 The Importance of Natural Resources.................................................................................. 2
1.2.2 What is a Natural Resources Management Plan? ................................................................ 6
1.2.3 Ecological Restoration & Management ................................................................................ 6
1.2.4 What Happens When Natural Resources Are Not Managed? ........................................... 10
1.3 Vision, Principles & Goals ...................................................................................................... 11
1.3.1 Vision .................................................................................................................................. 11
1.3.2 Principles ............................................................................................................................ 11
1.3.3 Goals ................................................................................................................................... 12
2 HISTORICAL & EXISTING NATURAL RESOURCES .......................................................................... 15
2.1 Information Gathering ........................................................................................................... 15
2.1.1 Existing Data & Plans .......................................................................................................... 15
2.1.2 Methods ............................................................................................................................. 16
2.2 Natural Resources Findings ................................................................................................... 16
2.2.1 Ecological Context & Overview .......................................................................................... 16
2.2.2 Land Cover & Plant Communities ....................................................................................... 18
2.2.3 Ecological Quality ............................................................................................................... 50
2.2.4 Tree Canopy Analysis .......................................................................................................... 51
2.2.5 Urban Heat Island ............................................................................................................... 65
2.2.6 Other Ecosystem Services .................................................................................................. 66
2.2.7 Water Resources ................................................................................................................ 67
2.2.8 Invasive Plants .................................................................................................................... 68
2.2.9 Invasive Animals ................................................................................................................. 69
2.2.10 Diseases of Native Vegetation .......................................................................................... 70
2.2.11 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................. 70
2.2.12 Rare Natural Features ...................................................................................................... 73
2.2.13 City of Mendota Heights Natural Resources & Volunteer Program ................................. 80
2.2.14 City of Mendota Heights Ordinance Review .................................................................... 80
2.3 Summary of Findings ............................................................................................................. 81
2.3.1 General Conditions ............................................................................................................. 81
2.3.2 Vegetation .......................................................................................................................... 81
2.3.3 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 82
2.3.4 City of Mendota Heights Natural Resources and Volunteer Program ............................... 82
2.4 Challenges & Opportunities ................................................................................................... 82
3. MANAGEMENT & CONSERVATION ......................................................................................... 87
3.1 Ecosystem Change: Past, Present & Future .......................................................................... 87
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan ii
3.1.1 What Use is an Ecosystem Change Model? ....................................................................... 87
3.1.2 Drivers of Change ............................................................................................................... 88
3.1.3 Model of Ecosystem Change .............................................................................................. 89
3.2 Improving Ecosystem Services ............................................................................................... 93
3.3 Conservation Concepts .......................................................................................................... 93
3.3.1 Natural Area Core Habitats, Transitions & Connections .................................................... 93
3.3.2 Climate Change Resilience ................................................................................................. 96
4 IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................................................ 99
4.1 Approaches to Restoration & Management .......................................................................... 99
4.1.1 Natural Resource Management Planning .......................................................................... 99
4.1.2 Ecosystem Approach to Restoration & Management ........................................................ 99
4.1.3 Target Native Plant Communities .................................................................................... 101
4.1.4 Management Units ........................................................................................................... 101
4.1.5 Management of Private Land, Easements & Lowland/Aquatic Communities ................. 102
4.1.6 Public Outreach ................................................................................................................ 103
4.2 Restoration & Management Tasks ...................................................................................... 105
4.2.1 Hydrological Restoration .................................................................................................. 105
4.2.2 Prescribed Burning ........................................................................................................... 106
4.2.3 Biocontrol ......................................................................................................................... 108
4.2.4 Invasive Tree & Shrub Removal ........................................................................................ 108
4.2.5 Invasive Herbaceous Vegetation Control ......................................................................... 111
4.2.6 Herbaceous Vegetation Installation ................................................................................. 111
4.2.7 Tree & Shrub Installation .................................................................................................. 112
4.2.8 Conifer Plantation Thinning and Restoration ................................................................... 112
4.2.9 Turf to Native Vegetation Conversion .............................................................................. 112
4.2.10 Slope & Seep Stabilization .............................................................................................. 113
4.2.11 Diseased Tree Removals ................................................................................................. 114
4.2.12 Ecological Monitoring & Reporting ................................................................................ 114
4.3 Advancing Conservation in Mendota Heights ..................................................................... 115
4.3.1 City-wide Conservation Priorities ..................................................................................... 115
4.3.2 Potential Natural Area Connections ................................................................................. 122
4.3.3 Natural Area Parks ............................................................................................................ 123
4.3.4 Priority Projects ................................................................................................................ 145
4.3.5 How Work Gets Done ....................................................................................................... 146
4.3.6 Cost of Natural Areas Restoration & Management ......................................................... 150
4.3.7 City of Mendota Heights Natural Resources Budget ........................................................ 152
4.3.8 Five-Year Phased Implementation Plan ........................................................................... 152
4.3.9 How Work Gets Funded ................................................................................................... 155
4.3.10 NRMP Updates ............................................................................................................... 156
5 NEXT STEPS ................................................................................................................... 159
6 REFERENCES & RESOURCES ................................................................................................ 161
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan iii
TABLES
TABLE 1. LAND USE IN THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS (ADAPTED FROM CITY DATA) ............................... 19
TABLE 2. NATURAL/SEMI-NATURAL VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION FOR MENDOTA HEIGHTS ....................... 22
TABLE 3. NATURAL/SEMI-NATURAL VEGETATION OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS .............................................. 24
TABLE 4. CANOPY AREA OF TREE SPECIES IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS FORESTS AND WOODLANDS ..................... 53
TABLE 5. RELATIVE HEAT EXPORT RANK OF DIFFERENT LAND COVER TYPES ............................................ 65
TABLE 6. TYPICAL WILDLIFE IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS’ NATURAL AREAS ................................................... 71
TABLE 7. FEDERALLY-LISTED SPECIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY ACTIVITIES IN CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS .... 74
TABLE 8. POTENTIAL MIGRATORY BIRD SPECIES OF CONCERN IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS (USFWS 2020A) ........ 76
TABLE 9. STATE-TRACKED NATURAL FEATURES IN AND NEAR CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS (MNDNR 2020) .. 78
TABLE 10. GENERALIZED RESTORATION & SHORT-TERM MGMT. SCHEDULE FOR A MANAGEMENT UNIT ...... 102
TABLE 11. POTENTIAL BIOCONTROL OPTIONS FOR CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ..................................... 108
TABLE 12. NATURAL AREA PARKS IN THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ................................................ 123
TABLE 13. NATURAL/SEMI-NATURAL VEGETATION OF VALLEY PARK NORTH (CITY-OWNED LAND ONLY) ...... 125
TABLE 14. NATURAL/SEMI-NATURAL VEGETATION OF VALLEY PARK SOUTH (ALL CITY-OWNED LAND) ......... 130
TABLE 15. NATURAL/SEMI-NATURAL VEGETATION OF ROGERS LAKE PARK (CITY-OWNED LAND ONLY) ........ 133
TABLE 16. NATURAL/SEMI-NATURAL VEGETATION OF COPPERFIELD PONDS PARK (ALL CITY-OWNED LAND) . 135
TABLE 17. NATURAL/SEMI-NATURAL VEGETATION OF WENTWORTH PARK (ALL CITY-OWNED) ................. 138
TABLE 18. NATURAL/SEMI-NATURAL VEGETATION OF HAGSTROM KING PARK ..................................... 142
TABLE 19. NATURAL/SEMI-NATURAL VEGETATION OF FRIENDLY MARSH PARK ..................................... 144
TABLE 20. USING CITY STAFF/CCMI1, VOLUNTEERS & PRIVATE CONTRACTORS FOR ECOLOGICAL TASKS ..... 147
TABLE 21. UNIT COSTS FOR ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION & MANAGEMENT ........................................... 150
TABLE 22. PRELIMINARY OPINIONS OF PROBABLE COST FOR ALL CITY PARKS & PARCELS ......................... 151
TABLE 23. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NATURAL RESOURCES BUDGET (2022) ..................................... 152
TABLE 24. FIVE-YEAR PHASING OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PRIORITY PROJECTS ......................................... 153
FIGURES
FIGURE 1. NATURAL VS. DEVELOPED LAND RUNOFF ........................................................................... 4
FIGURE 2. ECOSYSTEM SERVICES .................................................................................................... 5
FIGURE 3. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK............................................................................. 8
FIGURE 4. GENERALIZED COST OF RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT OVER TIME ...................................... 9
FIGURE 5. REGIONAL & ECOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS .................................................. 17
FIGURE 6. PRE-EUROPEAN SETTLEMENT VEGETATION OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ......................................... 18
FIGURE 7. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARKS AND TRAILS ................................................................. 20
FIGURE 8. NATURAL/SEMI-NATURAL VEGETATION OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ............................................ 23
FIGURE 9. NATURAL/SEMI-NATURAL VEGETATION ACREAGES OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS .............................. 25
FIGURE 10. NATURAL/SEMI-NATURAL VEGETATION ACREAGES OF CITY PARKS & PARCELS ........................ 25
FIGURE 11. QUALITY RANKS OF ASSESSED NATURAL COMMUNITIES IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS ........................ 51
FIGURE 12. AREAS OF DENSE OAK TREE GROWTH IN THE TREE CANOPY OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS .. 56
FIGURE 13. CONCENTRATIONS OF NATIVE TREES IN PATCHES OF ALTERED FOREST/WOODLAND IN THE CITY OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS .................................................................................................................. 58
FIGURE 14. CONCENTRATIONS OF NATIVE TREES IN PATCHES OF LOWLAND FOREST IN THE CITY OF MENDOTA
HEIGHTS ................................................................................................................................ 59
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan iv
FIGURE 15. CONCENTRATIONS OF INVASIVE TREES AND SHRUBS IN THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ............. 60
FIGURE 16. VEGETATION STRUCTURE IN SAVANNA, FOREST AND HYBRID TREE PLANTING APPROACHES ......... 63
FIGURE 17. HEAT ISLAND HOT SPOTS IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS .............................................................. 66
FIGURE 18. NATURAL AREA CORE/INTERIOR HABITATS AND EDGE HABITATS .......................................... 94
FIGURE 19. EDGE EFFECTS FROM DEVELOPMENT AND DISTURBANCE ..................................................... 94
FIGURE 20. GRADIENTS OF ECOLOGICAL CONNECTIVITY ..................................................................... 95
FIGURE 21. CORE HABITATS, TRANSITIONAL BUFFERS & CORRIDORS ON THE LANDSCAPE ........................... 96
FIGURE 22. CONSERVATION CONCEPT FOR NATURAL AREAS AND CONNECTIONS IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS ...... 116
FIGURE 23. VALLEY PARK NORTH LOCATION AND PLANT COMMUNITIES .............................................. 124
FIGURE 24. NATURAL/SEMI-NATURAL VEGETATION OF VALLEY PARK NORTH (CITY-OWNED LAND ONLY) .... 126
FIGURE 25. VALLEY PARK SOUTH LOCATION AND PLANT COMMUNITIES .............................................. 128
FIGURE 26. ROGERS LAKE PARK LOCATION AND PLANT COMMUNITIES ................................................ 131
FIGURE 27. COPPERFIELD PONDS PARK LOCATION AND PLANT COMMUNITIES ....................................... 134
FIGURE 28. WENTWORTH PARK LOCATION AND PLANT COMMUNITIES ............................................... 137
FIGURE 29. HAGSTROM KING PARK LOCATION AND PLANT COMMUNITIES ........................................... 140
FIGURE 30. FRIENDLY MARSH PARK LOCATION AND PLANT COMMUNITIES ........................................... 143
FIGURE 31. INCREASING ACRES UNDER MANAGEMENT AND DECREASING PER-ACRE COSTS OVER FIVE-YEAR
PLAN .................................................................................................................................. 154
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY & ACRONYMS
APPENDIX B. ASSESSMENT OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS’ NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM & VOLUNTEER ACTIVITIES
APPENDIX C. CLIMATE-ADAPTED TREES TO PLANT IN THE TWIN CITIES REGION
APPENDIX D. OTHER ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS
APPENDIX E. PRACTICES TO AVOID INTRODUCING & MOVING INVASIVE SPECIES (MNDNR)
APPENDIX F. STUDIES OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES RESPONSE TO RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT
APPENDIX G. EXAMPLE OUTLINE OF A PARK NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN (NRMP)
APPENDIX H. MANAGEMENT BRIEFS FOR PRIORITY PROJECTS
APPENDIX I. SPECIES LISTS FOR MENDOTA HEIGHTS NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES (MNDNR 2005)
APPENDIX J. CONSERVATION CORE & CONNECTION OPPORTUNITIES IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Applied Ecological Services gratefully acknowledges the direction and generous contribution of the City
of Mendota Heights and the project Steering Committee, specifically:
Krista Spreiter – Natural Resources Coordinator
Ryan Ruzek – Public Works Director
Will Stein – Steering Committee Member
Susan Light – Steering Committee Member
Cindy Johnson – Steering Committee Member
Leslie Pilgrim – Steering Committee Member
Prepared for:
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
651-452-1850
Prepared by:
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
(formerly Applied Ecological Services, Inc.)
20267 Delaware Ave.
Jordan, MN 55352
RES project 104848
Kim Alan Chapman, PhD
Douglas Mensing, MS
Ben Staehlin, MS
Fugui Wang, PhD
Eoghan O’Neill, MS
Citation: Resource Environmental Solutions. 2022. City of Mendota Heights: Natural Resources
Management Plan. Report prepared for City of Mendota Heights, MN.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan vi
This page left intentionally blank
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Natural resources are the basis of Mendota Heights’ character and quality of life, beloved by residents,
appreciated by visitors, and stewarded by public servants and private landowners. Natural areas—the
City’s most natural lands and waters—are rare gems, harboring historical and restored plant communities
and wildlife populations. These easily lost natural resources deserve attention and need help to recover
from past damages and to thrive well into the future, despite changes in land use, climate, and new pests
and diseases.
While some natural areas are protected on public land, most are on private land, making protection and
management of the City’s natural areas, to some extent, a public outreach and cost-sharing initiative. The
City’s upland and lowland plant communities were degraded in the past by incompatible land uses and by
the introduction of dominating invasive species. Its diverse wildlife was severely reduced by habitat
fragmentation and edge effects. Streams, lakes, and ravines were and continue to be damaged by
excessive erosion brought on by uncontrolled runoff from pavement, rooftops, and turf.
The cumulative effect of past and ongoing damage to the City’s natural areas has reduced the benefits
these natural resources provide to people. As a general example, the non-native shrub Common
buckthorn often invades natural areas, outcompeting native shrubs, shading ground layer plants,
promoting sheet erosion of soils (and sedimentation and nutrient enrichment of surface waters), and
decreasing habitat quality for many native plant and animal species, including pollinators. This chain of
events can be mitigated by controlling invasive buckthorn—ideally on both public and private lands—and
facilitating the re-establishment of healthy, diverse, and resilient native plant communities. (Ecosystem
restoration has additional spill-over benefits for surface waters, as healthy upland and lowland
ecosystems in watersheds of lakes and streams reduce sediment and phosphorus inputs, sedimentation,
algae blooms, and damage to aquatic ecosystems.)
This sort of intervention is needed to restore the health and function of natural areas, coupled with a
commitment to perpetual stewardship, which is essential to protect those investments to restore and
enhance natural areas. The effort and cost of some restoration and management projects can be
substantial, such as removing dense stands of invasive plants from large areas to regenerate a diverse
native ground layer. This Natural Resources Management Plan is a key step in that intervention. When
natural areas are systematically inventoried and assessed, needs defined and prioritized, and projects
phased over a decade or more, the City of Mendota Heights can dramatically improve its natural areas to
benefit people and the environment.
The City of Mendota Heights completed a Comprehensive Plan update in 2019 and recognized that its
2002 Natural Resources Management Plan (Barr Engineering Company 2002) needed updating. In June
2020, the City retained Resource Environmental Solutions (RES, formerly Applied Ecological Services) and
SRF Consulting Group, Inc. (SRF) to complete Phase 1 of the Natural Resources Management Plan, with
Phase 2 following in 2021 and 2022.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan viii
Development of this Natural Resources Management Plan entailed:
• Development of a natural resources vision, principles, and goals
• Compiling and reviewing existing data
• Conducting field assessments of the City’s priority natural areas
• Completing a City-wide woodland analysis (including on private lands)
• Completing a City-wide heat island analysis and analysis of ecosystem services (including on
private lands)
• Identifying challenges and opportunities for the City’s natural resources
• Defining target native plant communities to restore
• Describing typical restoration and management tasks
• Prioritizing short-term projects
• Identifying and pursuing a grant to fund the top priority project
• Management Briefs for select natural areas
o Priority projects in natural areas
o Priority project costs
o Overall project costs and phasing in a five-year implementation plan
o A ”ten-year and beyond” implementation vision for natural resources management
• Plans for other natural resources projects and actions beyond the natural areas
• Implementation
o SMART goals (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound). Management
briefs, the five-year implementation plan, the monitoring program, and performance
standards are SMART goals. In addition, the adaptive management approach used in
this Natural Resources Management Plan is cyclical and forces goals to change. For this
reason, SMART goals are presented at a programmatic level.
o Long-term management, monitoring and reporting
o Implementation resources, including grants, volunteers and partners
o Public education and private lands outreach
This Natural Resources Management Plan revealed significant needs for the City’s natural areas. Most
natural areas are moderately to severely degraded, the City’s tree canopy and planting practices would
benefit from an ecosystem approach, the effects of climate change and heat islands need attention, and
the City’s natural resources program capacity—even with partners and volunteers—cannot achieve the
conservation goals as stated in the Comprehensive Plan and this Natural Resources Management Plan.
Despite these challenges, proven strategies supported by conservation science are at hand. The City can
use them to cost-effectively restore a healthier environment and control future maintenance costs. With
good planning and sufficient funds, the City can both take on landscape projects—core natural area
protection and greenway connections—and also promote native landscaping, rain and pollinator gardens
on private lands, street tree plantings, and partnership projects that demonstrate the benefits of natural
resource management.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan ix
This Natural Resources Management Plan makes it clear that historical factors have resulted in a gap
between the restoration and management needs of the City’s natural resources and the staffing, funding
and overall support for the City’s natural resources management program. Section 4.3.6 of this plan
quantifies program-wide needs, and Section 4.3.8 lays out a strategic, five-year schedule and the annual
budgets necessary for plan execution. The proposed implementation plan calls for additional
investments of approximately $68,000-$94,000 annually in each of the next five years, totaling
approximately $400,000 by the end of 2027. In addition to cost and labor to restore and enhance natural
areas over this period, the natural areas must be managed in perpetuity, necessitating baseline annual
funding for long-term maintenance. Implementation of this Natural Resources Management Plan will
enable the City to realize the benefits of a more comprehensive and holistic program for managing its
valuable and irreplaceable natural resources. The City’s improved natural areas will provide greater
enjoyment to the community better quality habitat for plants and wildlife, and a higher functioning,
healthier, more resilient environment.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan x
This page left intentionally blank
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Background & Purpose
The City of Mendota Heights, having completed a Comprehensive Plan update in 2019, recognized the
need to update its 2002 Natural Resources Management Plan (Barr Engineering Company 2002), or NRMP.
The Comprehensive Plan identifies the City’s important natural resources, especially the functioning
natural areas that support “ecosystem services” (see Glossary in Appendix A and discussion below in
Section 1.2.1) and the health of the human community. Water purification and regulation, groundwater
recharge, urban heat island mitigation, fish and wildlife habitat, pollinator and crop support—these are
just a few of the ecosystem services that natural areas provide to the City’s 11,000 residents and 13,000
daily workers. The Comprehensive Plan recommends budgetary, programmatic, collaborative, and policy
initiatives to support the conservation, restoration and management of not only the City’s natural areas,
but all elements of the natural environment which benefit its residents.
Because City parks and open space comprise only 16 percent of the
City’s 6,437 acres, natural resources on private lands are essential
providers of ecosystem services. City-owned parkland can only do so
much to support the ecological health and resilience of the City. To
make the City more resilient in the face of continued urban growth and
predicted increases in temperature and precipitation, the
Comprehensive Plan invites collaboration and sharing of responsibility
among the City’s institutions, businesses, and private landowners.
Federal, state, county, and watershed management organizations are
obvious places to firm up existing partnerships, but more could be done
with the City’s non-government players.
The 2002 NRMP and 2040 Comprehensive Plan map describe dozens of
City natural areas across ownerships. These documents used existing
inventory data and, in the 2002 NRMP, field investigations. What neither plan did, however, was lay out
a year-by-year roadmap to plan and budget for the conservation, restoration and management of the
City’s natural resources. Phases 1 and 2 of this updated NRMP will present a systematic schedule and
estimated costs for specific tasks that will allow City staff to decide what to do next in terms of priority,
impact, and cost-effectiveness.
In early 2020, the City of Mendota Heights decided to update its 2002 NRMP. In June 2020, the City
retained Resource Environmental Solutions (RES, formerly Applied Ecological Services, Inc., AES) and SRF
Consulting Group, Inc. (SRF) to complete the Phase 1 Plan, and in April 2021 Phase 2 was authorized. This
Phase 1 & 2 NRMP includes:
• Development of a natural resources vision, principles, and goals
• Compiling and reviewing existing data
• Conducting field assessments of the City’s priority natural areas
• Completing a City-wide woodland analysis (including on private lands)
• Completing a City-wide heat island analysis (including on private lands)
Conservation Strategy
The few natural areas in the
City make protection of
paramount importance.
Some of the City’s natural
areas are protected from
development due to their
designation as parks, and
many of these areas are
undergoing ecological
restoration and
management to further
protect their ecological
health and integrity.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 2
• Identifying challenges and opportunities for the City’s natural
resources
• Defining target native plant communities to restore
• Describing typical restoration and management tasks
• Prioritizing short-term projects
• Identifying and pursuing a grant to fund a top priority project
• Management Briefs for select natural areas
o Identification of priority projects in natural areas
o Priority project costs
o Project costs and phasing (five-year implementation plan)
o ”Ten-year and beyond” implementation vision for natural resources management in the
City
• Planning for other natural resources projects and actions outside natural areas
• Implementation
o SMART goals (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound). Management
Briefs, the five-year implementation plan, the monitoring program, and performance
standards provide SMART goals at a detailed level. In addition, the adaptive
management approach is cyclical and can change goals. For this reason, SMART goals in
Phase 2 will be defined at a programmatic level.
o Long-term management, monitoring & reporting
o Implementation resources, including volunteers and partners
o Public education and private lands outreach
Significant deliverables under this NRMP are geographic information system (GIS) mapping and
assessment of natural areas, and field photographs of representative areas. A glossary of technical terms
and acronyms is provided in Appendix A.
1.2 Ecological Restoration & Management
1.2.1 The Importance of Natural Resources
For millennia, the Twin Cities region consisted of a rich
mosaic of natural landscapes. Sunlight, air, water,
bedrock and minerals, soils, vegetation, and animals—
that is, ecosystems—interacted in complex ways,
producing an abundance of some plants and animals
favored by the overall condition of the landscape, while
others were more specialized and rare. Prairie grasses,
bison, prairie chicken, and other huntable wildlife were
abundant, while certain species of plants, insects and
fish were uncommon, restricted by their habitat
requirements. An emergent wetland of lotus, bulrush and sedges creates
habitat and brings beauty to the Rogers Lake shoreline.
Natural Resources
Management Plan
In 2020 the City began a
process of updating its 2002
NRMP in order to better
manage the City’s natural
resources for the benefit of
its residents and the natural
world.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 3
Native Americans inhabited the Twin Cities region for several thousand years, taking advantage of game
animals and other wildlife, edible plants, and an abundant water supply. Despite periodic droughts and
severe winters, they did not exhaust natural resources and, in fact, managed them using fire and other
practices, such as cropping of domesticated plants and seeding of wild plant species for specialized uses.
European settlers who came to the region in the mid-1800s found an open landscape dominated by
prairies, savannas, and wet meadows, with forests in areas protected from fire (e.g., often around lakes
and on steep slopes). Over time, settlement, conversion of prairies and forests to crop fields, and industry
changed the landscape. Natural resources are limited and can be lost if over-used or managed poorly, as
clearly demonstrated by the local extinction of bison, elk, and prairie chicken.
Most of the region has now been transformed by
development—homes, roads, parking lots, commercial
buildings, and recreational fields. The City of Mendota
Heights’ park system comprises approximately 298
acres (including open water), and approximately 182
acres (61 percent) of that parkland consists of
natural/semi-natural areas. Of these 182 acres (2.8
percent of the City’s area), only a portion represents
the original landscape of the 1850s - and even these
areas have been degraded by fragmentation, invasive
species, and nearby development.
Modern societies tend to place value on natural
resources based on how useful they are. Timber for
lumber, limestone for gravel, cropland soils, groundwater, and surface water have an extrinsic or
monetary value. On the other hand, some argue that all species have a basic right to exist—they have
intrinsic value. The conservationist Aldo Leopold, the first professor of wildlife biology in the country,
talked about a land ethic in which people saw themselves as part of the ecology and felt a responsibility
to treat it well. Two of his most used quotes from his best-known book, A Sand County Almanac, are:
A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic
community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.
We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a
community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.
While far from a new concept, the idea that nature has intrinsic value continues to gain support as people
have experiences in park natural areas or through travel, by visiting museums and zoo exhibits, or simply
by watching television programs about nature.
Part of a species’ and ecosystem’s intrinsic value is also due to the growing realization that healthy
ecosystems support healthy human societies and economies. It has become clear through research, for
instance, that preserving a certain amount of natural vegetation and soil reduces downstream flooding.
Figure 1 supports this concept, as natural land is shown to absorb into the ground and release into the air
the majority of rainwater, while urban land sheds most rain water, increasing potential floodwaters and
Healthy Natural Resources Benefit People
Natural resources in a healthy condition
support a community’s economy and well-
being by cleaning the water and air,
reducing air temperature, building soil and
preventing erosion, providing green spaces
for rejuvenation and recreation, and
enlivening the surroundings with a variety of
animal and plant life. Since the 1850s these
“ecosystem services” have been damaged
by incompatible styles of development and
use. This NRMP is a tool to restore these
lost benefits of a healthy environment.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 4
their management. In another example, homeowners and businesses consistently rate proximity to a
park as highly desirable (Crompton 2001), which typically generates higher demand for buildings near
open space—and higher property values.
Figure 1. Natural vs. Developed Land Runoff
Natural land sheds two-thirds to one-half the runoff that developed land sheds, and sends more into groundwater.
Ecosystem Services
Natural areas are vital to city residents and park visitors for several reasons besides the economic value
they provide. Wetlands and forested areas along rivers and streams help reduce downstream flooding,
and prairies, savannas, and forests on the landscape absorb huge quantities of rainfall, which in turn
reduces the amount of runoff and eroded sediment that reaches a watershed’s streams and lakes. Natural
areas also absorb and store carbon from the air, helping to reduce greenhouse gasses. Schools,
organizations and families use natural areas to learn about the natural world; this is especially important
for young children who otherwise spend more time making virtual connections indoors. Natural areas
simply make urban life better because citizens and visitors can stroll, bike, take in the scenery, or simply
relax in a natural setting.
Scientists call the benefits that natural resources provide “ecosystem services”. Ecosystem services save
people money over the long term. A milestone scientific study completed in 2005, called the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment, summarized the state of ecosystem services worldwide (Hassan et al. 2005). Since
then, dozens of scientific papers have been published demonstrating the financial savings of healthy
ecosystems. For instance, if people were to pay to purify air and water, build soil, or to regenerate forest
trees and wild fish and game, the cost would be in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually for a City
like Mendota Heights. Building flood control infrastructure or rebuilding after flood would be much more
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 5
costly without floodplains and the natural capacity of watersheds to absorb and regulate the water
moving through them. The main ecosystem services are summarized in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Ecosystem Services
Source: Metro Vancouver Regional Planning (2018)
Besides supporting and regulating the human environment, the City of Mendota Heights’ park system
serves recreation and tourism as well as contributes to resident well-being. Research in the last 20 years
has demonstrated a strong link between time spent in or near nature with better physical and mental
health. Viewing nature out a window can improve test scores in school children or elevate moods in
adults. Of course, people love to fish, hike, bike, ski, picnic, camp, and celebrate with family in natural
areas. Sometimes just sitting still in nature, or within sight of nature, can nourish the spirit and reduce
stress.
Mendota Heights’ character also emerges from its natural resources. The City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan
acknowledges green space, open space and natural areas as a major feature of the community. The City
has always been known for its natural look and abundant trees –its previous motto was “spacious and
gracious”. Natural resources create a sense of place that attracts people and businesses and convinces
them to remain in the area. Healthy ecosystems not only signal that ecosystem services are operating,
but that society and the economy are being supported and enriched. By protecting and managing the
City’s natural resources, ecosystem services will persist and improve.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 6
1.2.2 What is a Natural Resources Management Plan?
Understanding the City of Mendota Heights’ natural areas begins with recognizing that most of the City’s
natural resources have been lost, fragmented and degraded over the past 170 years. The City’s
rejuvenating natural processes—fire and large mammal grazing and browsing—shaped vegetation and
wildlife for thousands of years, but have been largely eliminated. The arrival of invasive species further
challenge the goal of maintaining healthy ecosystems and natural resources.
Nature has an amazing ability to recover from past injury and take care of itself in the long term, but with
so much change, people now need to intervene. Some landowners manage their lands to prevent
deterioration or improve the quality of natural resources. But natural resource management is
complicated and people doing it must understand ecological and hydrological systems and cycles, the
ways that climate is shifting, and the habits of plants and animals.
This NRMP is focused on system-wide ecologically-based planning but can be used for individual parks
and specific natural areas. It provides a framework for protecting the City’s valued natural areas, as well
as opportunities for enhancing, expanding, and connecting these important natural resources. It is the
foundation for accurate cost estimates to implement restoration and management plans citywide. Lastly,
the plan will enhance biodiversity, increase human enjoyment of natural areas, and put natural areas on
a trajectory towards long-term ecological health and resilience.
1.2.3 Ecological Restoration & Management
Definition. Ecological restoration is the art and science
of improving the health and resilience of natural
environments by stabilizing and enhancing species
diversity and natural processes. Restoration ecologists
use scientific knowledge of how ecologically healthy
plant communities and ecosystems are composed and
operate in order to describe current ecological
conditions and lay out programs to create positive
changes in damaged ecosystems and plant
communities. After restoration to a better condition,
ecosystems, plant communities, and wildlife still need
to be watched and managed, though at a lower per-
acre cost than managing turf or traditional
landscaping.
Importance of Native Vegetation. Re-establishing and enhancing native vegetation—adapted to the local
environment and growing in the region–is fundamental for ecological restoration and the conservation of
biodiversity. Benefits of native vegetation include:
• Providing high-quality habitat for native wildlife, including many pollinators
o Nutritious food (berries, pollen, nectar)
o Nesting and overwintering habitat (full life-cycle needs)
• Requiring no irrigation once established
Restoring and Managing Natural Resources
is a Good Idea
The art and science of improving ecosystem
health and resilience is being used by the
City to support pollinators and wildlife,
reduce management costs and
environmental damage from incompatible
past land use, and lay the groundwork for
adaptation to ongoing and future climate
change. It is not an attempt to restore
conditions of 1850, but rather to work with
existing conditions and set ecosystems on a
trajectory towards a higher level of
ecosystem health and resilience despite
future environmental change.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 7
• Requiring no fertilizers or pesticides
• More resilient than many non-native or cultivated varieties due to drought- and pest-resistance
and suitability for the local climate and soils
While restoring native plant communities has the greatest effect on large tracts of native forests and
prairie plantings, native plantings for small restorations, rain gardens, and butterfly gardens also create
habitat and deliver ecosystem services. This small restoration approach offers myriad opportunities for
public and private lands. For example, small native plantings are suitable for residential lots, in
boulevards, and on small areas of public property. Strategically placed, they can be buffers for adjacent
natural areas.
Benefits of Ecological Restoration. Ecological restoration helps people directly by improving ecosystem
services, including flood and erosion control, soil building, and pollinator resources. It also benefits plant
and animal species that are uncommon or declining, species that need high quality or large habitats, and
species that respond poorly to intensive human use. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(MNDNR) Natural Heritage Program identified 75 rare natural features within a one-mile buffer around
the City of Mendota Heights (MNDNR 2020), and Minnesota’s Wildlife Action Plan identified many other
Species of Greatest Conservation Need (MNDNR 2016; see Appendix A for a glossary of technical terms).
These species need well-managed and sometimes large habitats to stop their decline.
The City has completed several ecological restoration projects, including invasive vegetation removal and
shoreline restoration projects. (Appendix B provides a summary of the City’s Natural Resources Program
and volunteer activities, and section 2.b.ii. of Appendix B lists restoration projects that have been
undertaken). This NRMP will help expand the City’s restoration and management efforts, prevent further
species declines, and may increase the population size of some native species.
Limits of Ecological Restoration. Ecological restoration creates healthy and resilient ecosystems, often in
developed and disturbed landscapes. The composition, structure, and function of restored ecosystems
aim to be like those of original ecosystems, but of course cannot in the short-term (or perhaps ever) fully
replicate those original ecosystems that persisted for thousands of years. However, restored ecosystems
have more native plant and animal species, higher levels of infiltration and carbon storage, and greater
ability to change as the environment changes, compared to turf, cropland, and cultural ecosystems.
Restored ecosystems need to be managed to keep them in good working order, just as cultural land must
be. The ecosystems of 170 years ago also were “managed” by fire, grazing and burrowing animals,
flooding, and other natural disturbances. Landscape-scale and local changes often prevent the full re-
creation of original natural conditions. Historical ecological conditions give us insights into what is
possible at a given site, but no more. In the end, however, the goals of a restoration project dictates the
level of effort and the conditions that result.
Importance of Adaptive Management. Restoration and management plans need to be flexible.
Restoration programs are often not implemented exactly according to plan because the timing of funding
may not align with field operations, the response of ecosystems to restoration may dictate adjustments
in techniques, and the basic management needs of an ecosystem may change in response to new threats
and conditions. New scientific findings and insights also may change restoration plans and management
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 8
practices. For these reasons, restoration and management plans should be viewed as a starting point in
a process of restoring biodiversity and natural processes in natural areas, subject to amendment as
conditions and information change.
The most successful restoration programs use regular monitoring and
reporting as feedback on the program’s effectiveness. Monitoring also
generates information to justify changes in the restoration and
management program. Adaptive management is an approach to
structured decision making in the face of uncertainty, with an aim to
reducing uncertainty over time by using a cycle of planning,
implementation, monitoring, evaluation, adjustment, and further
implementation (Figure 3). Adaptive management is used in the best
restoration programs, begins with the initial restoration work, and
continues indefinitely as natural areas are managed over time.
Figure 3. Adaptive Management Framework
Source: Conservation Measures Partnership (2022)
Initial Restoration and Short-Term Management Phase
Ecological restoration has short- and long-term management phases. The initial restoration and short-
term management phase is typically labor-intensive and costly compared to long-term management. The
initial effort usually lasts about three years and requires a significant investment to prepare for and begin
establishing the proposed native plant communities. Tasks often include: re-introducing natural
Adaptive Management
The City will use adaptive
management—a cycle of
planning, implementation,
evaluation, and
adjustment—to make
decisions despite
uncertainty, with the aim of
reducing uncertainty with
each implementation cycle.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 9
disturbances (e.g., fire); re-establishing natural hydrological cycles in aquatic systems; using biocontrol,
physical methods, and chemicals (e.g., herbicides) to control invasive plant species; and seeding and
planting native vegetation. The length of time before transitioning to long-term management depends
on the site’s initial quality, weather conditions, how the site responds to restoration activities, the size of
the site, and factors unique to the site. Figure 4 shows the relatively high cost of initial restoration work,
the somewhat reduced cost during establishment management, and the lowest annual cost in long-term
management.
Figure 4. Generalized Cost of Restoration and Management Over Time
It is usual to refer to planting a new prairie or wetland as “restoration,” whereas “enhancement” is used
to describe activities where natural conditions already exist and less effort is needed to improve the
natural resources. Enhancement, for instance, might entail removing invasive shrubs and overseeding
native woodland plants in an existing native woodland or forest.
Restoration sequence in a woodland: left: degraded, center: restoration, right: short-term management
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 10
Long-Term Management Phase
After the restoration and short-term management phase, the process shifts to a lower-cost, but equally
important, long-term management phase. Scheduling a monitoring visit and management activities every
year protects the restoration investment and ensures that the plant community and ecosystems continue
on a trajectory towards greater ecological health.
Long-term management tasks often are to:
• Maintain disturbances (e.g., fire) that perpetuate a diverse, resilient plant community
• Selectively remove or treat invasive plants (e.g., precise spot-application of herbicide)
• Re-seed disturbed or poorly developing areas
• Re-plant woody plants that have died.
Most North American ecosystems need some type of
disturbance that removes dead plant material, stimulates
blooming of plant species, and opens up microhabitats for
plants and animals to perpetuate themselves. Controlled or
prescribed burns are a common tool used that mimics natural
fire regimes in prairies, savannas, wetlands, and some forests
and woodlands. Harvesting hay from prairies, which mimics
fire and, to a lesser extent, grazing, can also be effective.
1.2.4 What Happens When Natural Resources Are Not Managed?
Some people believe that nature has been around a very long time and can take care of itself. Others
think that more important issues and problems face us and that managing natural resources does not
merit the expense. While these are valid views, they are not the whole story.
Studies over the last half century clearly demonstrate that, without management—i.e., “ecological
stewardship”—natural resources change in ways that are not always beneficial to people or supportive of
ecosystem services (Alstad et al. 2016, Le Maitreet al. 1996, Leach and Givnish 1996). A common problem
in many unmanaged forests and woodlands in the region is invasion by non-native Common buckthorn
(Rhamnus cathartica) and Asian honeysuckles (Lonicera spp.). When these shrubs invade natural areas, a
cascade of negative effects follows. Oak regeneration is suppressed, native shrubs decline, soil chemistry
and composition change, and ground vegetation is shaded—leading to the loss of soil-anchoring plants
and excessive erosion. Flower resources for pollinators are eliminated, reducing the amount and variety
of food for other wildlife, and further depressing wildlife populations.
Large, ecologically complex natural areas may resist these trends, but without proper management quality
declines over time. This is especially true in small and scattered natural areas, which is the situation in
most Mendota Heights’ parks. With some level of consistent management, the situation can be stabilized
and even improved. For example, removing invasive buckthorn and honeysuckle from woodland slopes
preserves the soil and seedbank, and prevents sediment from reaching water bodies. This NRMP
identifies and prioritizes the management actions that the City can take to improve the health and
resilience of its natural areas and the resulting ecosystem services and recreational benefits.
The Importance of Stewardship
While initial restoration and short-
term management typically require
more effort and higher cost per acre,
long term stewardship will protect
this investment in perpetuity with less
effort and at lower cost per acre.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 11
1.3 Vision, Principles & Goals
The City of Mendota Heights recognizes the important role that natural resources play in their
city. Natural areas are valued deeply by the community—they provide an enjoyable and interactive
experience for residents and visitors, for example, an outdoor classroom for students of all ages and a
home for a surprising variety of plants and wildlife.
Effective planning is often facilitated by development of an aspirational vision statement, establishing
principles, and outlining goals.
1.3.1 Vision
The City of Mendota Heights vision for its natural areas is:
To secure the benefits of a healthy environment for people and the natural world, the citizens,
employees, and leaders of the City of Mendota Heights will protect, improve, and maintain healthy
ecosystems and all natural resources in the City.
1.3.2 Principles
Ecologically-based planning principles are guideposts, used to define how a project should unfold.
Based on discussions with City staff and the project Steering Committee, these planning principles were
established for natural areas restoration and management within Mendota Heights.
Overall
• Protect and better connect sensitive natural resources in order to foster resilient and biodiverse
natural areas within the City limits.
• Understand the historical and current conditions of natural areas to describe a future ecological
path for natural resources.
• Design within the limits of existing soils, hydrology, and vegetation conditions.
• Create attractive and resilient plant communities that can be managed economically.
• Tell the ecological story of the City’s natural areas to inspire people through its restoration.
• Bring people into the City’s natural areas while protecting biodiversity and ecosystem resilience.
• Provide all City residents and visitors with an equitable opportunity to experience natural areas
within the City’s park system.
• Use indicators and monitoring to document trends in natural resources and determine the
success of restoration and management efforts.
Vegetation
• Protect and restore the City’s ecologically important natural areas and plant communities to
prevent their disappearance or degradation.
• Maintain and enhance common natural areas.
• Promote a natural variety of native flowering plants across the growing season.
• Control invasive or aggressive native plants that reduce biodiversity and ecological resilience.
• Establish vegetative structure that requires the least effort to maintain.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 12
Wildlife
• Protect, improve, and restore habitat for all wildlife—especially rare and uncommon species.
• Create the largest, roundest habitats for area-sensitive wildlife species (round habitats tend to
be higher quality because they resist negative edge effects from adjacent land uses; see Section
3.3.1 for further details.)
• Design to reduce wildlife-damaging edge effects from adjacent properties.
• Install special habitat features (nest boxes, basking logs, etc.).
• Identify and seek to make connections to similar habitats on nearby conservation lands.
• Manage nuisance wildlife species using appropriate methods.
Soil & Hydrology
• Use vegetative stabilization and a natural ecosystems approach before resorting to more hard-
armored and engineered solutions, or consider integrating both into a bioengineered solutions.
• Preserve and restore healthy, stable soils and natural hydrology by using a watershed
management approach and identifying and stabilizing unstable slopes.
• Protect downstream and neighboring properties from floods and water damage.
• Use a series of natural features (e.g., rain gardens, prairies, wetlands), arranged in stormwater
treatment trains, to manage runoff from impervious cover, and by reducing runoff at its source.
• Design and implement soil and hydrology solutions in the most cost-effective way possible.
Human Use
• Identify a conservation concept for natural areas—cores, transitions, and high impact areas.
• Improve management of natural areas by defining management units and access points.
• Detect problems early by regular monitoring.
• Recruit organizations, experts and volunteers to help maintain and monitor natural areas.
• Protect cultural resources (e.g., artifacts and historical structures).
1.3.3 Goals
The City of Mendota Heights’ 2040 Comprehensive Plan identified numerous goals for the City. Of the
City’s goals focused on natural resources, the first sought to develop this Natural Resources
Management Plan (NRMP):
• GOAL 7.1: Develop a professional, comprehensive, strategic Natural Resources Management
Plan for City-wide natural areas and natural resources.
The second natural resources goal addressed by this NRMP is:
• GOAL 7.2: Protect, connect, restore, buffer, and manage natural areas, wildlife habitat, and
other natural resources, for high ecological quality and diversity of plant and animal species.
To address this second goal, this NRMP:
• Summarizes the City’s historical and existing natural resources
• Maps plant communities, including their ecological quality
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 13
• Characterizes the City’s tree canopy and provides urban forest management recommendations
• Identifies the City’s urban heat islands and provides mitigation recommendations
• Characterizes the City’s other natural resources (e.g., wildlife, water resources)
• Assesses invasive species, diseases of native vegetation, and rare natural features
• Recommends changes to the City’s natural resources ordinances and policies
• Summarizes the City’s existing Natural Resources Program (including use of volunteers)
• Describes challenges and opportunities for achieving conservation goals
• Conveys conservation concepts and strategies, including ecological connectivity and climate
resilience
• Describes an “ecosystem approach” to applying restoration and management tasks and
recommends implementation methods
• Addresses conservation opportunities on private land and through public outreach
• Identifies City-wide conservation priorities, Natural Area Parks, and Priority Projects
• Provides opinions of probable cost and a five-year implementation plan
• Provides recommendations regarding funding sources and plan updates
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 14
This page left intentionally blank
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 15
2 HISTORICAL & EXISTING NATURAL RESOURCES
2.1 Information Gathering
2.1.1 Existing Data & Plans
Existing data and reports were used to assist with plant community mapping, classification, and quality
assessment. AES compiled and reviewed numerous plans and datasets, including:
Existing Related Plans
• City of Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan (City of Mendota Heights 2019)
• Natural Resource Management Plan for the River to River Greenway (Dakota County 2020)
• Natural Resources Management Plan, City of Mendota Heights (Barr Engineering Company
2002)
• Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob – Draft Historical Landscape Plan (SRF Consulting Group 2018)
Geographic Information System (GIS) Data
• City park boundaries
• City ash tree inventory
• Dakota County parcel data
• MNDNR Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS)/Biotics data – rare natural features
(MNDNR 2020)
• National Land Cover Database (NLCD, Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium
2016)
• MNDNR National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Central Minnesota Update (2013)
• MNDNR Regionally Significant Ecological Areas (MNDNR 2008)
• Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) data (MNDNR 2004)
• MNDNR County Biological Survey data (Sites of Biological Significance and Native Plant
Communities, 1997)
• Original Vegetation of Minnesota (Marschner 1974)
• Elevation data from LiDAR (MnTOPO)
• Aerial photography (historical and recent, from Metropolitan Council/MnGeo and Dakota
County)
• Early Detection and Distribution Mapping System (EDDMapS)
Other Reports/Data
• Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota: The Eastern Broadleaf Forest
Province (MNDNR 2005)
• MNDNR Natural Community Element Occurrence Ranking Guidelines (MNDNR 2001)
Several of the above plans (most notably the recent City Comprehensive Plan update) were developed
using an inclusive public engagement process, providing valuable information about stakeholders, how
they use City parks and natural areas, and their preferences regarding potential changes. This Natural
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 16
Resources Management Plan (NRMP) is a more technical, internal guidance document specific to the City’s
management of their natural areas. As such, public outreach was limited to an informational flyer posted
on the City’s website, as well as an opportunity for the public to review and comment on two drafts of the
NRMP.
2.1.2 Methods
This NRMP is based on the ecological conditions and management needs in the City of Mendota Heights’
natural areas. AES ecologists conducted field inventories and assessments of the City’s priority natural
areas over the four seasons of 2020. Desktop mapping was used to create maps for use in the field. The
field maps were then used to verify and/or refine plant community classification, plant community
boundaries, and ecological quality ranks. Collector for ArcGISTM and ArcGISTM Online were used during
data collection for field navigation, review of mapping data, and collection of georeferenced data (e.g.,
digital photography of representative plant communities, unique natural features, and other items of note
throughout the City). Desktop refinement of GIS data was conducted after field verification.
2.2 Natural Resources Findings
Mendota Heights is located in northern Dakota
County, Minnesota (Figure 5). Understanding the
natural history of the region and current
conditions of Mendota Heights’ natural areas
provides an important foundation for planning
and natural resource management.
2.2.1 Ecological Context & Overview
Ancient seas once occupied the Twin Cities region, as evidenced by limestone bedrock—a remnant of
former coral reefs. The Wisconsin glaciation, which ended about 10,000 years ago, created the region’s
major landforms. The glaciers left a rolling and hilly landscape with lakes and wetlands in depressions,
and the Mississippi River and Minnesota River valleys were carved out by receding meltwaters of glacial
River Warren. Limestone and sandstone bedrock are exposed along sections of these rivers and some of
their tributaries. Soils in the region formed primarily from sandy and gravelly glacial outwash on level
plains and are generally well drained.
A high-quality Mesic Forest near the top of slope of Ivy Falls
Ravine.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 17
Figure 5. Regional & Ecological Context of Mendota Heights
According to the MNDNR Ecological Classification System (ECS), the City of Mendota Heights lies
completely within the St. Paul-Baldwin Plains Subsection within the Minnesota & NE Iowa Morainal
Section within the Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province (MNDNR 2019, Figure 5). A brief description of the
subsection follows.
St. Paul-Baldwin Plains and Moraines. Soils vary, and include clay loams, loams, sandy loams,
and loamy sands. Oak and aspen savanna were the primary communities, but areas of tallgrass
prairie and maple-basswood forest were common. Prairies burned frequently, as did many
savannas.
For thousands of years prior to the arrival of Europeans, Native Americans were living on the land that
would later become known as Minnesota. Oȟéyawahe, renamed by European settlers as Pilot Knob, is
within the City of Mendota Heights and is a place of high cultural importance to the Dakota community.
Besides serving as an important gathering place and burial ground, Oȟéyawahe was the site of signing of
the Treaty of 1851, which transferred 35 million acres of Dakota land to the United States (Pilot Knob
Preservation 2020).
Native Americans altered the natural landscape through repeated use of fire, clearing brush from forest
understories and creating prairie and oak savanna. They established villages, trails, and plots for crops in
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 18
choice locations. During the mid-to-late 1600s, Euro-Americans arrived first as French missionaries and
fur traders. Later in the 1700s and 1800s, British and American traders and explorers arrived, dramatically
altering the environment and social landscape through settlement, fur trade, warfare, and treaties.
Mendota Heights’ landscapes were influenced by these past land uses and practices, and they continue
to evolve due to changes in use, management, wildlife, and climate.
2.2.2 Land Cover & Plant Communities
Land cover includes relatively natural, usually vegetated, areas or habitats (e.g., forests, prairies, old fields,
wetlands, water bodies) and more altered cultural areas (e.g., turf, impervious surfaces). Land cover
mapping is usually employed to assess and manage natural resources.
Pre-European Settlement Vegetation
According to vegetation mapping by Marschner (1974), prior to European settlement (early 1800s), the
City of Mendota Heights was dominated by Oak Openings and Barrens (Figure 6). This landscape mingled
sun-loving prairie and shade-tolerant woodland species beneath a scattered or clumped canopy of mostly
oak trees. Other plant communities in the City were: the forested Big Woods - Hardwoods (southeast
corner), Brush Prairie (south-central), Wet Prairie (southwest corner), and River Bottom Forest of elm,
ash, silver maple, and cottonwood along the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers. Brush Prairie had a similar
plant life to Oak Openings and Barrens but lacked an obvious tree canopy.
Figure 6. Pre-European Settlement Vegetation of Mendota Heights
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 19
Current Land Use
Since European settlement, over 84 percent of the City has been developed to various degrees (Table 1).
Low density and rural residential areas comprise over 30 percent of the City, harboring a significant
portion of the City’s semi-natural vegetation.
Table 1. Land Use in the City of Mendota Heights (adapted from City data)
Land Type Acres Percent of City Percent of City
Industrial, Commercial, Right-of-Way
Industrial 399.5 6.2
29.0
Commercial/Business 44.7 0.7
Limited Business 106.8 1.7
Limited Business PUD 50.9 0.8
Mixed Use PUD 22.3 0.3
Right-of-Way (land occupied by public roads & boulevards) 1,218.7 18.9
Rail Line – not used 20.7 0.3
Residential
High Density Residential 72.0 1.1
33.6
High Density Residential PUD 45.5 0.7
Medium Density Residential 10.6 0.2
Medium Density Residential PUD 66.4 1.0
Low Density Residential 1,771.4 27.5
Rural Residential 194.3 3.0
Institutional
State Property (mostly Ft. Snelling State Park) 497.5 7.7
21.1
City Hall/Public Works/Fire Hall 16.3 0.3
School 122.9 1.9
Private School 98.1 1.5
Churches & Synagogues 15.7 0.2
Cemetery 320.1 5.0
Golf Course 287.8 4.5
Open Space & Water
Nature Preserve 114.6 1.8
16.4 Park (non-water) 214.9 3.3
Water 724.9 11.3
Total 6,436.6 100 100
Much of the City-owned property is parkland (non-water). Together with golf courses, cemeteries, and
the Dodge Nature Preserve, this land represents 14.6 percent of the City’s area and constitutes much of
its open space (Figure 7). Residential land uses constitute the largest portion of the City (over 33 percent),
underscoring the abundant opportunities for private residents to improve the ecological health of the City
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 20
Figure 7. City of Mendota Heights Parks and Trails
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 21
through native landscaping and other stewardship practices on private properties. Street boulevards
(“Right-of-Way” in Table 1) also present a significant opportunity for increased native plantings, ecological
connectivity, and associated benefits. These opportunities are discussed further under Section 2.4.
Vegetation & Natural Areas Mapping
In 1997, the MNDNR County Biological Survey (CBS) mapped sites of biological significance and native
plant communities in Dakota County (MNDNR 1997). Sites of biological significance within the City are
limited to its southwest corner in Fort Snelling State Park. Here CBS staff mapped two Bulrush Marshes
(Northern) and one Calcareous Fen (Southeastern). In the early 2000s, Dakota County staff used the
Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS; MNDNR 2004) to map land cover in the City. This
was the foundation for land cover and plant community mapping in this NRMP.
In 2003, the MNDNR conducted a landscape-scale assessment of the seven-county metro area to identify
ecologically significant terrestrial and wetland areas (MNDNR 2008). Using MLCCS data, this assessment
was updated in 2008 and identified four important natural resource areas:
• Fort Snelling State Park
• Dodge Nature Preserve
• Rogers Lake
• The area around the St. Thomas Ice Arena (between Mendota Heights Road and Interstate 494,
south of Lake Drive). Most of this area has been developed, including the ice arena, parking lot,
athletic fields, and community garden plots.
MLCCS is a detailed classification system with many uses, but a more general system is more effective to
communicate with natural resource managers and the public. For this NRMP, a classification based on
MLCCS was developed to characterize natural and semi-natural plant communities in the City (Table 2).
(“Natural/semi-natural” plant communities include native plant communities and altered natural areas
that are not routinely managed, such as second-growth forests and old fields). The classification is
arranged in a hierarchy, and lower organizational levels that provide more detail are indented. For
instance, the first level separates dry from wet soils (upland versus lowland communities). The second
level separates communities by the dominant form of the vegetation. At the third and fourth levels,
additional information is brought into the classification, such as the dominant plant species or a unique
feature of the habitat.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 22
Table 2. Natural/Semi-Natural Vegetation Classification for Mendota Heights
PLANT COMMUNITIES DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS
Upland Communities High, dry ground
Forest/Woodland 50-100% tree canopy
Mature Forest/Woodland Large trees
Dry-Mesic Forest/Woodland (1) Often oaks; fire-dependent
Mesic Forest (2) Often maples important
Altered Forest/Woodland (3) Often box elder, green ash, elms
Savanna/Brushland 5-50% tree canopy
Savanna (4) Tree dominated, but <50% canopy cover
Shrub/Scrub (5) Shrub dominated, with trees
Grassland <5% tree canopy
Prairie (6) Native plants dominate
Non-Native Grassland (7) Little native plant cover
Lowland Communities Low areas, including wetlands
Lowland Forest/Woodland 50-100% tree canopy
Lowland Forest (8) Forests in floodplains or near water
Lowland Shrub/Scrub 5-50% tree canopy
Lowland Shrub/Scrub (9) Often willows and/or dogwoods
Lowland Herbaceous <5% tree canopy
Wet Meadow (10) Grasses and sedges dominate
Marsh (11) Often invasive cattails, deep water
Open Water (12) May have submerged or floating vegetation
Using MLCCS data, current aerial imagery, AES’s tree canopy analysis (discussed under Section 2.2.4), field
mapping and assessment, and other data sources, AES updated mapping of the City’s natural/semi-natural
vegetation, focusing on its parks and natural areas. Developed land and cultural land covers (e.g.,
buildings, impervious surfaces, regularly maintained turf) were mapped based on Dakota County aerial
imagery and other data (Figure 8).
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 23
Figure 8. Natural/Semi-Natural Vegetation of Mendota Heights
Except for Fort Snelling, Dodge Nature Preserve, Valley Park, and the two lake districts, the City’s
natural/semi-natural plant communities are small and scattered across the landscape. Some 1,975 acres
of natural and semi-natural plant communities—including approximately 554 acres of open water and
another 350 acres in Ft. Snelling State Park—are found in the City (Table 3). This is about 30 percent of
the City’s 6,437-acre extent. Some 29 percent of the natural and semi-natural plant communities are
owned by the City— in City parks, City Hall, and other City lands—with the remainder by the private sector
and other entities (Table 3). Upland and lowland plant communities on City-owned land are about equally
divided, but open water makes up the majority of lowland communities.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 24
Table 3. Natural/Semi-Natural Vegetation of Mendota Heights
PLANT COMMUNITIES1 ACRES IN
CITY
ACRES IN CITY
PARKS & PARCELS
ECOLOGICAL
QUALITY RANKS2
Upland Communities 700.3 123.8 BC - NN
Forest/Woodland 507.4 79.9 BC - NN
Mature Forest/Woodland 194.9 26.2 BC - D
Dry-Mesic Forest/Woodland (1) 18.1 7.7 CD – D
Mesic Forest (2) 176.8 18.5 BC - D
Altered Forest/Woodland (3) 312.5 53.7 NN
Savanna/Brushland 69.8 16.2 CD - NN
Savanna (4) 12.1 0.4 CD - NN
Shrub/Scrub (5) 57.7 15.9 D - NN
Grassland 123.1 27.7 BCD - NN
Prairie (6) 68.6 21.4 BCD - CD
Non-Native Grassland (7) 54.4 6.3 NN
Lowland Communities 1,274.8 143.6 CD - NN
Lowland Forest/Woodland 273.0 22.9 CD - D
Lowland Forest (8) 273.0 22.9 CD - D
Lowland Shrub/Scrub 71.1 14.0 CD NN
Lowland Shrub/Scrub (9) 71.1 14.0 CD - NN
Lowland Herbaceous 376.4 28.3 CD - NN
Wet Meadow (10) 68.4 12.0 D - NN
Marsh (11) 308.0 16.2 CD - NN
Open Water (12) 554.3 78.5 NA
Totals 1,975.0 267.4
1 See Table 2 for brief descriptions of plant community types
2 See Section 2.2.3 for Ecological Quality Rank discussion; A = Highest quality; B = Good quality; C = Moderate
condition; D = Poor condition; combinations of letters (e.g., BC) represent a mosaic of quality ranks; NN =
Not a natural community; NA = Not applicable
The most abundant upland and wetland plant communities in the City of Mendota Heights are Altered
Forest/Woodland, Lowland Forest, and Marsh (Figures 8 and 9). The dominance of Altered
Forest/Woodland on City-owned properties is evident. Much of the City’s wooded areas are closed
canopy forests, derived from overgrown savannas and second-growth forests now dominated by
Boxelder, cottonwood, elms and other non-oak species. These forests provide fewer ecosystem services
than native forests. The once prevalent and characteristic natural savannas and brushlands of the City
now occupy only one percent of its area (Figures 9 and 10). Although the typical savanna structure of
scattered and grouped canopy trees, with few saplings and shrubs beneath, can be seen at picnic areas of
any park and in front yards of many homes, these cultural land covers do not provide the ecosystem
services of native oak savannas.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 25
Figure 9. Natural/Semi-Natural Vegetation Acreages of Mendota Heights
Figure 10. Natural/Semi-Natural Vegetation Acreages of City Parks & Parcels
In these descriptions of each natural and semi-natural vegetation type found in Mendota Heights, the
characteristic plant species and other information is based on current conditions in the City as observed
during our 2020-2021 field work. Acreages provided after each plant community name represent acres
throughout the City (Figure 9), not only within City parks and parcels.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 26
1. Dry-Mesic Forest/Woodland (18.1 acres)
Summary
A well-drained, forested plant community of oaks and other tree species on higher ground and slopes.
Characteristic Plant Species in Mendota Heights
• Bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa)
• Northern pin oak (Q. ellipsoidalis)
• White oak (Q. alba)
• Red oak (Q. rubra)
• Black cherry (Prunus serotina)
• Big-toothed and Quaking aspen (Populus grandidentata, P. tremuloides)
• Woodbine (Parthenocissus inserta)
Other Plant Community Characteristics
• Tree canopy typically has scattered openings, where direct sunlight dapples the forest floor.
• Compared to Mesic Forest, Dry-Mesic Forest/Woodland tends to be more susceptible to
invasion by Common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) and invasive honeysuckles (Lonicera
tatarica, L. x bella, etc.).
• Generally falls within the “Fire-Dependent Forest/Woodland System” of the Minnesota Native
Plant Community Classification (MNDNR 2005).
Soil and Slopes
• Often occurs in well- to moderately well-drained soils.
• Often found on south- or west-facing slopes but can also occur on relatively flat landscape
settings.
Historical Conditions
• Historically burned relatively frequently (approximately once every 10 years).
• Low-intensity surface fires were important for maintaining plant community structure and
species composition. Without fire, sun-dependent species disappear, reducing the variety of
plants and insects in the community.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 27
Dry-Mesic Forest/Woodland, restoration site (in progress) in the northern portion of Valley Park.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 28
2. Mesic Forest (176.8 acres)
Summary
A moist, forested plant community of basswood, oaks, sugar maple, and other tree species typically on
level ground, northerly-facing slopes, and lower slopes.
Characteristic Plant Species in Mendota Heights
• Basswood (Tilia americana)
• Red and Bur oaks (Quercus rubra, Q. macrocarpa)
• Bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis)
• Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis)
• American and Slippery elm (Ulmus americana, U. rubra)
• Sugar maple (Acer saccharum)
• Ironwood (Ostrya virginiana)
• Woodbine (Parthenocissus inserta)
• Wild ginger (Asarum canadense)
Other Plant Community Characteristics
• Tree canopy closure often is nearly 100 percent, which limits or excludes shrub and ground layer
vegetation that requires direct sunlight.
• Invasive Common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) is often present, but typically less abundant
than in Dry-Mesic Forest/Woodland.
• Invasive Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) is a problem in many of Mendota Heights’ Mesic
Forests, especially those in low-lying or moist areas.
• Generally falls within the “Mesic Hardwood Forest System” of the Minnesota Native Plant
Community Classification (MNDNR 2005), and includes mesic oak forests as well as maple-
basswood forests.
Soil and Slopes
• Often occurs in moderately well-drained soils.
• Often found on north- or east-facing slopes, but can also occur on relatively flat landscape
settings.
Historical Conditions
• Historically, burned rarely (approximately once every 20-50 years).
• Tends to become dense stands of maple in the natural process of forest succession. Individual
tree death or blowdowns of several trees maintained tree canopy diversity if species other than
maple were growing beneath the gap created in the forest canopy.
• Researchers have shown that non-native, invasive earthworms (including “jumping worms”)
harm Minnesota forests, particularly Mesic Forest. Earthworms reduce forest duff, increase
erosion, and change soil structure in a way that prevents the regeneration of many native
herbaceous plants and trees. It is likely that most, if not all, of Mendota Heights’ Mesic Forest
stands contain some invasive earthworms.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 29
Mesic Forest, in the northern portion of Valley Park.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 30
3. Altered Forest/Woodland (312.5 acres)
Summary
A forested plant community on formerly cropped, pastured, or disturbed land, dominated by light-seeded
trees and shrubs, most of which originate in lowland settings.
Characteristic Plant Species in Mendota Heights
• Box elder (Acer negundo)
• Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
• American and Slippery elm (Ulmus americana, U. rubra)
• Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) – invasive non-native
• Eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides)
• Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides)
• White pine (Pinus strobus) in pine plantations (e.g., Valley Park) but historically was also present
in some original forests
• Amur maple (Acer ginnala) – invasive non-native
• Gray dogwood (Cornus racemosa)
• Common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) – invasive non-native
• Non-native honeysuckles (Lonicera tatarica, L. x bella, etc.) - invasive non-native
Other Plant Community Characteristics
• Some areas contain planted trees of native and non-native deciduous and coniferous species.
• Invasive plants are common, including Common buckthorn, non-native honeysuckles, Garlic
mustard (Alliaria petiolata), Motherwort (Leonurus cardiaca), Japanese hedge parsley (Torilis
japonica), and Common burdock (Arctium minus).
• Often mapped in MLCCS as “Boxelder – Green ash forest”.
• Not considered a natural community.
Soil and Slopes
• Occurs in a broad range of soils and slope positions.
Historical Conditions
• Often formerly disturbed areas that were colonized by pioneering species of bottomlands, which
have light, highly mobile seeds (see Characteristic Plant Species above); these trees may range in
age from young to mature.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 31
Altered Forest/Woodland, northwest of Rogers Lake.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 32
4. Savanna (12.1 acres)
Summary
A relatively open plant community where oaks, other trees, and shrubs cover less than half the ground,
which is blanketed by sun-requiring and shade-tolerant plants. The term “Savanna” as used in this
classification does not necessarily mean a high quality native community, such as an intact oak savanna
with native groundcover. Rather, Savanna here means a community has the physical structure of a
savanna, with 10-50 percent canopy cover, consisting mostly of trees, and a shrubby or herbaceous
ground layer. Ecological quality ranks discussed later in this plan can be used to differentiate savannas
with oaks and a native ground layer versus savannas comprised of species not characteristic of historical,
species-rich savannas.
Characteristic Plant Species in Mendota Heights
• Bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa)
• Northern pin oak (Q. ellipsoidalis)
• Black cherry (Prunus serotina)
• American plum (Prunus americana)
• Chokecherry (P. virginiana)
• Pennsylvania sedge (Carex pennsylvanica)
Other Plant Community Characteristics
• Savanna is used to describe landscapes with less canopy cover than forests and woodlands
(typically <50 percent canopy cover), and where the woody (i.e., tree and shrub) vegetation is
dominated by trees as opposed to shrubs.
• The broken tree canopy allows sunlight to reach the ground layer, often supporting substantial
herbaceous vegetation where shrubs and colonizing trees are not dominant.
• Many of the grand, arching oaks seen throughout Mendota Heights originated in savannas, and
often still present the look of a natural savanna even though the ground layer is mowed or
composed of non-native plants.
• Common buckthorn is an invasive shrub that dominates the understory of many Savannas.
Soil and Slopes
• Occurs in a broad range of soil types and slope positions.
Historical Conditions
• Historically, Savannas experienced frequent fires (approximately once every 2-4 years).
However, where canopy cover approached 50 percent, these fires (carried by oak leaves) were
not severe, with flame lengths only a few feet in height. Where trees covered only 10 percent of
the ground, fires were like those in prairies, with much longer flame lengths due to the
abundance of dry ground layer vegetation as fuel. While shrubs and seedlings were often killed
by these fires, they re-sprouted from rootstocks. Fire-tolerant trees such as the thick-barked
bur oak and trees that grew rapidly from root masses (called “grubs”), such as northern pin oak,
were usually able to reach a size that survived the surface fires. Fire helped maintain an open
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 33
and patchy vegetation structure in the community, with some areas in full sun and others in
partial shade.
• Variety of tree canopy cover and different amounts of light promoted a diversity of flowering
shrubs, grasses, and wildflowers, combining forest and prairie flora, and made these habitats
productive and able to support a wide range of wildlife.
• Attractive to people because of their park-like quality.
Savanna, restoration site on the west edge of Rogers Lake.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 34
5. Shrub/Scrub (57.7 acres)
Summary
An upland plant community where shrubs and scrubby trees cover up to half the ground.
Characteristic Plant Species in Mendota Heights
• Smooth and Staghorn sumac (Rhus glabra, R. typhina)
• Common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) – invasive non-native
• Asian honeysuckles (primarily Lonicera tatarica, L. x bella) – invasive non-native
• Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) – potentially aggressive native
• Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) – invasive non-native
• Amur maple (Acer ginnala) – invasive non-native
• Gray dogwood (Cornus racemosa)
• Smooth brome (Bromus inermis) – invasive non-native
• Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis) – potentially aggressive native
Other Plant Community Characteristics
• Like Savanna, Shrub/Scrub describes landscapes with less canopy cover than forests and
woodlands (<50 percent cover); however, the woody vegetation is primarily shrubs and not
trees.
• Generally not considered a natural community; however, prior to 1850, Shrub/Scrub
communities on high ground were common and supported a wide array of native plants and
animals.
Soil and Slopes
• Occurs in a broad range of soils and slope positions.
Historical Conditions
• Most are former grassland areas that became overgrown with shrubs and scattered trees.
• If previously farmed or heavily grazed, ground layer often consists of non-native plants, similar
to those of Non-Native Grasslands.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 35
Shrub/Scrub, south of Lemay Lake. (Source: Google Earth Street View)
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 36
6. Prairie (68.6 acres)
Summary
A plant community of native grasses with a large variety of sunlight-dependent wildflowers that grow in
different combinations based on soil moisture.
Characteristic Plant Species in Mendota Heights
• Big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii)
• Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans)
• Switch grass (Panicum virgatum)
• Little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium)
• Gray-headed coneflower (Ratibida pinnata)
• Black-eyed Susan (Rudbeckia hirta)
• Stiff goldenrod (Oligoneuron rigidum)
• Common oxeye (Heliopsis helianthoides)
• Purple prairie clover (Dalea purpurea)
• Bergamot (Monarda fistulosa)
Other Plant Community Characteristics
• Herbaceous plant community, often dominated by grasses.
• Invasive species include Smooth brome (Bromus inermis) and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) in
uplands, and reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) in lowland areas.
• Falls within the “Upland Prairie System” or “Wetland Prairie System” of the Minnesota Native
Plant Community Classification (MNDNR 2005).
Soil and Slopes
• Occurs in a broad range of soils and slope positions: dry prairie is often on sandy soils and/or
south- or west-facing slopes, often the hottest, driest locations in the region; moist or mesic
prairie is found in a variety of settings, but never excessively dry or wet; wet prairie grows in
low, flat areas with shallow groundwater or seepage.
Historical Conditions
• Historically burned frequently (return intervals less than 5 years). A return interval of less than 4
years is recommended to prevent leaf litter accumulation, which changes soil conditions in favor
of many invasive plants which were not present in Minnesota 170 years ago.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 37
Planted prairie, in northern portion of Dodge Nature Preserve – Lily Property.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 38
7. Non-Native Grassland (54.4 acres)
Summary
A plant community dominated by invasive non-native grasses, often supporting few wildflower species.
Characteristic Plant Species in Mendota Heights
• Smooth brome (Bromus inermis) – invasive non-native
• Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) – invasive non-native
• Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) – invasive non-native
• Yellow and White sweet clover (Melilotus officinalis, M. alba) – invasive non-native
• Ground clovers (primarily Trifolium repens, T. pratense) – invasive non-native
• Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis) – potentially aggressive native
• Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) – invasive non-native
Other Plant Community Characteristics
• Dominated by non-native herbaceous vegetation that is not typically mowed or maintained.
• Not considered a natural community.
Soil and Slopes
• Occurs in a broad range of soils and slope positions.
Historical Conditions
• Often previously farmed or grazed.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 39
Non-Native Grassland, in northern portion of Dodge Nature Preserve - Lily Property.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 40
8. Lowland Forest (273.0 acres)
Summary
A wet, sometimes flooded, forested plant community of elm, ash, maple, cottonwood, and other trees
and shrubs in low-lying areas.
Characteristic Plant Species in Mendota Heights
• Eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides)
• Silver maple (Acer saccharinum)
• Black willow (Salix nigra) and hybrids
• Box elder (Acer negundo)
• American and Slippery elm (Ulmus americana, U. rubra)
• Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
• Common hackberry (Celtis occidentalis)
• Black walnut (Juglans nigra)
• Stinging nettle (Urtica dioica)
• Wood nettle (Laportea canadensis)
• Enchanter’s nightshade (Circaea lutetiana)
• Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) – invasive non-native
• Spotted touch-me-not (Impatiens capensis)
Other Plant Community Characteristics
• Low-lying woodlands that experience flooding, shallow water tables, or very moist conditions
due to solar aspect (e.g., in ravines or on north- or east-facing slopes).
• Remnant or restored native Lowland Forest often falls within the “Floodplain Forest System” or
“Wet Forest System” of the Minnesota Native Plant Community Classification (MNDNR 2005).
Soil and Slopes
• Occurs in low-lying areas including basins, floodplains, drainageways, and on lower slopes.
• Floodplains usually have mineral soil; swamps typically have organic, mucky soils.
Historical Conditions
• Some Lowland Forests still experience unaltered hydrology and resemble historical forests, but
others have changed due to hydrological alterations (e.g., dams, levees).
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 41
Lowland Forest, northern portion of Copperfield Ponds Park.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 42
9. Lowland Shrub/Scrub (71.1 acres)
Summary
A plant community on moist, occasionally flooded soils, where shrubs and scrubby trees cover up to half
the ground.
Characteristic Plant Species in Mendota Heights
• Black willow (Salix nigra) and hybrids
• Willow shrubs (Salix spp.)
• Red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera)
• Glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus) – invasive non-native
• Wild black currant (Ribes americanum)
• Narrow-leaved and Blue cattail hybrid (Typha angustifolia, T. x glauca) – invasive non-native
• Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) – invasive non-native
• Sedges (Carex spp.)
• Spotted touch-me-not (Impatiens capensis)
Other Plant Community Characteristics
• Shrub-dominated wetland community.
• Often contains highly invasive Reed canary grass, which can completely dominate the ground
layer.
• Remnant or restored native Lowland Shrub/Scrub falls within the “Wet Meadow/Carr System”
of the Minnesota Native Plant Community Classification (MNDNR 2005).
Soil and Slopes
• Occurs in saturated or groundwater-fed soils, usually in shallow, inundated depressions.
Historical Conditions
• Some Lowland Shrub/Scrub areas represent historical conditions, while others developed after
woody plants invaded Wet Meadows following drainage and the cessation of haying or grazing
or due to fire suppression.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 43
Lowland Shrub/Scrub, in northern portion of Valley Park (along Xcel Energy ROW).
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 44
10. Wet Meadow (68.4 acres)
Summary
A plant community on moist, occasionally flooded soils. Vegetation dominated by grasses and sedges
with scattered wildflowers.
Characteristic Plant Species in Mendota Heights
• Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) – invasive non-native
• Sedges (Carex spp.)
• Canada bluejoint grass (Calamagrostis canadensis)
• Manna grasses (Glyceria spp.)
• Swamp milkweed (Asclepias incarnata)
• Spotted Joe-pye weed (Eutrochium maculatum)
• Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) – invasive non-native
• Blue flag iris (Iris versicolor)
• Beggar ticks (Bidens spp.)
Other Plant Community Characteristics
• Herbaceous wetlands.
• Most in the Twin Cities region are dominated by the invasive, non-native Reed canary grass, and
therefore are not considered a natural community.
• Remnant or restored native Wet Meadows fall within the “Wet Meadow/Carr System” of the
Minnesota Native Plant Community Classification (MNDNR 2005).
Soil and Slopes
• Occurs in depressions and at edges of marshes, lakes, ponds, and some streams and rivers.
• Found in saturated soils and sometimes in shallow water.
Historical Conditions
• Wet Meadows depend on a predictable, though not static, hydrologic regime, sometimes
including damming by beavers. The seasonal water level changes in response to spring runoff,
May-June rains, and late summer dry periods sustained the large variety of plants in historical
Wet Meadows. Currently most Wet Meadows across the Midwest have been converted to a
simple plant community of Reed canary grass with a few scattered other species. This was due
to the introduction of aggressive strains of Reed canary grass for pasture, as well as draining to
facilitate haying and cropping. Sediment and nutrient inputs greatly favor Reed canary grass, as
do steady water levels resulting from dams and berms. In dry periods, Wet Meadows were
historically subject to fire, but the plants, including the shrubs, survived such fires and re-
sprouted.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 45
Wet Meadow (dominated by invasive Reed canary grass), in southern portion of Valley Park.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 46
11. Marsh (308.0 acres)
Summary
A plant community in standing water dominated by herbaceous vegetation.
Characteristic Plant Species in Mendota Heights
• Narrow-leaved and Blue cattail hybrid (Typha angustifolia, T. x glauca) – invasive non-native
• Broad-leaved cattail (Typha latifolia)
• Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) – invasive non-native
• Giant reed (Phragmites australis) – invasive non-native
• Lake sedge (Carex lacustris)
• Bulrushes (Scripus spp., Schoenoplectus spp., Bolboschoenus spp.)
• Giant bur-reed (Sparganium eurycarpum)
• Broad-leaved arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia)
• Lesser duckweed (Lemna minor)
Other Plant Community Characteristics
• Wetlands that are typically dominated by emergent wetland plants growing in shallow to deep
water.
• In the Twin Cities region, marshes are most often dominated by invasive cattails. Purple
loosestrife and Giant reed are two additional invasive plants commonly found in Marsh. These
species often spread throughout a wetland, reducing vegetation diversity and habitat value.
• Remnant or restored native Marsh falls within the “Marsh System” of the Minnesota Native
Plant Community Classification (MNDNR 2005).
Soil and Slopes
• Occurs in depressions and at edges of lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers.
• Found in shallow to deep water over mineral or organic soil.
Historical Conditions
• Invasion by cattails and other aggressive species have resulted in the dramatic degradation of
this type of wetland throughout the Upper Midwest. Hydrological regimes were dynamic but
predictable historically. With the current shunting of excessive runoff from roads, pavement,
and rooftops, Marshes experience water level fluctuations out of the normal range that the
historical vegetation can tolerate. Both Narrow-leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia, an invasive,
non-native species) and Blue cattail (T. x glauca, the invasive hybrid between Narrow-leaved
cattail and native Broad-leaved cattail, T. latifolia) grow well with this overly-dynamic flooding
regime. These two aggressive cattail species also use the higher phosphorus concentrations in
most Marshes that receive runoff and develop into dense, tall stands.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 47
Friendly Marsh (in the distance).
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 48
12. Open Water (554.3 acres)
Summary
Areas of deep water that may contain floating-leaved or submergent vegetation.
Characteristic Plant Species in Mendota Heights
• Yellow water lily (Nuphar variegata)
• White water lily (Nymphaea odorata)
• American lotus (Nelumbo lutea)
• Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) – invasive non-native
• Curly-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) – invasive non-native
• Coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum)
• Pondweeds (Potamogeton spp.)
• Lesser duckweed (Lemna minor)
Other Plant Community Characteristics
While not a focus of this study, Open Water areas often contain a variety of floating and/or submerged
aquatic plants. Aquatic habitats in Mendota Heights are affected by urban stormwater runoff and
aquatic invasive species (AIS), including plants such as Eurasian watermilfoil and Curly-leaf pondweed,
and non-native animals, such as Common carp (Cyprinus carpio).
Soil and Slopes
• Lakes and ponds with mineral or organic sediment.
Historical Conditions
• Many Open Water areas represent historical conditions (e.g., natural lakes, rivers, and open
water wetlands), while some represent constructed stormwater ponds.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 49
Open Water with White water lilies, at Rogers Lake.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 50
2.2.3 Ecological Quality
An integral component of this NRMP is the assignment of an ecological quality rank to many of the City’s
natural areas. This rank estimates the relative health of a specific plant community. The criteria for
assigning a rank are:
• Diversity of native species
• Level of disturbance
• Presence of invasive species
• Structural and spatial diversity (i.e., vegetation layers and plant variety across the natural area)
• Connectivity with other plant communities versus adjacency to turf or active use areas
• Degree of erosion due to processes such as excessive runoff or foot traffic
• Other negative management or use impacts
Departments of Natural Resources across the country have adopted a standardized ecological ranking
system used by State Natural Heritage Programs when conducting inventories of natural areas. In
Minnesota, this system was refined by the MNDNR as the Natural Community Element Occurrence
Ranking Guidelines (MNDNR 2001). This robust (91-page) methodology provides definitions and criteria
for assigning an ecological quality rank to any given native plant community in Minnesota. For more
general application of ecological quality ranks, MLCCS (version 5.4) adopted a simplified version of the
MNDNR’s system, whereby more general guidelines are provided to help the user assign an appropriate
quality rank. Based on the ecological criteria described above, it was decided that the MLCCS ecological
quality ranking system would be modified slightly for use in the City of Mendota Heights (see box below).
Often, a mapped plant community may
be somewhat heterogeneous and
contain characteristics of multiple
quality ranks. For instance, a moderate
quality forest (C rank) may have large,
dense patches of invasive buckthorn
(justifying a D rank). In this case, it
would be acceptable to assign multiple
ranks to this single plant community
(i.e., CD). It is best to limit the number
of ranks to two “adjacent” ranks, and if
this does not accurately characterize
the plant community’s quality, the
plant community (polygon) should be
split and each portion assigned its
appropriate quality rank.
Plant communities visited during AES’s field assessment were assigned a quality rank. Figure 11 illustrates
quality ranked plant communities within the City.
Ecological Quality Ranks
A = Highest quality natural community, no disturbances and
natural processes intact.
B = Good quality natural community. Has its natural
processes intact, but shows signs of past human
impacts. Low levels of non-native or invasive plants.
C = Moderate condition natural community with obvious
past disturbance but still clearly recognizable as a native
community. Typically not dominated by weedy species
in any layer.
D = Poor condition of a natural community. Includes some
native plant species but is dominated by non-natives
and/or is widely disturbed and altered.
NN = Altered / non-native plant community. These semi-
natural communities (e.g., Altered Forest/Woodland,
which includes green ash/box elder forests) do not
receive a natural quality rank.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 51
Figure 11. Quality Ranks of Assessed Natural Communities in Mendota Heights
2.2.4 Tree Canopy Analysis
The City of Mendota Heights values its urban forest. Trees play a large role in the character of the City,
but much of its tree canopy is on private lands. Knowing where different tree species are growing in
Mendota Heights on public and private land allows the City to identify locations where invasive tree
species should be removed. It allows the City to identify locations where the tree canopy is missing species
characteristic of a particular location, given the soil and moisture conditions there. A tree canopy
inventory enables the City to pick areas in former savannas and woodlands to carry out prescribed burns
using oak leaves as fuel. The City will be able to envision many other applications of the data once it
begins using it.
Canopy Mapping and Results
To describe the entire canopy, including private lands, remote sensing and mapping techniques were
used. High-resolution, four-band (red, green, blue, and near-infrared) aerial imagery was analyzed using
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 52
eCognition, an object-oriented imagery processing and classification software
(https://geospatial.trimble.com/products-and-solutions/ecognition). Reference trees were selected in
the field and used to calibrate the imagery and map species and species groups across the City on private
and public land. The canopy extent of reference trees was field-mapped on air photos at twenty locations
in the City and brought into GIS to train the software in species recognition. The software generated maps
of all trees in the City. Many clusters of trees were small, isolated and unmanageable as woodlands, and
therefore only tree clusters of five-acres or larger were brought into the final tree canopy classification
and mapping.
Data availability and quality affected the analysis. No recent LiDAR data were available. LiDAR (Light
Detection and Ranging) data can be brought into GIS to show the height of objects. LiDAR helps
distinguish trees from shrubs and grass. Another challenge was that the most recent available aerial
imagery (2019) exhibited “banding”, or irregularities in color that were associated with different aircraft
flight passes. Despite these limitations, the woodland mapping of dominant tree species is estimated to
be 80-90 percent accurate, depending on species. Uncommon trees have a lower accuracy rate.
Several methods were used to assess accuracy. The field-mapped canopy was compared with the
computer-mapped canopy at all locations that were mapped and spot-checked elsewhere. The
computer-mapped distribution of oaks, sugar maple, and basswood was compared to the land cover
mapping that AES field biologists did in dry-mesic and mesic forests. The location of lowland forest trees
was inspected in wetland mosaics where reed canary grass, cattail, and open water intermingled with
forest patches. Lastly, a computer-mapped large area of Siberian elm was compared with the field-
mapped polygon for that species. In all these comparisons, the center of the computer-mapped tree
canopy for species was largely in agreement with the field data.
Computer-mapping identified 33 species of trees, but distinguishing some species was difficult given the
data (Table 4). For this reason, 14 species were combined into six species groups. As the species groups
consisted of species that generally co-existed (except for the “Other” group), the accuracy of the mapping
of these species will be minimally compromised. “Other” included species with few field-mapped
reference trees, which would result in poor mapping accuracy if they were treated separately.
Eastern cottonwood and Box elder are the most common species in the City's tree canopy, accounting for
30 percent of the canopy area. The City's open landscape, history of cropping and grazing, and proximity
to two big rivers created ideal conditions for these species to colonize the uplands, well beyond their pre-
1850 locations. Both species have light seeds that carry on the wind and grow quickly.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 53
Table 4. Canopy Area of Tree Species in Mendota Heights Forests and Woodlands
Species Name Common Name Tree Canopy Area (Ac.) % of Tree Canopy Area
Acer negundo Box elder 128.8 10.0
Acer platanoides1 Norway maple 18.5 1.4
Acer saccharinum Silver maple 83.1 6.4
Acer saccharum Sugar maple 5.4 0.4
Betula nigra River birch 5.4 0.4
Celtis occidentalis Hackberry 10.9 0.8
Fraxinus nigra Black ash 0.9 0.1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash
Gleditsia triacanthos Honey locust 6.7 0.5
Juglans nigra Black walnut 53.7 4.2
Ostrya virginiana Ironwood 0.6 0.0
Picea abies2 Norway spruce 2.9 0.2 Picea glauca White spruce
Picea pungens2 Colorado blue spruce 2.9 0.2
Pinus resinosa Red pine 10.8 0.8 Pinus sylvestris2 Scots pine
Pinus strobus Eastern white pine 53.7 4.2
Populus deltoides Eastern cottonwood 266.4 20.6
Prunus serotina Black cherry 16.5 1.3
Quercus ellipsoidalis Northern pin oak 10.3 0.8 Quercus rubra Northern red oak
Quercus bicolor Swamp white oak 9.5 0.7
Quercus macrocarpa Bur oak 105.6 8.2
Rhamnus cathartica1 Common buckthorn 12.2 0.9
Robinia pseudoacacia1 Black locust 18.9 1.5
Salix nigra Black willow 8.9 0.7
Tilia americana American basswood 30.9 2.4
Ulmus americana American elm 3.8 0.3 Ulmus rubra Slippery elm
Ulmus pumila1 Siberian elm 103.3 8.0
Other - Populus grandidentata Big-toothed aspen
320.5 24.8
Other - Populus tremuloides Quaking aspen
Other - Carya cordifolius Yellowbud hickory
Other - Carya glabra Pignut hickory
Other - Populus alba2 Silver poplar
Other - Acer ginnala1 Japanese maple
Other - Malus spp. Apple
Total 1291.1 100
1 Invasive, non-native species (orange rows)
2 Non-native species
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 54
An echo of the City’s savanna past is seen in the presence and distribution of several native tree species.
Bur oak, the third most abundant tree with over 8 percent of the canopy area, historically was the
dominant tree, along with northern pin oak, across most of the City. Silver maple is the fifth most common
species and historically and currently dominates many floodplains and low areas that often flood. It is
also planted extensively as a shade tree. Black walnut, American basswood, Big-toothed and Quaking
aspen are also common in the City’s tree canopy. These species are not dominant but are consistently
present in the upland forests of Mendota Heights. Elsewhere in Dakota County, Big-toothed aspen
historically co-dominated forests with oak species at locations where fire was present but not as frequent
as in the more open oak savannas. In the species grouped as Other, Big-toothed aspen probably comprises
much of the cover. The native Eastern white pine historically grew sparsely along the bluffs of big rivers
in the region, but has been widely planted in the City and elsewhere.
Of trees that were not indigenous to the region (and are also
invasive), Siberian elm is the most abundant, followed by
Black locust and Norway maple. Together they occupy nearly
11 percent of the City’s tree canopy. Siberian elm was a
favorite tree in farmstead and conservation plantings from
the 1930s to the 1970s because it tolerates poor, dry soil. It
has the disadvantage of being a prolific seeder that
germinates readily in grasslands and savannas. Siberian elm
is being removed from City properties when the opportunity
arises, and it is not currently planted as a landscape tree by
the City. Common buckthorn is a famous problem that nearly
every public landowner in the Midwest has dealt with for decades, with no biological control yet found
despite rigorous research and field work in Europe. The widely-planted street tree, Norway maple, is now
recognized as an invasive forest tree, casting deep shade and diminishing species diversity in the ground
layer. It has a milky sap, unlike the clear sap of Sugar and Silver maples, and cannot be boiled down to
maple syrup. Although a native tree, Green ash has been attacked by an invasive insect, the Emerald ash
borer, which has killed tens of millions of ash trees from New England to the Midwest. In addition to
simply dying out, for several years the City has removed this tree from public property, while individual
landowners have done the same to a lesser extent. This may explain the low canopy percent of Green
ash, despite its reputation as an aggressive seeder into upland edge habitat.
Below we explore potential applications of the data to give the reader a sense of how species-specific
forest canopy mapping can be used.
Taking an Ecosystem Approach to Manage the Urban Forest
There is nothing more aspirational for Mendota Heights than to move towards an ecosystem management
approach for its forests and woodlands. Identifying concentrations of once-dominant native tree species
is essential because these are vestiges of viable plant communities that existed for hundreds of years.
Concentrations of once-dominant native trees stand the best chance of persisting into the future and
adapting to environmental and land use change because their suitability to the soils and climate of the
region has been proven by their persistence for millennia.
Tree Canopy Integrity & Durability
Over 43% of the City’s tree canopy
consists of non-native, invasive,
aggressive, fast-growing, and/or
short-lived species, some of which are
native lowland forest species growing
in uplands. The City’s tree planting
strategies address this issue by
installing native, long-lived, climate-
resilient species adapted to local site
conditions.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 55
Concentrations of tree species should be managed before other areas in the City because their canopy is
more intact and supports more of the kinds of trees found in healthy ecosystems. They are also “reference
sites” or best examples of which tree species to plant in altered forests, along streets, and on public lands.
Species concentrations can also be used it pinpoint problems—lack of an ecologically viable tree canopy,
or concentrations of invasive trees, for instance.
An ecosystem approach can be applied to different plant communities with different concentrations of
dominant species. An ecosystem approach puts plant communities on a trajectory that is consistent with
the pre-1850s trajectory and more able as a result to adapt to future change—be resilient, in other words.
Five examples for how to use the tree canopy data are given below.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 56
Increase Integrity and Resilience of Forests with Oaks
In the 1850s oaks dominated the landscape of Mendota Heights. They provided abundant acorn mast for
dozens of wildlife species; their dry leaves carried fires through woodlands and kept understories open;
they were long-lived; they created shaded habitat but the oak crown architecture allowed enough light
to reach the ground for a diverse sun-loving ground layer; and they were natural dominants on south to
west slopes, coarse-textured soils, dry sites, and the fire-managed landscape which was most of the City
before 1850. (Oaks have high to moderate fire tolerance.)
Large concentrations of oak trees (Figure 12) occur on the bluffs of the Minnesota River Valley, in Acacia
Park Cemetery, around Augusta and Lemay Lakes, at the City border with Mendota, in Valley Park, around
Ivy Falls Ravine, in the neighborhood west of Dodge Nature Preserve and Delaware Avenue, and in
Friendly Marsh Park. Many smaller concentrations are scattered throughout the City, primarily in its east
half.
Figure 12. Areas of Dense Oak Tree Growth in the Tree Canopy of the City of Mendota Heights
Oak concentrations on public and semi-public institutional lands are amenable to ecosystem
management. Where oak concentrations overlap with Dry-Mesic Forest/Woodland, Mesic Forest and
Savanna, a higher priority should be given. Rather than start by cutting buckthorn and honeysuckle, an
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 57
ecosystem approach would establish fire breaks and begin prescribed fire management across large areas
using dry oak leaves. A fire prescription would be written to kill young buckthorn and honeysuckle,
remove ground layer thatch, allow native ground layer plant seeds to germinate and suppressed native
plants to grow, and increase native ground layer cover to compete against buckthorn and honeysuckle
seedlings from the seedbank. After two or three years of continuous burning, the effects would be
evaluated and the prescription adjusted. It may be necessary to girdle and spot-apply herbicide to large
invasive shrubs unaffected by fire and broadcast spread a low-cost woodland grass-sedge seed mix if the
seedbank and native plants do not respond. (The grass-sedge seed mix would provide light fuel to carry
fire and would compete against invasive shrubs germinating from seed or sprouting from surviving roots.)
Because prescribed burning is one of the cheapest ways to effectively and ecologically manage large areas,
the ecosystem approach can often be applied across larger areas for the same cost of cutting and stump-
treating invasive shrubs.
Increase Integrity and Resilience of Altered Forests/Woodlands
Altered Forest/Woodland is the commonest forest type in the City. It is also the most likely to have
developed from abandoned pastures, fields and disturbed ground, or invaded grasslands and savannas.
It is usually dominated by light-seeded, bottomland forest trees that have short lifespans and little food
value for wildlife—Box-elder, Green ash, elm, cottonwood. Altered Forest/Woodland often harbors large
populations of invasive trees and shrubs—Siberian elm, Amur maple, buckthorn, honeysuckle—and
function as a seed source to spread invasive plants across the nearby landscape.
Clearing these forests is out of the question—they provide shade, screen buildings, and the general public
likes forests, even of poor quality and filled with invasive plants. At the same time, improving the integrity
and resilience of the City’s forests requires that some action be taken. An ecosystem approach would be
to replace over time the existing canopy with a canopy like that of healthy Dry-Mesic Forest/Woodland
and Mesic Forest. Steps to accomplish this are as follows.
1. Identify concentrations of Black walnut, American basswood, and oaks that occur in patches of
Altered Forest/Woodland (Figure 13).
2. Prioritize large, Altered Forest/Woodland patches on public land having concentrations of native
trees to learn how to carry out this work.
3. Assess conditions in the priority forest patches—light levels in the understory, openings in the
canopy, density of invasive shrubs in the understory, etc.
4. Write a management brief for restoring Altered Forest/Woodland for conditions in the City.
5. Fundraise, schedule, and implement. Implementation generally involves underplanting saplings
and seedings of species adapted to the light levels, planting saplings and seedlings in canopy
gaps and at edges, protecting seedlings and saplings from deer browsing, and controlling
competing trees and shrubs around the seedlings and saplings.
6. Monitor results and adjust restoration techniques (i.e., practice adaptive management).
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 58
Figure 13. Concentrations of Native Trees in Patches of Altered Forest/Woodland in the City of
Mendota Heights
Increase Integrity and Resilience of Lowland Forests
Eastern cottonwood, Silver maple, and Box-elder are among the most abundant trees in the City because
their life history traits allowed them to move from floodplain and swamp settings into the uplands.
Concentrations of Eastern cottonwood and Silver maple in lowland settings, however, suggest that the
canopy of a Lowland Forest at that location is intact (Figure 14). (Box-elder is not included in this analysis
because, although a native species, it is often associated with disturbed landscapes.) Steps similar to that
for Altered Forest/Woodland could be taken to increase the integrity and resilience of Lowland Forests in
the City. To increase tree canopy diversity, the planting palette could include Swamp white oak (Quercus
bicolor), Bur oak, and other uncommon Lowland Forest trees and shrubs.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 59
Figure 14. Concentrations of Native Trees in Patches of Lowland Forest in the City of Mendota Heights
Prioritize Removal of Invasive Trees and Shrubs
Siberian elm, Black locust, and Norway maple are invasive trees that together make up 11 percent of the
City’s tree canopy. White mulberry (Morus alba) is a recent invasive tree to the City (not detected in the
tree canopy analysis). While these species and many others have been purposefully planted for a reason
that was justified at the time, we now understand that the unintended consequence of planting these
species has been the reduction in the integrity and resilience of natural areas and the overall landscape.
Species diversity is greatly reduced wherever these species grow densely.
Common buckthorn was captured by the tree canopy analysis through field-mapping dense buckthorn
stands and training the eCognition software. Buckthorn also grows densely under the canopy of forests
but was invisible to the camera. Buckthorn under a tree canopy can only be mapped after leaves have
dropped and while the buckthorn holds its leaves, usually in early November. About 12 acres of nearly
pure buckthorn may exist in the City’s forests, with no tree canopy overhead. These locations are the
source of thousands of seeds spread each year by birds feasting on the dense buckthorn fruit. For that
reason alone, buckthorn canopy areas should be targeted early in an overall buckthorn removal scheme.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 60
The buckthorn-dominated canopy also presents a unique situation for devising an ecosystem
management strategy. Should buckthorn in these areas be girdled to open the canopy, followed by a
ground layer grass-sedge seeding to create a fuel source for subsequent prescribed burning? Should these
areas be forestry mowed with large equipment and the buckthorn chipped on site?
Similar thinking can be applied to the dense Siberian elm and Black locust plantings (Figure 15). These can
be targeted for thinning and underplanting with oaks, hickories, Big-toothed aspen, White pine, and other
dominants of the Dry-Mesic Forest/Woodland where these two invasive tree species usually grow.
Figure 15. Concentrations of Invasive Trees and Shrubs in the City of Mendota Heights
Removing these invasive tree species from natural areas and parks is a top priority of the City. Removing
these species from private lands and rights-of-way is another priority, especially when infestations are
near natural areas and parks. Steps to accomplish this are as follows.
1. Identify concentrations of invasive trees and shrubs that occur on public land.
2. Assess concentrations for density and estimated acres of each invasive species.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 61
3. Prioritize concentrations based on location in or near natural areas, the threat each species
poses, and the size of the infestation.
4. Write prescriptions for removal of invasive trees and shrubs in priority areas, specific to those
areas.
5. Fundraise, apply for grants, schedule, and implement.
6. Monitor results and adjust control techniques (i.e., practice adaptive management).
Planting Trees on Public Land
The chestnut blight, elm blight and the Emerald ash borer invasion—just a few of the many catastrophic
tree loss episodes in North America over the last century—have taught foresters and urban planners that
planting one or a few species across large areas is a recipe for civic disappointment on a vast scale. Around
1990, Dr. Frank Santamour, Research Geneticist at the National Arboretum, suggested the 10-20-30 rule—
a municipality’s urban tree canopy should consist of no more than ten percent of one species, twenty
percent of one genus, and thirty percent of one family. Judged by this project’s tree canopy mapping,
Mendota Heights meets this rule of thumb, except for cottonwood which makes up a fifth of the City’s
tree canopy.
Tree canopy diversity is the best defense against devastating urban canopy loss but it just a rule of thumb
and lacks nuance. For instance, at what scale should the rule be applied? Street tree and public space
plantings? Private lands? All forests everywhere? The natural and semi-natural forest canopy of today is
the product of several thousand years, recent land use, and invasive species introductions—ecosystems
are complex, and a one-size-fits all rule is inadequate to manage natural and semi-natural forests and
woodlands.
The 10-20-30 rule could be applied to plantings of street trees, around public buildings, and in the
developed areas of parks. An ecosystem approach can be even more effective by mapping different sites
along streets and on public lands that match the original ecosystems of Mendota Heights and planting by
taking cues from species that comprise those ecosystems. Steps in this approach would do the following.
1. Identify the site conditions along City streets and on public lands.
2. In a simple scheme that has ecological validity and relevance to tree survival, one would
describe site conditions using soil moisture and texture and slope-aspect position. This can be
derived from existing LiDAR and soils data.
3. Assign native plant community types to match site conditions: Dry-mesic forest, Mesic forest,
Lowland forest.
4. Develop a planting palette for each plant community type.
5. Implement plantings along streets and on public lands according to mapped site conditions.
Moreover, in an ecosystem approach to urban tree planting, one would mimic the structures that exist in
those ecosystems—those structures also emerged from ecological-evolutionary context over centuries.
These structures were tested and found adaptive over time despite catastrophes, past changes in climatic
regimes, and the introduction of new species by Native Americans.
Most urban foresters tend to plant trees based on the final product—widely spaced trunks of one species
whose crowns just overlap. This creates the uniform cathedral effect arching over front lawns, sidewalks,
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 62
and streets and so admired in American cities until the elm blight brought the cathedral crashing down in
less than two decades. If ecologists had designed urban tree plantings, beginning in the late 1800s when
landscape architects and foresters started paying close attention to this matter, tree plantings would have
mimicked the forest structure in which forest trees (and most street trees are forest trees) evolved over
centuries.
Taking cues from existing forest ecosystems, an ecologist-designed urban tree planting would have
planted:
• trees closer together so that root systems become quickly entwined,
• the dominant tree species that matched local soil and moisture conditions,
• overstory and understory tree species together, and
• ground layer herbs and low shrubs, augmenting the soil fungal community that interacts with
the tree root fungal community. In this way, urban tree plantings would place forest trees in a
forest setting that bolsters the resilience and longevity of individual trees.
The usual way of planting urban trees makes every tree an island, isolated from the buffering influences
of the rest of its ecosystem. Ideas of a much more interconnected forest ecosystem have emerged over
the last three decades in research by Canadian forest ecologist Suzanne Simard and others and been
popularized in books such as The Hidden Life of Trees by German forester Peter Wohlleben (2016).
The widespread practice in urban tree plantings creates a savanna structure (see top of Figure 16). With
time, tree canopies and root systems may eventually touch, but the tree canopy and the soil fungal-
bacterial community lacks diversity, and the warmer microclimate around each tree depletes soil moisture
more quickly than if more vegetation were massed under the canopy in the form of understory trees and
ground layer herbs and shrubs. Forest systems are several degrees cooler on hot days than savanna
ecosystems and cooler yet than grassland ecosystems. For all these reasons, planting a single row of
forest trees at the edge of a parking lot guarantees shorter lifespans, for which urban trees are well known.
For the City of Cambridge, Massachusetts’ urban tree plan, RES proposed a hybrid approach to urban tree
planting along streets and around public buildings (Figure 16). For aesthetic and safety reasons, true
forest conditions cannot be replicated in urban settings. Landscape architects, responding to most
people’s preferences, devise plantings that are simple and uniform. Moreover, clear lines of sight give
urban dwellers a sense of security, being able to see at a distance all around.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 63
Figure 16. Vegetation Structure in Savanna, Forest and Hybrid Tree Planting Approaches
Figure concepts by RES; illustration by Reed Hilderbrand.
A hybrid planting approach
• plants a diverse array of dominant canopy trees that match local soil texture and moisture
conditions,
• plants understory trees that will never reach the canopy but be tall enough to see beneath
them,
• plants overstory and understory trees close enough for root interactions to quickly develop, and
• plants low herbaceous and (where appropriate) shrub species around trees to rapidly increase
fungal root interactions among naturally co-occurring tree, shrub and herb species.
An ecosystem approach to urban tree planting does a better job of buffering trees against the inherently
adverse urban setting compared to how trees usually are planted. But some trees at the south edge of
their ranges will become weaker as their ecological tolerance for temperatures and drought fall outside
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 64
the boundaries of a new climate. Spruce, fir, birch, some pines, perhaps White cedar, and eventually
Quaking aspen will be challenged to maintain growth rates and vigor with hotter summers and warmer
winter nights, for instance. Lack of a snowpack and deeper frost layers in the soil will worsen this situation.
To prepare for this inevitable change, foresters can stop planting these tree species and begin planting
those already pushing northward—certain oaks and hickories and Ohio buckeye, to name a few (see
Appendix C for a list of species to plant in a changing climate).
Planting Trees on Private & Semi-Public Land
As the majority of forests are not on City land, the City needs to think strategically about implementing
ecosystem management on non-City lands. Low-hanging fruit should be picked first, starting by setting a
good example on City land. Public Works, Parks, Planning, and Engineering together should agree on a
unified, holistic, ecosystem approach to tree planting, tree removal, and tree management.
The City has another lever: promote good practice guidelines from its leader’s bully pulpit and revise
ordinances to promote the City’s urban tree management guidelines. An urban forest management
ordinance, a landscaping ordinance, or other requirements could be developed to help protect and
enhance Mendota Heights’ urban canopy on private and semi-public properties. Ordinances can only be
used for activities the City has jurisdiction over—namely, new development approvals and existing
agreements, such as with home-owner associations. It must be accepted that the political realities of
revising ordinances will shift an ecological approach to something that is widely acceptable,
implementable, and defensible. Section 2.2.14 of this Plan addresses RES’ review of City ordinances and
related recommendations related to urban tree management.
The next thing is to work with willing partners who own large acreages in the City. These include semi-
public institutions like the school district, golf courses, cemeteries, and some businesses and institutions.
With the City’s unified urban forest management approach and clear guidance for implementing
practices, the City will be in a good position to team up with willing partners and implement its urban tree
management approach on non-City land.
Lastly, and most challenging, are to bring these ideas to the hundreds of small private landowners that
control a significant percentage of tree canopy acres in the City. There is little in the way of ordinances
or requirements that affect private landowners. The best motivation for most private landowners is to
be given a low- or no-cost solution to a problem they want to fix. It is certainly possible to educate people
about the need to control invasive shrubs on their lands, but most private landowners do not see a
problem with a dense shrub layer that screens their property from a road or the neighbors—unless
buckthorn is invading their lawn or the ground under their fruit trees. Likewise, having Black locust as the
one tree shading their lot is fine—except for all the pods and leaf stems. In other words, success in
bringing private landowners into the ecosystem management fold will come by identifying problems that
the City can solve through technical advice and especially by paying for at least half of the implementation
practice. In short, figure out what will work on private land beyond volunteerism and regulations—that
means technical advice and cost-sharing.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 65
2.2.5 Urban Heat Island
While not a dense, urban community like downtown St. Paul, the City of Mendota Heights nonetheless
experiences “heat island effects” whereby buildings, roadways, and other artificial surfaces absorb and
export heat, which increases local air temperature, lengthens the growing season, and even affects local
weather patterns.
Different land cover surfaces absorb sunlight differently, and therefore emit or export different amounts
of heat during the day and especially at night when air temperature falls below that in the daytime.
Drawing from studies of heat export amounts from different land cover types (Herb et al. 2007), relative
heat export ranks can be assigned to each land cover type in the City.
The National Land Cover Database (NLCD, Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium 2016)
was used to map land cover types (Table 5). NLCD is a standardized land cover classification system for
the United States.
Table 5. Relative Heat Export Rank of Different Land Cover Types
NLCD Land Cover Type Heat Export Rank
Developed High Intensity High
Developed Medium Intensity Medium High
Barren Land Medium High
Developed Low Intensity Medium
Developed Open Space Medium
Cultivated Crops Medium
Open water Medium
Hay/ Pasture Medium Low
Herbaceous Medium Low
Shrub/ Scrub Medium Low
Deciduous Forest Low
Evergreen Forest Low
Woody Wetlands Low
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands Low
The assignment of heat export ranks to NLCD land cover data can be visualized across the City (Figure 17).
Areas most likely to experience the greatest heat island effect—buildings and pavement—are shown in
red and orange. Not surprisingly, the City’s industrial park between Highway 13 and Highway 55 is the
City’s most significant heat island. These areas would benefit the most from shading, more layering of
perennial vegetation, and other strategies to reflect sunlight and reduce air temperature by shading.
Strategies are discussed in Section 2.4. Ambient air temperatures are generally not elevated in forests,
wetlands, and open water (green and blue). Much of the City is colored yellow—land cover types that
export a moderate amount of heat. Adding tree canopy and vegetation layers in these areas would help
mitigate the heat island effect, especially when positioned to shade roads, pavement, and flat-topped
commercial, industrial, and institutional buildings.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 66
Figure 17. Heat Island Hot Spots in Mendota Heights
2.2.6 Other Ecosystem Services
The urban heat island effect discussed above is directly related to ecosystem services. Red and orange
areas in Figure 17 represent portions of the City that perform poorly with regard to the ecosystem service
of “air temperature cooling.” Blue and green areas perform this ecosystem service quite well. Yellow
areas—most of the City—are intermediate in providing this ecosystem service due to the residential
intermingling of streets, rooftops and lawns with shade trees. The land cover data used in the heat island
analysis can also be used to estimate the level of other ecosystem services in the City. Appendix D
provides figures and narratives regarding the service level provided by these additional ecosystem
services:
• Air pollution removal
• Runoff pollution removal (focused on phosphorus)
• Runoff volume reduction
• Carbon sequestration
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 67
2.2.7 Water Resources
While not the focus of this NRMP, the City of
Mendota Heights enjoys lakes, ponds, wetlands,
and streams – as well as the Minnesota and
Mississippi Rivers. Significant lakes include
Rogers, Augusta, and Lemay. Significant creeks
include Big Foot/Interstate Valley Creek (which
flows through Valley Park) and Ivy Creek (which
flows through Ivy Falls Ravine). These surface
waters provide significant recreational value and
amenities for City residents and the metro region,
as well as aquatic habitat for many species of fish,
amphibians, birds, and aquatic insects and clams.
The largely urban watersheds of the City generate
excessive surface water runoff from roads, parking lots, roofs, and turf. This larger than natural volume
of water and its associated “non-point source” pollution alters the normal pattern of water level variation,
degrades water quality, erodes streambanks and shores, and causes flooding—all of which degrade
aquatic, wetland, and lowland habitats.
Most of these water resources issues are best addressed at a watershed scale. While it is difficult for the
City to influence watershed-scale impacts associated with the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers,
meaningful actions can be taken to address local sources of runoff and pollution, helping to protect the
City’s lakes, wetlands, and streams. Stormwater improvement projects are beyond the scope of this Plan,
but there are many opportunities for partnering with water management organizations, institutions (e.g.,
schools, churches), homeowner associations, and private landowners to implement stormwater best
management practices (BMPs) and better protect the City’s wetlands and aquatic resources, if not
improve them. Stormwater BMPs include natural buffers around water bodies, rain gardens, infiltration
basins, and stormwater wetlands and ponds. The City’s stormwater management ordinance (Title 14) and
2018 Land Disturbance Document (pages 10-12) provide BMPs that can be incorporated into road and
other public improvement projects to meet specified performance standards. In addition, City ordinances
could be augmented to require more stringent stormwater management practices.
The City is currently working with watershed management agencies, businesses, and residents to address
stormwater management, including a future partnership with the Lower Mississippi River Watershed
Management Organization (WMO) to stabilize and restore Big Foot/Interstate Valley Creek in Valley Park.
The City could expand its coordination with existing lake associations (and facilitate the development of
new associations) in order to increase the adoption of lakeshore buffers and the use of stormwater BMPs
near lakes and other surface waters. Some of the public outreach opportunities listed in Section 4.1.6
address water resources, and there are additional opportunities for education and engagement in
protecting these important aquatic habitats and amenities.
The green-tinted waters of Augusta Lake speak to the need for
watershed planning and BMP implementation.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 68
2.2.8 Invasive Plants
The City of Mendota Heights is no different than
every other city in the United States regarding
invasive plant species: their removal from natural
areas is one of its primary management activities.
Natural areas within the City have been dramatically
and negatively affected by several invasive plant
species.
Invasive species often establish and thrive in
disturbed habitats, usually crowding out native
plants and animals. They typically have the
following characteristics:
• Tolerant of a variety of environmental
conditions
• Grow and reproduce rapidly, with good seed dispersion
• Compete aggressively for resources, such as nutrients, food, water, and (for plants) sunlight
• Lack natural enemies or effective competitors
• Some are allelopathic (i.e., they release chemicals that inhibit growth of other species)
Invasive plants suppress native plant growth and abundance, degrade wildlife habitat, and lessen the
resilience of ecosystems during recovery from disturbances and environmental change. Invasive plant
species that pose the greatest threat to Mendota Heights’ natural areas are:
• Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila)
• Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia)
• Common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica)
• Non-native honeysuckles (Lonicera tatarica, L. x bella, etc.)
• Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica var. japonica)
• Narrow-leaved bittercress (Cardamine impatiens)
• Spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe)
• Leafy spurge (Euphorbia virgata)
• Japanese hedge parsley (Torilis japonica)
• Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata)
• Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria)
• Invasive cattails (Typha angustifolia, T. x glauca)
• Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea)
Even some native plant species such as Box elder (Acer negundo), Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica),
Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), and Western poison ivy (Toxicodendron rydbergii) can be invasive
and aggressive in certain settings. The MNDNR has identified “early detection species,” defined as those
non-native, invasive species with limited distribution in Minnesota that are assessed as high risk. These
species are:
Dense growth of invasive Garlic mustard carpeting the forest
floor at Valley Park.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 69
• Tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima)
• Brown, diffuse, and meadow knapweeds (Centaurea jacea, C. diffusa, and C. x moncktonii)
• Common and Cut-leaved teasel (Dipsacus fullonum and D. laciniatus)
• Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica)
• Giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum)
• Grecian foxglove (Digitalis lanata)
• Narrowleaf bittercress (Cardamine impatiens)
• Yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis)
• Black swallow-wort (Cynanchum louiseae)
• Japanese hops (Humulus japonicus)
• Oriental Bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus)
The City of Mendota Heights and its partners have actively managed invasive plants for years, but constant
pressure from wind-blown and bird-dispersed seeds, persistent seed banks (i.e., weed seeds that
germinate in the soil over long periods of time), and adjacent private properties harboring invasive plants
creates the need for ongoing control efforts. Anecdotal observations suggest that little control of invasive
plants occurs on private properties. The City uses the Early Detection and Distribution Mapping System
(EDDMapS 2020) to track invasive plant populations within City parklands; however, this mapping is not
systematically or consistently supported by the City. The City is a partner with adjacent communities in
the Cooperative Weed Management Area (CWMA), which was established in 2021 and is led by the
Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District. The Xcel Energy powerline right-of-way corridor that
traverses the City (including much of Valley Park) is a refuge and conduit for invasive plants moving into
and throughout the landscape. Minnesota Department of Transportation and Dakota County rights-of-
way also contain and facilitate the spread of invasive vegetation. Invasive plant control along this corridor
is especially important where it abuts native plant communities.
Regular park and public right-of-way maintenance activities (e.g., mowing turf areas and roadsides) as
well as ecological restoration and management activities may accidentally introduce or spread invasive
species. Appendix E provides guidelines developed by the MNDNR to avoid the introduction or spread of
invasive species during maintenance/management activities.
2.2.9 Invasive Animals
Invasive animals can also have adverse effects on natural areas. These species migrated into the region
by accident or by intentional human transport and may exist on private properties adjacent to City natural
areas. Some invasive animals cannot be removed or controlled cost-effectively. In these cases, managing
the effects of an invasive species, rather than trying to eradicate it, is the best course of action. The main
invasive animals that may affect the City’s natural areas include:
• Emerald ash borer (EAB). Present in the City of Mendota Heights and anticipated to have a
devastating effect on the many mature ash trees growing throughout the region. The City has
initiated removal of infected ash trees and began replanting with the goal of creating a more
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 70
diverse tree canopy that will increase resiliency to disease and pests in the future. Removed ash
trees warrant special handling to prevent spread of the borer.
• Gypsy moth. Not known to be present in Mendota Heights, but it has been detected in nearby
Twin Cities communities. Its potential presence warrants special handling of cut wood and
other surfaces where eggs may be found.
• Invasive earthworms. Present in the City’s forests, these invasive animals aggressively consume
organic matter in the soil, altering soil structure and composition and compromising the health
of the forest ground layer.
As mentioned above, regular park maintenance, as well as ecological restoration and management, may
accidentally introduce or spread invasive species. Therefore, MNDNR guidelines (Appendix E) should be
followed to avoid the introduction or spread of invasive species in the course of management throughout
the City.
2.2.10 Diseases of Native Vegetation
Diseases can also have adverse effects on native vegetation, and in turn, natural areas. Sometimes these
occur as natural components of an ecosystem, but as with invasive animals, others have migrated into the
region by accident and may be harbored on private properties adjacent to City parkland. The main
diseases that may affect Mendota Heights’ natural areas include:
• Oak wilt. This often-lethal disease of oaks is caused by an invasive fungal pathogen (Ceratocystis
fagacearum) that can travel between trees through root grafts and is spread by sap beetles.
Present in the City (including at Hagstrom King Park), warranting special management of oak
trees, especially species of the red oak group.
• Dutch elm disease. This often-lethal disease of native elms caused by an invasive fungal
pathogen (Ophiostoma novo-ulmi) that can travel between trees through root grafts and is
spread by elm bark beetles. This disease is also present in the City, warranting special
management of native elm trees or the planting of disease-resistant varieties.
As mentioned above, regular park maintenance, as well as ecological restoration and management, may
accidentally introduce or spread diseases and their vectors. Therefore, MNDNR guidelines (Appendix E)
should be followed.
2.2.11 Wildlife
Wildlife surveys were not conducted for this NRMP. Based on available data (e.g., eBird), City staff, and
the consultant team’s familiarity with the park system, there appears to be a moderate variety and
abundance of wildlife using the City’s natural areas. However, many of these species are considered
“generalists.” Generalists persist and even thrive in cities, suburbs, farmland, and degraded natural areas.
Generalists do not have narrow habitat and dietary needs that can only be satisfied by high quality or
large natural areas; this allows them to build up large populations using resources inadvertently supplied
by people. While not problems in themselves, an abundance of generalists indicates that natural areas
are lower in quality, smaller, and more isolated than natural areas where generalists are not as common.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 71
By contrast, “specialists” are species with specific needs, such as a particular habitat feature, preferred
food, or conditions for raising offspring. (Species that need large areas are included here.) Specialists are
less common than generalists, more often found in larger, higher quality habitats. They are more sensitive
to environmental change and are often classified as Species of Greatest Conservation Need (see below).
As natural areas are improved, connected, and shielded from the damaging effects of adjacent land uses,
specialist species will appear and increase in abundance. Specialists are therefore a good indicator of the
success of restoration and conservation efforts.
Typical Species by Habitat
Several dozen common wildlife species probably occur in the City’s natural areas (Table 6). Many use
several habitats, and many other bird species migrate through the City in spring and fall.
Table 6. Typical Wildlife in Mendota Heights’ Natural Areas
Land Cover Type Mammals Birds Reptiles &
Amphibians Other
Upland Communities - Forests/Woodland/Savanna
Forest/Woodland
White-tailed deer,
Raccoon, Opossum
Red fox,
Woodchuck, Gray
squirrel, E.
chipmunk
Warblers, Vireos, Black-
capped chickadee,
Woodpeckers, Owls,
Cooper’s hawk, Sharp-
shinned hawk, Wild turkey,
Blue jay, Northern cardinal
Garter snake,
Tree frog
Savanna/Brushland
Coyote, White-
footed mouse,
Short-tailed shrew
American robin, Brown
thrasher, Field sparrow,
Song sparrow, American
crow, European starling,
Gray catbird, Common
grackle
Garter snake
Upland Communities - Grassland
Prairie
Woodchuck,
Ground squirrel,
Meadow vole, Red
fox, Striped skunk,
Eastern cottontail
American goldfinch, Dark-
eyed junco, Flycatchers,
Eastern bluebird, Indigo
bunting, Red-tailed hawk
American toad,
Garter snake
Monarch
butterfly
Non-Native
Grassland Gray squirrel Canada goose Grasshoppers
Lowland Communities
Lowland Forest &
Shrub/Scrub Raccoon Bald eagle, Osprey Tree frogs
Wet Meadow &
Marsh
Muskrat, Mink,
Short-tailed weasel
Killdeer, Red-winged
blackbird, Yellow warbler,
Common yellowthroat
Leopard frog, W.
chorus frog
Dragonflies,
Damselflies
Open Water Beaver, Otter
Belted kingfisher, Great blue
heron, Swallows, Pied-billed
grebe, Mallard, Wood duck,
Blue-winged teal, Hooded
merganser, Spotted
sandpiper, Canada goose
Snapping turtle,
Softshell turtle,
W. painted
turtle, Green
frog
Sunfishes, Bass,
Northern pike,
Carp
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 72
More detailed observations of birds in Ramsey County (including numerous sites in Mendota Heights) can
be found at eBird (https://ebird.org/hotspots?env.minX=-93.227189&env.minY=44.892371&env.maxX=-
92.983802&env.maxY=45.125782&yr=all&m=).
Species of Greatest Conservation Need
Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) is a wildlife classification for regional conservation
purposes; many of these species are classified as specialists, which are commonly found in higher quality
or large core habitats. SGCN include state-listed species and non-listed species that are regionally rare or
in decline, often as a result of habitat loss. While most are not yet endangered, they may become so in
the future unless people become aware of and manage for them.
Minnesota’s Wildlife Action Plan (MNDNR 2016) presents a statewide analysis of SGCN and wildlife
conservation issues. The plan identifies 346 SGCN, many of which were formerly common species driven
to rarity by land use changes during the past 150 years.
The City of Mendota Heights contains habitat used by many SGCN. Through implementation of this NRMP,
these habitats could be restored, expanded, and better connected to benefit these species. Increases in
SGCN over time will indicate that restoration and management efforts are succeeding.
Nuisance Wildlife
A variety of wildlife species in good numbers usually indicate that habitats are diverse and in good
condition. However, large numbers of some animals can be considered a nuisance. For example, Canada
geese, often abundant in turf grass areas near water bodies, add nutrients and bacteria in their droppings
to surface waters. Rodents can present a health hazard for humans, especially where food is stored or
prepared. Beaver dams can cause upstream flooding, and they may cut down trees that people value,
including those in restoration plantings. On the other hand, rodents are the base of many food chains
and beaver dams historically created wet meadow and marsh habitat, which is relatively uncommon in
Mendota Heights.
Managing nuisance wildlife populations is the most common method to address these concerns. After
determining that an animal species or an individual animal is a problem, then population control is likely
the best path forward. This is most commonly accomplished by hunting or trapping, which must be
conducted in compliance with wildlife management regulations under the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (for
federally-protected wildlife species) and/or the MNDNR (state-listed animals and some additional
species). Other management strategies focus on altering the habitat that attracts nuisance wildlife. For
instance, fencing can reduce grazing and browsing by deer, or planting tall vegetation around water will
discourage use by geese. Unpalatable plantings can also deter grazing. Plants such as Butterfly milkweed
(Asclepias tuberosa), Columbine (Aquilegia canadensis), Prairie coreopsis (Coreopsis palmata), evening
primrose (Oenothera biennis), native thistles (e.g., Cirsium discolor), beardtongues (e.g., Penstemon
digitalis), purple coneflowers (e.g., Echinacea angustifolia), and Wild ginger (Asarum canadense) are
generally avoided by deer. Native plants are generally less desirable and less of an attractant than
ornamental plants. Lastly, creating suitable habitat for nuisance wildlife away from areas where they pose
health, safety, and ecological challenges can reduce grazing impacts on native vegetation. Alfalfa fields,
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 73
for example, planted near forest and woodland can provide sustenance for deer and reduce their grazing
on forest herbs in late winter and early spring, when highly nutritious vegetation is sparse.
2.2.12 Rare Natural Features
The rarest species in a region, state or nation speak to the vulnerability of some animal groups to
extinction, such as freshwater mussels, and to the potential loss of unique members of the web of life.
They are, moreover, bellwethers of humanity’s effect on the natural world—diminishing as the scale of
the human enterprise expands. For some animal and plant groups in the Midwest, up to half of that
group’s biodiversity is extinct or threatened with extinction. Rare species constitute a significant part of
a region’s biodiversity, without question.
It is valuable, therefore, to identify the rare species and habitats that exist or existed as this information
can shape conservation priorities, projects, and strategies. Understanding the rare plants and animals in
the City’s natural areas can guide the siting and design of restoration projects to best protect and meet
each species’ particular needs. Several federal- and state-tracked rare and uncommon natural features
exist, used to exist, or may exist in Mendota Heights. Some are protected by regulation; however, many
are not formally protected, underscoring the importance of proactive and voluntary efforts to conserve
biodiversity.
Federally-Tracked Natural Features
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) website is
used to identify federally-tracked species in a project area. A query of IPaC (USFWS 2020a) indicated that
four federally-listed species may potentially be affected by activities within the City of Mendota Heights
(Table 7).
The Rusty patched bumble bee (federally-endangered) has been
observed at multiple locations in the City of Mendota Heights.
(photo source: USFWS)
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 74
Table 7. Federally-Listed Species Potentially Affected by Activities in City of Mendota Heights
Common &
Scientific Name
Federal Status
& Recovery
Plan Status
Habitat Presence in City of
Mendota Heights
Potential for
Positive Effect With
City Action
Rusty patched
bumble bee
(Bombus affinis)
Endangered
(Plan begun
2018)
Historically occupied
grasslands and tallgrass
prairies.
Confirmed.
Very high potential
to improve habitat
by expanding and
improving prairies.
Northern long-
eared bat
(Myotis
septentrionalis)
Threatened
(Plan not
started)
Roosts and forages in
upland forests and
woods; hibernates in
caves and mines;
autumn swarming
occurs in surrounding
wooded areas.
Possibly roosting and
foraging in City’s larger
forests; a survey has
not been done;
hibernacula not known
to occur in County.
After a survey to
confirm presence,
roosting and
foraging habitat
could be improved
in quality and
expanded.
Higgins eye
mussel (Lampsilis
higginsii)
Endangered
(Plan
approved)
Typically found in large
rivers.
May exist in
Mississippi River.
Very unlikely, given
large watershed
that affects species.
Prairie bush-
clover (Lespedeza
leptostachya)
Threatened
(Plan began
1988)
Found only in the
tallgrass prairie region.
May exist in prairie
areas, but generally a
southern MN species.
Potential to improve
habitat by
expanding and
improving prairies.
Of the four federally-listed species, the Rusty patched bumble bee (endangered) is confirmed present in the
City of Mendota Heights (including in City parkland), and Northern long-eared bat (threatened) may also
use City parks and other natural areas. The endangered mussel species may occur in creeks and rivers
that flow through Mendota Heights; however, the City has little influence over these species due to the
large watersheds that affect these aquatic habitats. Prairie bush-clover generally grows farther south; no
MNDNR records exist in or near the City, suggesting its presence is unlikely here. As RES did not conduct
special surveys, other rare plants or wildlife could not be confirmed as present or absent in the City. Two
of these species are most likely to be influenced by the City of Mendota Heights: Rusty patched bumble
bee and Northern long-eared bat.
Rusty patched bumble bee. This federally-endangered insect’s habitat requirements include food (nectar
and pollen from flowers), nesting sites (underground and abandoned rodent cavities or clumps of grasses
above ground), and overwintering sites for queens (undisturbed soil). This species has been identified at
multiple locations in the City, and it may use additional restored prairies and other grasslands within the
City. Impacts and threats to Rusty patched bumble bee are:
• Habitat loss and degradation, e.g. loss of native prairie
• Intensive farming and associated loss of crop diversity, hedgerows, and pastures
• Disease and pesticides
• Global climate change, which can lead to increased disease and loss of habitat elements at the
critical time
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 75
Rusty patched bumble bee can be protected by:
• Removing/controlling invasive vegetation
• Installing diverse native flowering plants
• Preserving native landscape areas, where lack of mowing and soil disturbance will provide
potential habitat
• Avoiding use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers
Northern long-eared bat. This federally-threatened mammal is a medium-sized bat with long ears that
uses forested areas for summer roosting. Its range includes the entire Upper Midwest, including
Minnesota. This bat species overwinters in caves and mines with constant temperatures, high humidity,
and no air currents. This species may travel over 100 miles between summer and winter habitat, but
journeys of 50 miles are more common. The Northern long-eared bat has shown a preference for upland
forests but also may use lowland forests with mid-sized streams. These ecosystems are present in the
City of Mendota Heights.
Survey techniques to determine the presence or absence of the Northern long-eared bat should follow
the USFWS survey guidelines for Indiana bat (USFWS 2019b). USFWS management guidelines (USFWS
2016) recommend that tree-cutting in suitable habitat should not occur from April 1 through September
30, with the pup-rearing season (June 1 through July 31) being critical, especially in the white-nose
syndrome zone, discussed below. This federal guidance (USFWS 2016) suggests that tree clearing, even
for ecological restoration, should occur from early October through March (with June 1 through July 31
being the most sensitive period due to pup rearing). Fortunately, this is the typical period for tree removal
in ecological restoration projects, and this timing also avoids harming nesting migratory birds. Impacts
and threats to the Northern long-eared bat (and other bat species) are:
• White-nose syndrome, a severe and immediate threat to this and other cave-hibernating bat
species. White-nose syndrome is a fungus that kills hibernating bats in North America. It is a
major concern for bat conservation because it kills all or nearly all bats using overwintering
caves, mines, and other “hibernacula.” It has spread rapidly across the U.S. since its discovery in
New York state in 2006, and it has been confirmed in Dakota County (USFWS 2020b).
• Impacts to hibernacula where they spend the winter, such as access changes, microclimate
changes, and human disturbances
• Loss or degradation of summer forest habitat and/or roost trees
• Wind farm operations (turbines can kill bats)
The Northern long-eared bat can be protected by:
• Not removing potential roost trees
• Not removing trees within 150 feet of a known roost tree when young bats are with mothers at
the roost; this “non-volant pup” phase is June 1 through July 31
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 76
Other Rare Species and Habitats
In addition to federally-tracked listed species, the USFWS tracks critical habitats, migratory bird species of
particular concern, wildlife refuges, and fish hatcheries. The IPaC report identified 20 migratory bird
species of particular concern that potentially occur in the City of Mendota Heights (Table 8). No critical
habitats, wildlife refuges, or fish hatcheries were identified in the City; however, the Minnesota Valley
National Wildlife Refuge is located just southwest of Mendota Heights.
Table 8. Potential Migratory Bird Species of Concern in Mendota Heights (USFWS 2020a)
Common Name Scientific Name Level of Concern Breeding Season
American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus BCC-BCR Apr 1 to Aug 31
American golden-plover Pluvialis dominica BCC Rangewide (CON) Breeds Elsewhere
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Non-BCC Vulnerable Dec 1 to Aug 31
Black tern Chlidonias niger BCC-BCR May 15 to Aug 20
Black-billed cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus BCC Rangewide (CON) May 15 to Oct 10
Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus BCC Rangewide (CON) May 20 to Jul 31
Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea BCC Rangewide (CON) Apr 22 to Jul 20
Dunlin Calidris alpina arcticola BCC-BCR Breeds Elsewhere
Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Non-BCC Vulnerable Breeds Elsewhere
Golden-winged warbler Vermivora chrysoptera BCC Rangewide (CON) May 1 to Jul 20
Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis BCC - BCR Aug 16 to Oct 31
Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes BCC Rangewide (CON) Breeds Elsewhere
Long-eared owl Asio otus BCC Rangewide (CON) Mar 1 to Jul 15
Red-head woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus BCC Rangewide (CON) May 10 to Sep 10
Ruddy turnstone Arenaria interpres morinella BCC-BCR Breeds Elsewhere
Rusty blackbird Euphagus carolinus BCC Rangewide (CON) Breeds Elsewhere
Semipalmated sandpiper Calidris pusilla BCC Rangewide (CON) Breeds Elsewhere
Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus BCC Rangewide (CON) Breeds Elsewhere
Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii BCC-BCR May 20 to Aug 31
Wood thrush Hylocichla mustelina BCC Rangewide (CON) May 10 to Aug 31
BCC-BCR = Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the
continental USA
BCC Rangewide (CON) = Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and
Alaska
The Bald Eagle was removed from the federal list of threatened and endangered species in 2007, but it is
still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. Bald eagles have been known to
nest within the Mendota Heights’ park system.
The Mississippi Flyway (located along the northwest edge of the City) is a globally-recognized migratory
corridor used by over 325 bird species. The National Audubon Society has designated this area as an
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 77
Important Bird Area (IBA), highlighting the importance of conservation actions and the opportunity for
impactful restoration projects along this important wildlife corridor along the City’s northwest boundary.
State-Tracked Natural Features
The MNDNR’s Natural Heritage Program uses the Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) to track
records of high quality and rare natural communities as well as rare plant and animal species, including
those that are endangered, threatened, or of special concern. A review of NHIS data (MNDNR 2020) for
the City of Mendota Heights and of a one-mile buffer around the City identified 75 rare natural feature
records. These include four animal assemblages, 19 rare vertebrate records, 45 rare invertebrate records
(mostly mussels), 5 rare plant records, and two rare ecological features (Table 9). Most of these records
were documented outside of the City limits, and many of the rare species records are outdated, suggesting
they may no longer exist in the City.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 78
Table 9. State-Tracked Natural Features in and Near City of Mendota Heights (MNDNR 2020)
Natural
Feature Type Common Name Scientific Name State
Status1
State
Conservation
Rank2
Global
Conservation
Rank3
Last
Observed
(year)
No. Of
Occurrences
in City4
Animal
Assemblage
Bat Colony Bat
Concentration N/A SNR GNR 2011 2
Freshwater
Mussel
Concentration
Area
N/A N/A SNR G3 1989 2
Vertebrate
Animal
American eel Anguilla
rostrata SPC S3 G4 2013 1
Blue sucker Cycleptus
elongatus SPC S3 G3 2014 2
Blanding's turtle Emydoidea
blandingii THR S2 G4 2000 4
Peregrine falcon Falco
peregrinus SPC S3B G4 2011 2
Pallid shiner Hybopsis amnis END S1 G4 1926 1
Loggerhead
shrike
Lanius
ludovicianus END S1B G4 1994 1
Northern long-
eared bat
Myotis
septentrionalis SPC S3 G1 1985 1
Mudpuppy Necturus
maculosus SPC S3 G5 2016 1
Pugnose shiner Notropis
anogenus THR S2 G3 1890 1
Louisiana
waterthrush
Parkesia
motacilla SPC S3B G5 1999 1
Paddlefish Polyodon
spathula THR S2 G4 2012 1
Bell's vireo Vireo bellii SPC S3B G5 2011 3
Invertebrate
Animal
Mucket Actinonaias
ligamentina THR S2 G5 2007 3
Elktoe Alasmidonta
marginata THR S2 G4 2001 1
Rock
pocketbook
Arcidens
confragosus END S1 G4 2006 2
Rusty-patched
bumble bee Bombus affinis Watchlist SNR G2 20185 11
Purple
wartyback
Cyclonaias
tuberculata END S1 G5 2001 2
Butterfly mussel Ellipsaria
lineolata THR S2 G4 2005 1
Elephant-ear Elliptio
crassidens END S1 G5 2007 1
Spike Eurynia
dilatata THR S2 G5 2002 4
A jumping
spider
Habronattus
viridipes SPC S3 GNR 1987 1
Higgins eye
mussel
Lampsilis
higginsii END S1 G1 2002 1
Yellow sandshell
mussel Lampsilis teres END S1 G5 1989 1
Scaleshell Leptodea
leptodon Watchlist SX G1 1820 - Pre 1
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 79
Natural
Feature Type Common Name Scientific Name State
Status1
State
Conservation
Rank2
Global
Conservation
Rank3
Last
Observed
(year)
No. Of
Occurrences
in City4
Black sandshell Ligumia recta SPC S3 G4 2007 5
Sheepnose Plethobasus
cyphyus END S1 G3 2001 1
Round pigtoe Pleurobema
sintoxia SPC S3 G4 2001 1
Winged
mapleleaf
Quadrula
fragosa END S1 G1 2001 1
Wartyback Quadrula
nodulata THR S2 G4 2007 1
Ebonyshell Reginaia
ebenus END S1 G4 2001 1
Leadplant
flower moth Schinia lucens SPC S3 G4 1940 1
Monkeyface Theliderma
metanevra THR S2 G4 2001 3
Pistolgrip Tritogonia
verrucosa END S1 G4 2003 1
Fawnsfoot Truncilla
donaciformis THR S2 G5 2010 1
Vascular
Plant
Sterile sedge Carex sterilis THR S2 G4 1982 1
Small white
lady’s slipper
Cypripedium
candidum SPC S3 G4 1993 2
Kentucky coffee
tree
Gymnocladus
dioica SPC S3 G5 2006 1
Edible valerian
Valeriana
edulis var.
ciliata
THR S2 T3 1982 1
Other
(Ecological)
Fossil
invertebrate
(Ordovician)
N/A SNR GNR 1978 1
Proglacial river
composite
(quaternary)
N/A SNR GNR 1972 1
Total Rare Natural Features in City and 1-Mile Perimeter Search Area 75
N/A = Not Applicable
1 State Status: THR=Threatened; SPC=Special Concern; END=Endangered; Watchlist=on state watch list
2 State Rank: State Conservation Status Ranks (MNDNR 2009): S1 = critically imperiled; S2 = imperiled; S3 =
vulnerable to extirpation; S4 = apparently secure, uncommon but not rare; and S5 = secure, common,
widespread, and abundant; SNR = Not Ranked; B = breeding conservation status
3 Global Conservation Status Rank (NatureServe 2020): G1 = Critically Imperiled; G2 = Imperiled; G3 = Vulnerable;
G4 = Apparently Secure; G5 = Secure; T = Infraspecific Taxon followed by number representative of “G#” rank;
GNR = Not Ranked; TNR - Infraspecific Taxon Not Ranked
4 Search area included the City of Mendota Heights plus a 1-mile buffer around the City.
5 Observed in 2019 and 2020 by citizen scientists through Bumble Bee Watch (https://www.bumblebeewatch.org/).
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 80
As indicated in Table 9, many of the listed species have not been recorded in the City for many years, and
others are likely in jeopardy of being lost. When rare animal species are involved, the greatest
conservation gains often are achieved by protecting and managing large natural areas. These are referred
to as core habitats and are important to many sensitive wildlife species, depending on the animal
group. Insects, small mammals, reptiles and amphibians are more likely to find habitat for breeding in the
smaller core habitats, while larger mammals and many species of sensitive birds require larger
ones. Enlarging, buffering, and connecting core habitats are strategies in rare species conservation,
discussed in Section 3.3.1.
2.2.13 City of Mendota Heights Natural Resources & Volunteer Program
In order to better understand the City of Mendota Heights’ existing Natural Resources Program, AES
interviewed Krista Spreiter (Natural Resources Coordinator) and members of the Steering Committee
(Cindy Johnson, Susan Light, Will Stein, and Les Pilgrim). In brief, the City’s Natural Resources Program
requires additional staffing and funds to meet the natural resource management need. Currently there is
no organized volunteer program, however the City is in the process of creating a volunteer program to aid
all departments including Natural Resources. Other attributes of the program follow, and more detailed
notes from the interviews are provided in Appendix B.
• The Natural Resources Coordinator is sole natural resources staff with assistance from parks and
utilities department staff
• Forestry and stormwater management are the main focus
• 14 past, ongoing, and planned restoration projects; however, many are small
• Additional designated program space is needed for storage and gathering
• Significant unmet equipment needs for in-house and volunteer work
• Volunteers are leveraged to implement a natural resources management program. The addition
of a Volunteer Coordinator would better utilize volunteer resources
• Recruiting and retaining quality volunteers is a challenge
In summary, to achieve the City’s conservation goals, its Natural Resources Program and volunteer
program will require additional resources. This Plan will help identify the Program’s most needed
resources. These may include additional City staff, increased City budget allocation, more external funds
from sources such as grants, and increased partner collaborations.
2.2.14 City of Mendota Heights Ordinance Review
City ordinances apply to natural resources management activities. Ordinances may require, allow, or
prohibit certain conservation actions. The City of Mendota Heights recognizes the importance of natural
resources-related ordinances and aligning them with the City’s conservation goals.
Through discussions with City staff, tree protection was identified as a significant priority that warranted
development of a new City ordinance. RES reviewed tree protection ordinances from several other cities
and prepared the following draft documents for Mendota Heights:
• Urban Forest Management Ordinance
• Tree Standards (referenced by the Urban Forest Management Ordinance)
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 81
• Forest Alteration Permit Application (referenced by the Urban Forest Management Ordinance)
In addition to drafting an Urban Forest Management Ordinance (and supporting documents), RES
conducted a review of select existing City of Mendota Heights’ ordinances that relate to natural resources.
Reviewed City ordinances were:
• Weeds; Noxious Vegetation (proposed title “Non-Forest Vegetation Management”)
• Subdivision Regulations
• Wetland Systems (proposed title “Surface Water Management”)
Under separate cover, the City was provided with a RES’ ordinance development and review approach, a
draft Urban Forest Management Ordinance (with the two supporting documents listed above), and red-
line edits recommended for the three existing City of Mendota Heights’ ordinances listed above.
2.3 Summary of Findings
This section summarizes the results of our inventory, assessment, and analysis of the City of Mendota
Heights’ natural resources and its existing Natural Resources and volunteer program.
2.3.1 General Conditions
• The City of Mendota Heights has a diversity of natural areas.
• Fort Snelling State Park and Dodge Nature Preserve represent the largest and highest quality
natural areas in the City. These areas are not managed by the City of Mendota Heights.
• Mendota Heights’ tributaries and location along the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers provide
ecological connectivity between natural areas both in and outside the City. However, most of
the corridors in the City are narrow and fragmented by roads and development.
• Historical land uses (e.g., grading/filling/dumping, cropping, grazing) and invasive species have
compromised all of the City’s natural areas, necessitating strategic intervention and long-term
management if these natural resources and their ecosystem services are to be restored and
sustained.
2.3.2 Vegetation
• The native forests, savannas, and prairies that once dominated the region are now rare.
Mendota Heights’ largest natural areas include the Minnesota River backwaters (over 750
acres), Dodge Nature Preserve (approximately 180 aces), and Valley Park (approximately 132
acres). The City’s remaining natural areas are few, narrow or small, and scattered patches.
• Given the City’s historical vegetation and sustainability goals, natural areas should be managed
as diverse native landscapes that include forests, savannas, prairies, and wetlands.
• Invasive plants are one of the greatest threats to the City’s plant communities and wildlife
because they displace native plants, especially in the ground layer, which leads to less pollinator
nectar and pollen, lower fruit and seed production, reduction in native tree regeneration in
forests, and soil erosion on slopes.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 82
• Lack of regular natural disturbances, in particular fire, for many decades has significantly
reduced the area of former prairie and savanna where those habitats had escaped destruction.
• While limited in a dense urban area, opportunities exist to increase the size and improve the
quality of plant communities through restoration and management. There are also
opportunities for ecological buffers and improved connectivity among natural areas.
• Four state-listed plant species have been recorded in the City; however, most of these records
are over 25 years old and the most recent observation of naturally-occurring Kentucky coffee
tree was in 2006.
2.3.3 Wildlife
• Turf, roads, parking lots, and buildings have reduced the size of contiguous natural areas,
shrinking and fragmenting wildlife habitat.
• The most abundant wildlife species in the City appear to be generalists (i.e., adapted to human-
altered landscapes), based on field assessment and consultation with City staff.
• The City of Mendota Heights supports or has the potential, with restoration, to support core
habitat for a range of forest, woodland, savanna, prairie, and wetland wildlife, potentially
including Species of Greatest Conservation Need in the largest habitats.
• Federally-listed and state-listed animals (including multiple records of the federally-endangered
Rusty patched bumble bee) have been recorded in the City.
2.3.4 City of Mendota Heights Natural Resources and Volunteer Program
• One City employee is dedicated to the management of Mendota Heights’ natural resources.
• Limited support and equipment is provided by other City departments.
• Use of volunteers is limited due to insufficient resources for recruitment, organizing, and
oversight.
2.4 Challenges & Opportunities
This section identifies some of the challenges and opportunities presented by the City’s natural resources,
as well as potential approaches to meet those challenges. Potential approaches are offered here to give
a flavor of what will be selected and refined in the implementation program in Phase 2 of this project.
Challenge: Invasive vegetation
• Invasive plants are one of the greatest threats to the ecological integrity of the City’s natural
areas. Removal and control of invasive vegetation often takes a concerted effort followed by
long-term monitoring and management.
Opportunity: Control invasive vegetation
• This NRMP provides a foundation for strategic prioritization of ecological restoration and
management, including the control of invasive vegetation. Through increased funding,
partnerships, and volunteer engagement, the City can address this critical need, significantly
improving the ecological quality of its natural areas.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 83
Potential Approaches
• Increase public awareness of invasive plants through education and outreach (e.g., City website
and publications).
• City and partners remove and control invasive species on public land.
• If currently practiced by the City, cease planting invasive species on public land.
• Develop or revise City ordinances to prohibit planting of invasive species (e.g., Amur maple,
barberry) on private land.
• Collaborate with landowners adjacent to City natural areas to make invasive vegetation removal
more efficient and reduce long-term management costs.
• Provide cost-share or other incentives for private land owners to replace invasive vegetation
with native species.
• Provide City-sponsored hauling of cut buckthorn to increase participation.
• Sponsor volunteer invasive plant removal events such as a “buckthorn bust”.
Challenge: Climate change
• Climate change presents its own suite of challenges. Predictions for the Twin Cities region
suggest warmer temperatures (especially during winter), which is contributing to changes in
species distribution and new invasions by invasive plants and pests from the south. The
prediction of more severe storms suggests greater potential for flooding and erosion, especially
along already unstable streams such as Big Foot/Interstate Valley Creek.
Opportunity: Increase climate resilience
• While the City has little control over the climate, it can plan and manage its natural resources for
greater resilience despite predicted changes in temperature and precipitation.
• Tree canopy protection and augmentation can help mitigate localized heat islands, discussed
above.
• There are many additional climate resilience and adaptation strategies beyond the scope of this
project (see the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan).
Potential Approaches
• Adopt an urban forest management ordinance to help conserve the City’s valued tree canopy.
• Develop and implement a plan so that Mendota Heights qualifies as a “Tree City USA”
(https://www.arborday.org/programs/treecityusa/).
• Develop a strategic City tree planting plan to identify appropriate species (including climate-
resilient tree species, Appendix C), diversity goals, location and timing of plantings, etc. Tree
plantings for heat mitigation should be prioritized within identified heat islands (Figure 17) and
anywhere that canopies will shade artificial, heat-exporting surfaces such as roadways, parking
lots, and buildings.
• Provide cost-share or other incentives for private land owners to plant (preferably native) shade
trees. Tree plantings can be done on private land or public land if proper approvals are
received, and maintenance commitments may be instituted by the City.
• Additional climate resilience and adaptation strategies focused on natural areas management
are discussed in Section 3.3.2.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 84
Challenge: Private lands
• The majority of Mendota Heights is private land. Multiple ownerships make landscape-scale
conservation challenging, including the systematic and contiguous control of invasive
vegetation, which readily crosses property lines.
Opportunity: Partner with private landowners
• The City is well positioned to work with its partners and private landowners within the City to
more effectively and efficiently achieve its natural resources goals. Some private land
opportunities are discussed above under the invasive vegetation and climate change challenges.
Potential Approaches
• Identify opportunities to convert large expanses of turf that are not regularly used for recreation
(e.g., sports) to prairie or other low maintenance native habitat, increasing ecosystem services
on the private land and for the greater community.
• Identify and work with large private landowners (e.g., golf courses, cemeteries, and other
private open space) to advance larger-scale conservation initiatives (e.g., greenways, wildlife
corridors).
• Develop and apply City cost share programs, residential buckthorn pick-ups, conservation
development and native landscaping ordinances and/or incentives, conservation easements
(such as exist adjacent to Lemay and Augusta Lakes), and other tools to achieve conservation
goals through public-private partnerships.
• GreenStep Cities (https://greenstep.pca.state.mn.us/page/ordinances) has a variety of model
ordinances and performance standards that can be adopted or customized for increasing the
conservation value of private lands in the City of Mendota Heights.
Challenge: Rights-of-way (ROW)
• These linear strips of land (including public ROW along roadsides and private ROW, such as Xcel
Energy’s ROW through Valley Park) often harbor invasive vegetation and provide a conduit for
dispersal of their seeds over large areas.
Opportunity: Restore/manage Rights-of-way (ROW) as natural resources
• Most ROW have restrictions on allowable vegetation and management techniques. However,
most ROW can be restored to native plant communities and/or managed to reduce adverse
impacts on adjacent natural areas. Such conversions to native vegetation increases wildlife
habitat acreage and quality as well as improves ecological connectivity along these linear
corridors and between natural areas. A portion of the Xcel Energy ROW through Valley Park is
currently being restored to native, pollinator habitat, through a partnership with Xcel Energy,
Great River Greening, and the Clean Water Land and Legacy Amendment.
Potential Approaches
• Collaborate with Mn/DOT and Dakota County Highway Department to bring conservation
benefits to road ROW in the City.
Challenge: Urban stormwater runoff
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 85
• The City’s development density (including rooftops, roadways, parking lots, etc.) results in
significant stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces. For example, one inch of rainfall on a
1,000 square foot roof will yield approximately 600 gallons of runoff (Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency 2017). This results in polluted, high-energy, erosive flows that cause flooding
and degrade streams, wetlands, and other downstream waterbodies.
Opportunity: Better manage stormwater
• While not a focus of this NRMP, there are many stormwater best management practices (BMPs)
that can help reduce the adverse impacts of runoff. Many of these will require or benefit from
partnering with private landowners.
Potential Approaches
• Complete watershed plans for the City’s watersheds. Watershed plans will identify, describe,
and estimate costs for construction of stormwater best management practices (BMPs) at
specific locations that will reduce damage to downstream water bodies from excessive and
polluted runoff.
• Work with public works to identify upcoming road projects at locations where stormwater
detention will reduce downstream runoff volume. Incorporate these stormwater management
projects in road project planning and capital budgeting.
• Secure easements on private lands to implement stormwater BMPs identified in watershed
plans
• Implement stormwater BMPs (e.g., rain gardens) on public lands (such as at parks) as
demonstration projects.
• Provide cost-share or other incentives to encourage stormwater BMPs on private lands,
including industrial, commercial, and residential lots.
Challenge: Incompatible park uses
• Parks provide a variety of functions for the residents of Mendota Heights, but some park uses
(e.g., mountain bike trails) are not compatible with other park goals (e.g., nature preservation).
Opportunity: Define park uses
• Per the City’s Comprehensive Plan (2019), each City park has been classified as either
Neighborhood Park, Community Park, or Natural Resource Area. While general uses are
associated with each classification, there is the potential (and a history of) inappropriate uses by
the public (e.g., construction of mountain biking trails in City natural areas).
Potential Approaches
• Define goals, acceptable uses, and management practices appropriate for each park
classification. Provide signage and/or educational information to inform residents of
appropriate activities in park natural areas, and provide annual or regular monitoring to ensure
inappropriate uses are identified and addressed promptly.
Challenge: Limited resources
• The City currently has limited resources (e.g., financial, staff, volunteers) dedicated to its natural
resources.
Opportunity: Increase resources
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 86
• Through increased budgets, staffing, volunteer support, and partnerships, the City will be much
better equipped to meet its natural resource goals.
Potential Approaches
• Increase annual budget for City’s natural resources program. This should entail additional funds
for implementing new restoration projects as well as funds for long-term management of areas
previously restored or enhanced.
• Expand City staffing and volunteer support of the natural resources program, including securing
a single, large space to store equipment and deploy crews and volunteers.
• Continue to collaborate with Dakota County, Great River Greening, and other partners and
identify new partners to advance the natural resources program.
• Continue pursuing grants to fund restoration and management projects (addressed in Section
4.3.9).
• Create an “Adopt-A-Park” program whereby nearby residents are recruited to use the
Management Brief and other park-specific information and implement environmental
stewardship projects.
• Assign Parks and Recreation Commissioners one or multiple parks to work with neighborhood
volunteers to develop and implement volunteer action plans based on guidance in Management
Briefs and other information.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 87
3. MANAGEMENT & CONSERVATION
3.1 Ecosystem Change: Past, Present & Future
3.1.1 What Use is an Ecosystem Change Model?
Ecosystem models are useful planning tools, which consider past conditions, influences over time,
projected future conditions, and implications for ecological restoration and management. Elements of an
ecosystem model include plant species composition and structure, associated wildlife, natural disturbance
regimes, plant successional pathways, responses to human use, and predicted future conditions given
different restoration and management activities as well as environmental changes (e.g., increasing
temperature and rainfall). Most of these conditions are represented by, or reflective of, an area’s plant
communities.
Without regular disturbances, plant communities lose
species and become less resilient (i.e., less able to
change as environmental conditions change).
Conserving biodiversity depends on retaining plant
species and thus making plant communities more
resilient. By restoring native ecosystems and
establishing a sustainable management regime
(including disturbances such as prescribed fire),
program goals can be achieved.
Wildlife species also respond to plant community
biodiversity, persisting or disappearing as plant
communities change. Numbers of pollinators, for
example, rise and fall with the amount of flowering
plants present and timing of flowering. Where few
plants flower from April through October, few
pollinators find sufficient nectar and pollen to sustain
populations. Even with disturbances that sustain
them, healthy ecosystems can adapt when
overwhelming change happens, such as the loss of
species due to a northward shift in species ranges (e.g.,
see Chen et al. 2011). On the other hand, when new
plants migrate into a plant community that is losing
species, resilience may be improved. Mendota Heights
contains a variety of plant communities, which may
allow plant species to move within and between parks
and other natural areas. However, the suburban context and fragmented nature of the City’s natural
areas inhibits such migrations.
Understanding the Past Helps Plan a Better
Future for Ecosystems
Before 1850 the ecosystems of Mendota
Heights experienced major disturbances—
fire, tornado, herds of grazing animals,
floods—without losing biodiversity or
eroding ecosystem services. Soils continued
to build, trees and other plants easily
regenerated themselves, game and fish
were plentiful, streams and lakes were
crystal clear, and the prairies, savannas and
woods were full of wildflowers, with over
ten species of insects for each species of
plant. All that has changed due to three
factors:
• Land use that altered the structure,
composition, and processes of
ecosystems
• Invasive species, pests & diseases that
combined with incompatible land use to
change composition and biodiversity
• Climate that shaped ecosystems, but
which for 200 years has been changing,
with more dramatic changes predicted
by 2050 and beyond.
One cannot successfully plan land
management without knowing this story.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 88
The ecosystem model developed for the City of Mendota Heights considers the distant past, conditions in
the recent past and current time, and predicted future scenarios considering disturbance regimes and
other factors that influence the plants and animals in the City. This determines the general restoration
approach and the long-term management needed to replace natural disturbances that formerly
maintained the region’s biodiversity, stabilized soils and slopes, and allowed for plants and animals to
gradually change as the environment changed—ensuring resilience despite future changes.
3.1.2 Drivers of Change
Land Use
The most influential driver of ecosystem change is land use. It is apparent when natural ecosystems are
affected directly by conversion from natural to cultural (e.g., developed) landscapes, such as converting a
savanna or prairie to homes and roads. However, less apparent are the ecosystem changes that arise
from land use changes nearby, or even some distance, from natural areas. Cultural land uses near natural
areas contribute to increased pressure by invasive species as well as some pests and diseases (discussed
in Section 2.2.8 through 2.2.10). Additional adverse “edge effects” are discussed further in Section 3.3.1.
Land uses can also affect distant natural areas. For example, development in the upper portion of a
watershed can have significant adverse impacts on downstream natural systems – sometimes many miles
away. Land use practices in western, central, and north-central Minnesota affect the Minnesota and
Mississippi Rivers. Wildlife species that require large blocks of “core habitat” (discussed in Section 3.3.1)
or multiple habitat types to complete their life cycles will disappear from landscapes where land use
changes compromise these requirements.
Invasive Species, Pests & Diseases
Invasive species (introduced in Sections 2.2.8 and 2.2.9) are also important drivers of change. They alter
the composition of plant communities, often reducing native species diversity of both plants and animals.
Invasive plants and animals can affect the physical structure of plant communities; for instance, aggressive
shrubs invade forests, crowding the shrub layer, greatly increasing shade in the ground story, and resulting
in the loss of herbaceous vegetation. Ecosystem functions are also affected by invasive species, most
notably by decreased wildlife habitat quality due to decreased native plant diversity. Another example of
functional loss is when deep-rooted, soil-anchoring native vegetation is replaced by turf grass. The turf’s
shallow root system leaves the ground more susceptible to erosion, often apparent along lakeshores and
stream banks.
Natural areas can also be affected by a variety of pests and diseases. Some of these occur as natural
components of an ecosystem, but others have migrated into the region by accident (including spread by
invasive animals), or by intentional human transport. The main invasive animals, pests, and diseases that
currently affect and may affect the City’s natural areas in the future (discussed in Section 2.2.9 and 2.2.10)
include:
• Emerald ash borer
• Gypsy moth
• Invasive earthworms (including jumping worms)
• Oak wilt
• Dutch elm disease
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 89
Climate
According to Minnesota’s Wildlife Action Plan 2015-2025 (MNDNR 2016), we are already experiencing the
early effects of climate change in Minnesota – including higher temperatures (especially during the winter
and overnight) and more severe precipitation events. These changes are likely to influence species and
ecosystems by altering fundamental interactions with other species and the physical environment,
potentially creating a cascade of impacts throughout ecosystems (Staudinger, et al. 2012).
The Wildlife Action Plan states with high confidence that climate change in Minnesota will result in
reduced frost season, longer growing season, earlier ice-outs, fewer days with snow cover, the persistence
of new invasive and pathogenic species, and more intense, widespread, and damaging flash-flooding
(MNDNR 2016). The Wildlife Action Plan (citing Galatowitsch et al. 2009) reports the following predicted
changes for upland plant communities:
Forests (in the Prairie-Forest Border, including the Twin Cities region). Insect damage, larger
blowdown areas, droughts, and fire are expected to interact, resulting in many forests,
particularly ones on marginal soils, becoming savannas. Invasive species, including earthworms,
may limit the establishment and growth of native tree seedlings and other understory plants.
Deciduous forests within the prairie-forest border are severely fragmented by agriculture and
urban/suburban sprawl. Should fragmentation increase and further shrink forest patches and
increase edge effects, the ability of some plant and animal species to adapt to climate change
may become limited. Reasons for this include increased predation on wildlife, the spread of
invasive species, and competition from other native species that prefer forest edge.
Prairies & Grasslands. The relatively small size of prairies and their isolation increase their
vulnerability to climate change. Isolated, low-diversity mesic and wet prairie communities are
the most vulnerable. Wet prairies and meadows will be reduced in extent, and some rare wet-
prairie species will likely be lost. In some cases, intensive management, such as prescribed
burns, conservation grazing with a focus on system resilience, and seeding mixtures that reflect
a changing climate may be necessary to maintain existing prairies or restore prairies.
3.1.3 Model of Ecosystem Change
Ecosystems change over time as a result of natural processes and human interactions. Creating a model
of such change can be instructive for understanding environmental conditions of the past, present, and
the future, and in recognizing the impact that management can have on such ecosystems.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 90
Past (before mid-1800s)
The City of Mendota Heights historically
experienced regular fires. While lightning can start
natural wildfires, fires in the region were often
ignited intentionally by Native Americans to clear
woodlands and brush, open up land for cultivation,
create habitat for game species as well as berry and
nut-producing plants, and clear sight-lines for self-
defense and security. These fires are documented
to have occurred every one to three years in the
region’s larger open landscapes (Stewart 2002,
Pyne 1982). Plant species requiring moderate to
full sunlight (e.g., prairies and savannas) inhabited
the ecosystems that burned frequently. Areas that
were moister, such as lowlands, were less prone to burning. Steep topography and surface water features
also protected areas from fire. These moist and protected areas were characterized by woodlands and
forests of nearly continuous tree canopies.
The early settlers of European descent, arriving in good numbers in the Twin Cities region in the mid-
1800s, came into a landscape inhabited and modified by indigenous peoples for thousands of years. Those
original inhabitants, integrated into the workings of ecosystems, continually modified their environment
by deliberately using fire, building dwellings, tending cropland, and transporting plants from distant
locations for food, medicine, and ceremonies. In short, indigenous people were an active force in shaping
what we today term original, native, historical, or pre-settlement vegetation. There was no pristine
wilderness; it was all managed by the people living there.
A landscape’s vegetation pattern at any moment is dictated by its geomorphology, the greater landscape
context, and disturbance, both human (farming, tree-cutting, grazing, construction) and natural (wildfire,
windthrow, wildlife grazing). The type and depth of bedrock, the aridity or moisture of soils, and a site’s
topography also come into play. Vegetation is profoundly influenced by topography, the steepness and
aspect of slopes (aspect is the direction a slope faces).
The Twin Cities region was last glaciated by the Des Moines lobe, which receded about 10,000 years ago.
Over millennia, the bare soils became colonized by plants, which in turn helped develop soils, which
enabled the establishment of woodlands and grasslands. Before 1800, the region was dominated by
sparsely treed, grassy, and brushy “Oak Openings and Barrens,” also known as savanna. Where these
plant communities burned frequently, bur and other oaks would continuously sprout from roots, known
to the white settlers as “oak grubs.” If fire did not return for a decade or more, rapid colonizers such as
red cedar, pin cherry, and choke cherry would establish with the sapling oaks that emerged from their
underground grubs. The region’s savannas were interspersed with patches of “Big Woods” hardwood
forest and upland prairie; scattered wet prairies and lakes were also present.
Frederic Remington’s painting, “The Grass Fire” (1908).
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 91
Recent Past & Present (mid-1800s to present)
Since the early 1800s, European settlement and fire suppression eliminated the critical disturbance of
regular burning in the region’s savannas and prairies. By the late 1800s, forests in many natural areas had
increased with an equal decrease in savanna and prairie. Tillable prairies were converted to crops, and
others on steeper slopes became pastures. Prairie and savanna that was not cropped or grazed was
colonized by early successional trees and shrubs, such as Eastern red cedar, Hackberry, elms, cherries,
sumacs, and dogwoods. Prairies with oak grubs and shrubs grew, over 20-30 years, to oak woodland and
forest, which lacked a prairie groundcover because of the dense shade. If livestock were allowed to graze,
many prairie plants persisted among the trees and shrubs. Overall, however, most of the landscape was
transformed to a forest-dominated ecosystem with sun-requiring prairie and savanna plants retreating to
the driest or regularly—though not severely—disturbed places.
Other changes in the City of Mendota Heights’ natural areas include the establishment and spread of
invasive shrubs and trees, especially Common buckthorn, exotic honeysuckles, and Siberian elm.
Buckthorn and honeysuckle were brought in by horticulturalists and gardeners as hedgerow and
decorative shrubs; these fire-intolerant species have invaded the City’s forests and woodlands, competed
with native shrubs and saplings, inhibited oak regeneration, and extirpated many ground layer species by
casting dense shade. Invasive forbs and grasses, such as garlic mustard, smooth brome, Japanese hedge
parsley, and reed canary grass, have also degraded the City’s natural areas. Together, non-native trees,
shrubs, grasses, and forbs have been changing species composition, structure, and ecological functions
for nearly two centuries.
Future (2050 and Beyond)
In developing this NRMP, the City of Mendota Heights made a commitment to better understand and
more proactively restore and maintain its natural areas. Exploring likely outcomes using two possible
scenarios—with and without intervention—the City will be able to better understand the importance of
strategic investments in natural resources.
Without Management
Without ecological restoration and management in the City’s natural areas, and assuming current climate
trends continue, the following changes would be expected over the coming decades.
• Invasive and shade-tolerant woody plants will increase in dominance in all plant communities in
both the tree canopy and understory, reducing overall plant species diversity through shading
and root competition.
• Sensitive and specialist wildlife species will decrease.
• Forests may be less suitable for migratory passerine (perching) birds.
• In some forests, conditions may improve if a canopy of native tree species can remain intact and
the ground layer is not disturbed—invasive shrubs will decrease in abundance with the shade
and lack of disturbance.
• Grasslands will decrease in native species diversity and abundance, resulting in poorer wildlife
habitat for pollinators and other grassland fauna.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 92
• Erosion will worsen, given the predicted increase in severe precipitation events and the sparse
groundcover in many of the City’s forests. This will result in poorer water quality as well as
greater damage to natural areas and infrastructure.
• Higher temperatures (and likely more droughts) will encourage drought-resistant plants,
especially on dry, southerly to westerly exposures. These would be both native and invasive
species of prairies and savannas.
Mendota Heights has already observed the results of lack of management in some parklands. Natural
areas that have not been managed often have been overcome by invasive vegetation such as Common
buckthorn and Garlic mustard.
With Management
Active management of the City’s natural areas, as described and recommended in this NRMP, would be
expected to result in the following outcomes over the coming decades.
• Species diversity will be higher than today in all plant communities.
• Nectar and pollen resources will be more abundant than today due to the provision of
continuous blooming from April to October, providing nectar and pollen during the entire
growing season.
• Sensitive and specialist wildlife species will find more acres of habitat.
• Migratory habitat for passerine birds will be of high quality.
• Grassland fauna would benefit from improved native habitat.
• Erosion and associated infrastructure damages will be reduced, and therefore become more
affordable (saving taxpayer dollars), despite precipitation trends.
• Plant communities will be more open in canopy and understory, especially if predicted drought
patterns occur.
• Aesthetics of parkland and natural areas will improve with the increase of native, flowering
plant species and fewer invasive species.
Restoration Potential
Fortunately, some of the City’s natural areas are of higher ecological quality and contain plant
communities that already possess a significant proportion of native vegetation. Figure 11 identifies these
B and BC quality natural areas in the northern portion of Valley Park (along the creek), Ivy Falls Ravine
(west of Ivy Hills Park, where the drainageway flows under Highway 13 toward the Mississippi River), and
some of Dodge Nature Preserve prairies. This considerably reduces the effort required to restore and
manage these habitats. This lighter management touch is called “enhancement”. Existing plant
communities are typically enhanced by removing invasive vegetation, then seeding and planting the area
to increase biodiversity, stabilize soils, and make future management easier due to reduced weed
presence. Unmown turf areas reverting to woodland, and forests with dense invasive plant areas require
more intensive restoration efforts to convert them to native plant communities.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 93
3.2 Improving Ecosystem Services
As discussed in this Plan’s Introduction, ecosystem services explain how people are supported by and
provided with nature’s services, and have their environment stabilized by natural landscapes. While land
use changes and modernization of society have given us many benefits, they also have decreased the
levels of ecosystem services. This is readily seen in smaller populations of wildlife, in water and air
pollution, and in higher rates of erosion and flooding than existed in the landscape of 150 years ago. Once
ubiquitous natural habitats have been eliminated, degraded, and fragmented through development. To
take one specific example, conversion of perennial vegetation to pavement and rooftops—without leaving
sufficient land to absorb rainfall—has accelerated streambank erosion and decreased water quality. That
free ecosystem service, water regulation, now must be subsidized by the construction of stormwater
management systems and regional detention basins, and by repairs to bridge piers, storm sewer outfalls,
and destruction of property due to flooding and erosion. Restoration and management, especially over
large areas, like parks, can greatly improve ecosystem services overall. Restoration and management
activities in parks will help increase the level of ecosystem services throughout the City’s natural areas.
The scientific literature presents numerous examples of how management improves ecosystem services.
Appendix F summarizes this research in tabular form and provides technical references. In brief, scientists
report that ecological restoration and management affect ecosystem services positively, especially as
management continues over time. The scientific literature has focused predominantly on understanding
forest and woodland ecosystem services. For instance, removal of invasive species from herbaceous-
dominated communities has not been thoroughly studied. Instead, scientists have focused on water- and
species-related issues for herbaceous plant communities. Tourism and recreation studies in forested
areas were also common in the literature. Restoring prairie-soil systems appears to be a significant way
to remove carbon from the atmosphere, but forest systems also store large quantities of atmospheric
carbon. Planting native species and restoring the natural processes of fire, hydrology, and normal erosion
rates appeared to have good support in the scientific literature as ways to increase ecosystem services.
3.3 Conservation Concepts
Conservation planning is an important tool for conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services in a given
geographic area. Based on principles of landscape ecology, conservation biology, and population biology,
existing land cover, vegetation, water features, and other environmental factors are assessed with the
intent of identifying, protecting, and connecting natural habitats for the benefit of healthy, diverse, and
sustainable communities of native plants and animals. Conservation planning concepts and their
application to the City of Mendota Heights are discussed in the following sections.
3.3.1 Natural Area Core Habitats, Transitions & Connections
As mentioned in Section 2.2.11, generalist wildlife species (crows, starlings, raccoons, etc.) are animals
that are common and can tolerate and even thrive in altered and developed lands and waters where
habitat fragmentation and degradation have occurred. These species are typically not a focus of
conservation since their populations are usually stable or increasing. In contrast, specialist wildlife species
are often rare or have declining populations due to special habitat needs. Many specialist wildlife species
require large, diverse and high-quality habitat blocks to sustain their numbers. These areas are called
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 94
natural area core habitats. Protecting and managing core habitats in the City will improve the likelihood
that uncommon and declining animal species will persist, including Species of Greatest Conservation Need
(discussed in Section 2.2.11).
The effects of natural areas being converted to developed lands (e.g., buildings, parking lots, roads), with
resulting habitat loss, are well documented. Less obvious are the effects of increasing the amount of
habitat edge. Smaller, narrower habitats have more edge than larger, rounder ones (Figure 18).
Figure 18. Natural Area Core/Interior Habitats and Edge Habitats
Source: Bentrup (2008)
More edge and less interior habitat pose significant threats to wildlife that need core habitat. A variety
of scientific papers and other sources have documented how edge effects penetrate into adjacent natural
habitat. For instance, birds and other wildlife can be flushed by people walking on trails up to a distance
of 150 feet away. Mid-sized predators (raccoon and feral house cats) will travel several hundred feet into
forests and grasslands to prey on birds, small mammals and other wildlife. Invasive plants move from
edges where they grow into interior areas. Traffic noise, warm and dry air, dust from gravel roads,
pesticide drift, and many other damaging influences enter wildlife habitat from these edges (Figure 19).
Enlarging existing habitats and eliminating encroachments helps reduce edge effects, as does planting
designs and management. Even cultural landscapes along the edges of core habitats can be designed and
maintained as natural vegetative screens or buffers. These screens and buffers, ideally consisting of native
vegetation, create natural area transitions, which further reduce edge effects and improve core habitats.
Figure 19. Edge Effects from Development and Disturbance
Source: Bentrup (2008)
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 95
Connecting core habitats (Figure 20) allows wildlife to retreat to different, more favorable areas, without
being exposed to the hazards of travel. Generally speaking, only the largest natural areas will support the
City’s most sensitive vertebrate species. Some of these species require corridors of several hundred to
thousands of feet in width to move among large habitat cores. It is more practical in developed and
farmed landscapes to consider core habitats of 200 to 2,000 acres, with 200-foot to 2,000-foot wide
corridors connecting large cores. Larger habitat areas and connections also benefit many types of smaller
animals. On the other hand, small habitat areas can sustain many invertebrate species which have small
home ranges. Native vegetation can also benefit from connectivity as seed dispersal can be facilitated;
however, this becomes a problem when invasive plants take advantage of these connections. Due to
these variables, greenways (an important method of increasing connectivity) should be designed and
managed thoughtfully to maximize ecological benefits and minimize adverse effects.
Figure 20. Gradients of Ecological Connectivity
Source: Bentrup (2008)
The concepts of core habitats, edge effects, transitions, and connectivity can be used to help conserve—
and even improve—the City’s full spectrum of biodiversity. Protecting, connecting and restoring large
areas of natural vegetation to minimize fragmentation and edge effects (i.e., creating “green
infrastructure”, Figure 21) will address the habitat needs of many native plant and animal species,
including sensitive and uncommon species. These concepts are applied to Mendota Heights in greater
detail in Section 4.3.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 96
Figure 21. Core Habitats, Transitional Buffers & Corridors on the Landscape
Source: Chicago Wilderness Green Infrastructure Vision (2012)
3.3.2 Climate Change Resilience
Projected changes in climate (see Section 3.1.2) are forcing natural resource managers to adjust
restoration and management prescriptions. Although the broad patterns of climate change can be
predicted—more rainfall in larger storms, warmer nighttime temperatures, reduced snow cover—coping
strategies must be broad. As discussed, changing the list of trees to plant in response to shifting plant
hardiness zones is obvious. Less obvious and more challenging are managing aquatic and wetland
ecosystems for changes in rainfall, anticipating future diseases, pests, and invasive species arriving with
warmer temperatures, and even the timing of prescribed burns and herbicide applications.
As the specifics of climate change come into focus, the City can adapt its ecosystem approach. The
National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy (National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate
Adaptation Partnership 2012) offers general guidance on how to insulate a region, municipality, or natural
area against negative effects of climate change.
• Conserve habitats for healthy fish, wildlife, and plant populations and ecosystem functions.
• Manage species and habitats to protect ecosystem processes and functions and put in place
sustainable cultural, subsistence, recreational, and commercial uses.
• Increase capacity in staffing and budgets for effective management and adaptation to change.
• Support adaptive management by integrating monitoring observations and decision support
tools across departments and organizations.
• Increase and share knowledge about impacts and responses of fish, wildlife, and plants.
• Increase awareness of and motivate actions to safeguard fish, wildlife, and plants.
• Reduce non-climate stressors, such as invasive species, to help fish, wildlife, plants and
ecosystems adapt.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 97
The City already has implemented some of these strategies by controlling invasive species and restoring
natural areas on City property. The following recommendations should be considered as the City
continues to execute its Natural Resources Program:
• With snowless winters and often dry conditions, it may be possible to conduct dormant season
burns in winter months rather than in fall and early spring. This could expand the burning
window, which has shrunk due to frequent red flag warnings (no burning) issued by the
Minnesota DNR during historically preferred burn windows.
• In the next two to three decades, before the significant climate changes predicted by mid-
century take hold, remove the threat posed by the most damaging invasive species—buckthorn,
honeysuckle, Smooth brome grass, Reed canary grass, invasive cattails, Giant reed, and others.
• For seed and live plants, use genetic material from farther south to pre-adapt the City’s
ecosystems to a new climate (see Appendix C). Countering this is research that suggests local
genetic material has the potential to accommodate predicted climate change. This strategy
requires more research.
• Predict the trajectory of the City’s ecosystems based on evidence from past and current
ecosystem structure, process and known pathways of plant succession. Use this knowledge to
revise restoration and management traditional prescriptions.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 98
This page left intentionally blank
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 99
4 IMPLEMENTATION
4.1 Approaches to Restoration & Management
4.1.1 Natural Resource Management Planning
This NRMP summarizes the City’s existing natural resources at a high level, lays out a vision for natural
resource management, and facilitates strategic, system-wide planning and program administration. The
City has been restoring and managing select natural areas over recent decades; however, this work has
sometimes been conducted without consideration of systemwide prioritization, landscape setting, and
the resources necessary for long-term management. To fully advance the work laid out in this NRMP,
more detailed, site-specific plans should be developed. These plans would provide refinement of natural
resources data and more detailed, site-specific recommendations and prioritization of specific restoration
projects within the site. Each year, the City should consider and budget for natural resource planning –
especially in its parks in advance of scheduled master planning efforts. NRMPs can vary in terms of
content and detail, but Appendix G presents a general outline of such a plan.
4.1.2 Ecosystem Approach to Restoration & Management
Successful ecological restoration and management requires
the correct execution of a series of tasks, each of which
should be customized to the site’s unique environmental
conditions to meet project goals. This NRMP provides
general management recommendations for different types
of native plant communities; however site-specific
restoration and management prescriptions require an
understanding of site-specific goals, resources, budget, and
other factors.
For restoration and management planning, AES recommends
an “ecosystem approach”. In brief, this approach entails first
using less expensive, more natural methods to restore
natural processes and appropriate vegetation structure and
composition to an ecosystem. This often consists of replacing
dominant invasive vegetation with native species that are
dominant in the target plant community. Prescribed fire and
physical removal of undesirable vegetation typically follow.
This is then followed by other tasks, such as targeted use of herbicides and other interventions to set the
plant community on a trajectory toward greater ecological health and resilience.
The variability of plant communities, including species composition, structure, land use history, and soils,
and the variety of restoration and management goals, present a complex challenge for natural resource
managers. The following framework can help managers develop efficient, effective, and appropriate
restoration and management prescriptions for natural areas.
An Ecosystem Approach Uses
Nature’s Own Processes to Restore
Ecosystem Health
In an ecosystem approach, managers
use their understanding of past and
current ecosystem processes,
structure and composition to design
and implement restoration and
management tasks that are lower cost
and more consistent with the
ecosystem’s own internal processes of
repair and rejuvenation. When
combined with adaptive management
and monitoring, an ecosystem
approach can be more effective in the
long term than conventional
approaches to ecological restoration
and management.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 100
1. Understand the starting ecosystem. Rarely intact, an inherited ecosystem is more commonly a
degraded natural community, a cultural landscape of cropland, pasture, or turf, or a novel
ecosystem—that is, an apparently stable plant community, such as an old field or a forest
dominated by non-native trees, that originated from cultural practices.
a. Gather baseline data and complete a natural resources inventory and assessment in the
field, including an early restoration concept based on observed conditions in an
ecosystem management framework.
2. Define conservation and restoration goals for the land or plant community, including specifying
target plant communities. Goals should lead to self-perpetuation, limited human management
of ecosystems, and long-term resilience despite environmental change and unexpected
stressors.
b. Consider the type and level of ecosystem services being restored in light of expected
land use, species and habitats targeted for protection, and other desired outcomes.
c. Consider the achievable ecological quality. Is it realistic to expect an A-quality plant
community, or is BC-quality acceptable?
d. Consider short-term and long-term costs. For instance, though generally cheaper than
most management techniques, is it cost-effective (and appropriate) to manage a
particular site with fire considering its natural disturbance regime and constraints?
e. Consider schedule and milestones. Define the time over which the goals will be
realized and define steps along the way that represent significant interim
accomplishments.
3. Develop and implement restoration and management prescriptions, including the appropriate
tasks and sequence, to set the ecosystems and target plant communities on a trajectory
towards ecological health, integrity, and resilience.
a. Ensure adequate resources to implement the restoration work and perpetual
management thereafter.
b. Restore processes that can be used cheaply and extensively to restore vegetation
structures, such as prescribed fire, flood regimes, canopy closure, other processes
(grazing, burrowing), the addition of legacy materials, etc.
c. Restore structure by using or mimicking natural processes, physical removals (e.g.,
brushing) and/or native plantings, biocontrol agents, etc. Use management mowing,
spot herbicide application sparingly, and broadcast herbiciding as a last resort, with the
goal of restoring dominance by native plants suited to local climate, soil, and setting.
d. Introduce species diversity as necessary to support restoration of native dominance in
vegetation layers, enhance ecological functions such as pollinator community support,
and resilience against climate change that favors southern species and disfavors
northern ones. Native seeding and live-planting are typically required if native seed
banks and root reserves are exhausted.
e. Continue short-term management (e.g., management mow, spot spray)
4. Practice adaptive management (i.e., implement, monitor, report, learn, and adjust as
warranted).
5. Accept long time frames, requiring patience and persistence to achieve long-term goals.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 101
4.1.3 Target Native Plant Communities
Proposed native plant communities are those largely self-sustaining ecological combinations of species
that are expected to develop at a site following the implementation of ecological restoration and
management activities. Given the current degraded condition of most of the City’s natural areas, we
recommend that all native or semi-natural plant communities be enhanced to establish more ecologically
healthy conditions. In addition, underutilized turf areas in parklands should undergo conversion to lower
maintenance native plant communities, such as prairie.
For example, existing Mesic Forest will remain as such, but
would be enhanced by removal of invasive species, selective
thinning of aggressive native trees and shrubs, and limited
plantings. This would diversify the canopy, understory, and
ground layer vegetation and improve wildlife habitat,
including habitat for pollinators. Complete replacement of
vegetation could occur where natural resource conservation
calls for turf grass to be replaced by native prairie or savanna
grasses and wildflowers under trees.
Native plant species lists appropriate for restoring or
enhancing the City’s specific plant community types can be
derived from MNDNR’s Native Plant Communities of
Minnesota – The Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province (MNDNR
2005) and native seed mixes are available from the
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR). Management briefs for the City’s natural areas
(Appendix H) reference appropriate target plant communities to restore/enhance, and appropriate
species for seeding and planting (Appendix I).
Whenever possible, native plant materials (seed and live plants) used in ecological restorations should
have a genetic source-origin from within 200 miles of the project area, preferably not far to the north (due
to ongoing and projected climate change patterns). In addition, only native, wild-type species should be
used, not cultivars and horticultural varieties. While local ecotype seeds and plants are highly
recommended, some species are not always available in today’s market. Substitutions for specified seed
and plant materials may be necessary if materials are not available or prices for some species too high.
Every effort should be made to substitute unavailable species with those that match the ecological
purpose of unavailable species. Section 4.2 of this plan addresses the restoration and management tasks
needed to establish healthier native plant communities in the City’s natural areas.
4.1.4 Management Units
At an individual site scale, ecological restoration and management is often conducted in a given area or
“management unit.” Small sites may be treated as a single management unit, but larger sites are often
subdivided to facilitate implementation of restoration/management tasks in areas with similar
management needs and proposed uses. Management units are also used to phase projects over time,
often necessitated by annual budgets, or to provide refuges for invertebrates during and after prescribed
fires. Management units often consist of a single plant community type (like forest), but they may contain
Converting Turf to Prairie Makes
Sense for Good Reason
Converting little-used turf areas to
native prairie is one technique to
elevate ecosystem services.
Compared with regular mowing of
lawns, maintenance of prairie
represents a significant reduction in
time, effort, and cost. At the same
time, prairie generates huge increases
in the land’s capacity to absorb
greenhouse gases, infiltrate
groundwater, and support wildlife
and pollinators compared to turf
grass.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 102
a variety of plant communities. Management unit boundaries are typically delineated along existing
roads/trails, plant community edges, watercourses, or topographic breaks. Management units have not
been delineated in this NRMP, but many of the City’s smaller natural areas could be managed easily as a
single unit. Defining management units in larger parks should be done after more detailed site-specific
plans are completed.
Restoration and short-term management tasks generally include site preparation, brushing and thinning
(in wooded communities), weed control, native seeding and planting, and ecological monitoring and
reporting. Table 10 illustrates a schedule for a typical restoration project that requires significant site
preparation followed by initial management. Laying out restoration tasks for an individual management
unit requires a detailed scope, often with a different schedule. The schedule below does not address long-
term management.
Table 10. Generalized Restoration & Short-Term Mgmt. Schedule for a Management Unit
4.1.5 Management of Private Land, Easements & Lowland/Aquatic Communities
Private Land
As discussed earlier in this NRMP, many of the City of Mendota Heights’ natural areas are located on
private land. Some of these private natural areas are protected by a conservation easement (which
dictates the conservation goals and allowable activities within the area) or are wetland/aquatic
Task Description/Subtask
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter Site Preparation
Re-establish historical hydrology and/or
disturbance regimes (e.g., fire); broadcast
herbicide, till, spot herbicide and/or mow
Invasive Tree & Shrub
Removal/Thinning
Cut & stump treat invasive woody plants
Remove or selectively thin aggressive native
woody plants
Invasive Herbaceous
Vegetation/Weed
Control
Prescribed dormant-season burn; site
preparation burn can be late Summer, Fall
or Spring
Spot herbicide and/or spot mow
Foliar herbicide the invasive woody re-
growth
Seeding & Planting After
Weed Control
Install native seed
Install live woody plants (dormant)
Install live herbaceous plants
Ecological Monitoring &
Reporting
Assess/document site; prepare year-end
summary report
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 103
ecosystems protected by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act and other regulations. However,
many of the City’s private natural areas are not protected, and even protected areas are often not
managed. To achieve the City’s conservation goals, special strategies are required to address
management of private natural areas, easements, and lowland/aquatic communities.
Ideally, natural areas on private lands are managed by the landowner or other partners. This is already
occurring in some portions of the City (e.g., Dodge Nature Center managing its private lands), but can be
facilitated and expanded through outreach and cost-share programs. Tools such as the City’s website,
brochures, and information offered at community events can help private landowners better understand
and appreciate the need for control of invasive vegetation and other forms of natural areas management
(see Section 4.1.6 for more information on public outreach). Cost-share programs and partnerships, such
as the City has done with picking up buckthorn cut by volunteers, make some types of natural areas
management much more feasible for landowners. The Conservation Concept developed for Mendota
Heights (Figure 22 under Section 4.3) illustrates how vegetation and parcel mapping can be used to
identify private lands adjacent to City natural areas and other private lands most in need of ecological
restoration and management and/or locations where investment would result in the greatest ecological
benefit. Targeting those specific landowners as partners will enable the City to advance your conservation
goals most efficiently.
Easements
Several conservation easements exist within the City of Mendota Heights (although comprehensive
mapping does not exist). While some of these easements specify management requirements, some do
not, and others do not follow through on the required management regime. The City should inventory
and map (using GIS) all conservation easements within the City. Based on this inventory, review of
easement requirements, and field assessment, the City will be able to ascertain which ones are in
compliance, which would benefit from increased management, and which are located in areas
advantageous for ecological connections.
Lowland/Aquatic Communities
The Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act and other water/wetland regulations provide legal protection
of most of the state’s wetlands and other aquatic systems (lakes, streams, etc.). However, many of these
lowland/aquatic features extend across property lines. This fact, coupled with the impact of water levels
on properties and the dispersal mechanisms of aquatic invasive species, make management of
lowland/aquatic areas particularly challenging to implement and sustain; hence, these areas are often not
managed. Given these challenges, it is often necessary for municipalities to make strategic decisions
where and how to manage lowland/aquatic areas, considering the feasibility, initial cost, and the cost to
sustain the management necessary to achieve realistic goals. Detailed restoration and management
planning for wetlands and other aquatic systems are out of the scope of this NRMP.
4.1.6 Public Outreach
Public outreach is a critical component of any NRMP, especially in a City such as Mendota Heights where
so much of the City’s natural areas exist on private land. Some of the key messages that should be
conveyed to City residents (many already discussed in this NRMP) include:
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 104
• Much of the City’s natural areas exist on private land, making public-private partnerships critical
to achievement of the City’s natural resource and conservation goals.
• Residents can take advantage of the following programs and incentives:
o Landscaping for Clean Water – through partnership with the Lower Mississippi River
WMO/Dakota County SWCD
o Metro Blooms Educational Classes – began partnership last year; offered two classes;
classes offered will vary each year
o Lawns to Legumes – residents can apply through the Blue Thumb program
o Tree Trust Tree Sale – trees offered at a discounted price to residents through our
partnership with Tree Trust
o County Tree Sale – the Dakota SWCD is providing opportunity for residents to purchase
high quality, native, bare root seedlings at a low cost for urban and rural conservation
purposes, such as windbreaks, reforestation, erosion control, and food and cover for
wildlife
o Organics Program – recently added an organics drop site at Mendakota Park
o Annual Recycling Events - including the Shred Event, Mattress Collection, etc.
o Annual Parks Celebration – booths offering educational resources on recycling, natural
resources, and water resources
o Annual Earth/Arbor Day Celebration – free community event offered annually with
give-aways, educational displays, and activities, on natural resources and water
resources topics; has historically involved a community service event such as a parks
clean up
o Annual Fishing Derby – booth and activities offering educational resources for kids
focused on Water Resources
o Site Visits by Staff – offered free of charge for technical advice on a variety of
water/natural resource issues including: tree inspection, invasive species, native
restoration projects, shoreline restoration projects, erosion prevention, etc.
Currently, the City of Mendota Heights does not have any incentive programs designated to other private
landowners (e.g., cemeteries, churches, schools, businesses). However, the City has partnered with two
homeowner associations on a recent street reconstruction project, providing sustainable landscaping on
their property and outlots that bordered Marie Ave. W, including natives plants, a no-mow lawn, and trees
and shrubs.
Volunteer opportunities are another way to engage the public in the City’s natural resources program.
Volunteering provides an opportunity to capitalize on knowledgeable and passionate residents who know
and care about natural resources, as well as an opportunity to educate less knowledgeable citizens and
employees that work in the City. Through such volunteering, people develop a deeper understanding and
appreciation of natural areas, increasing the value of the City’s natural resources and reinforcing their
protection, restoration, and management. More information and recommendations regarding the City’s
volunteer program is provided in Section 4.3.5.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 105
4.2 Restoration & Management Tasks
As mentioned above, ecological restoration and management requires execution of a series of tasks, each
of which should be customized to the site’s unique environmental conditions to meet project goals.
Restoration and short-term management tasks for natural areas are discussed below. Long-term
management is discussed in Section 1.2.3, and includes some of the tasks below.
A Note About Herbicides
Restored native species dominance in all vegetation layers of a plant community often requires use of
herbicides. If native dominance can be restored without herbicides, spot-treatment may still be
appropriate to eliminate colonies of the most problematic species. Some can be managed with mowing
or hand-pulling, but in most cases targeted herbicide treatment is the best means of control.
The public is increasingly concerned about herbicides and other pesticides used on public land. City staff
may be contacted for information in response to restoration and management involving herbicides. A
consistent message should be conveyed to the public by City staff who receive inquiries about herbicides:
• The City minimizes herbicide use by taking an ecosystem approach and following Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) practices 1. When deemed necessary, the City allows use of herbicides with
the lowest toxicity to achieve restoration goals.
• Herbicide application on City-managed lands is applied at the lowest effective concentration by
licensed applicators following manufacturer’s instructions.
• Recommended safety precautions are followed by herbicide applicators, and signage is installed
as appropriate to inform the public of herbicide use and appropriate exclusion intervals
following application.
• The City of Mendota Heights became a Pollinator-Friendly Community under adopted resolution
2016-01, urging those in the community, and committing to, limit the use of pesticides and
chemicals and adopt more pollinator-friendly practices.
The amount of herbicide applied for ecological restoration and management is at levels far below that
used in agricultural fields. Moreover, the herbicide is often precisely applied to small areas, such as a cut
stump or individual thistle clump. Preference is given to sponge- or wick-application or low-pressure
nozzle to minimize drift and spillage. Restoration professionals prefer to use broadcast herbicide
application as a tool of last resort, in order to remove a dominant invasive plant in a vegetation layer that
is resistant to other approaches.
4.2.1 Hydrological Restoration
Natural Hydrology. In natural settings of the Midwest and Great Lakes Region, wetlands and associated
streams, ponds, and lakes experienced gradual rises and falls in water level after large storms and spring
snowmelt. Small storms rarely caused surface and groundwater levels to rise. Evapotranspiration from
1 Integrated Pest Management is an ecosystem-based approach that uses a combination of practices that minimize
risk to beneficial insects and organisms, wildlife, humans, and the environment. Pesticides and herbicides are used
only after monitoring indicates they are necessary and applied with the goal of removing only the target pest or
species.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 106
the land and vegetation gradually drew down water and groundwater levels from early summer into fall.
(The groundwater table that is visible in wetlands, streams, ponds and many lakes rises and falls even
more slowing than surface water levels.)
Altered Hydrology and Vegetation Effects. Native plants and animals were well-adapted to the formerly
gradual changes in water and groundwater level. Ditching, tiling, and other drainage systems, as well as
land clearing and impervious surfaces, have deranged the natural hydrological regime in the majority of
wetlands, streams, ponds, and lakes of the region. Damming and road-building also alter hydrology by
impounding water uphill and drying the downhill landscape. These changes in hydrology alter the plant
and animal communities of hydrologically-dependent ecosystems by favoring certain species well-
adapted to either a static hydrological regime (such as above dams) or artificially dynamic hydrological
regime, such as below drained agricultural and developed landscapes. Dominance by a few species often
results, with the loss of plant and insect biodiversity, and shifts in the abundance of bird, amphibian, and
small mammal densities.
Restoring Hydrology. In hydrologically-deranged wetland and related systems, the first restoration task
is to identify where ditches, tiles, undersized road culverts, berms and dikes exist on a site in order to
remove them and restore a more natural hydrological regime. A second task is to identify locations
outside the site which have a disproportional effect on the hydrology of the site. The first task is a
common part of restoration, while the second requires taking a watershed approach that often involves
multiple parties, considerable expense, and long time frames.
A watershed approach identifies the most cost-effective opportunities to infiltrate and slow runoff before
it reaches the creek valley. In developed areas this usually requires integrating infiltration and detention
projects into redevelopment projects, especially along roads where storm sewers are often installed.
Smaller, dispersed infiltration and detention projects, if widely installed on public lands and commercial
or institutional properties, would significantly reduce the amount of runoff entering creeks. Lastly, private
landowners can do many things on their own property—redirect a roof downspout to a lawn rather than
a driveway or install a raingarden. Fortunately, the majority of the city has well drained to excessively
drained soils, making infiltration a very effective technique to manage stormwater runoff.
4.2.2 Prescribed Burning
Prescribed burning is an important and cost-effective ecological restoration and management tool – and
one that is appropriate for fire-dependent communities such as: pine, pine-oak, and oak forests; oak and
oak-pine savanna; prairie; wet meadow; and marsh. The City of Mendota Heights’ contains fire-
dependent forests, woodlands and other native plant communities that benefit from infrequent fire.
These plant communities are often most cost-effectively managed with well-planned and well-executed
prescribed burns. The many benefits of fire in these communities has been well documented.
Burning Grasslands and Meadows. The City’s prairie habitats should be burned approximately every
three years, but this depends on the rate of woody plant invasion and the accumulation rate of fine fuel.
More frequent burning may be needed to control woody plant growth, or less frequent if the litter layer
accumulates slowly. Creating two or three burn units, each capturing the landscape’s heterogeneity,
preserves refugia for wildlife negatively affected by fire. For instance, invertebrates (including pollinators
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 107
such as the Rusty patched bumble bee) are protected by not burning an entire plant community at once,
usually recolonizing the burned patch from refugia (i.e., nearby habitat areas spared from burning) in the
next year or two. The USDA/NRCS recommends that most prescribed burning be done in the early spring
before grassland birds nest. However, late-summer and fall burns also avoid the prime nesting season
(USDA/NRCS 1999). Due to these potential adverse wildlife impacts, burning small native restorations
with little or no nearby refugia (which would be the case in portions of Mendota Heights) might be at odds
with the City’s restoration objectives.
Burning Forests and Woodlands. Fire-dependent forests and woodlands may have sufficient oak or pine
leaf litter to carry a low-intensity surface fire, generally with flame lengths only up to two to three
feet. These surface fires help remove excess leaf litter and organic duff, control invasive plants not
adapted to fire, and stimulate the growth of a diverse assemblage of native plants. (The fire research at
Minnesota’s Cedar Creek Ecosystem Science Reserve demonstrates this clearly for savannas.)
For routine management, the City’s fire-dependent forests and woodlands should be burned every five to
ten years, depending on their species composition, available fuel, ecological quality, and restoration and
management needs. More frequent burns, even annually, may be beneficial for killing invasive vegetation
(e.g., buckthorn) and preparing a site for restoration. However, burning these areas can be challenging if
fine fuel is sparse. Legacy materials (downed woody debris and snags) must be addressed before or after
a burn. In closed-canopied forests, especially with a woody understory, dense shade often suppresses
invasive plants, making prescribed burning less important as a management tool.
Challenges of Using Prescribed Fire. Prescribed burning can be challenging in a developed setting. Park
users, neighboring residences and businesses, traffic on roads, and air quality all need to be considered
when developing a thorough and safe burn plan. Prior to burning, the City of Mendota Heights or its
appointed contractor should secure the necessary permissions, notify the community, and take
appropriate precautions to protect infrastructure or vegetation that is not intended to be burned. Due to
fixed costs associated with mowing fire breaks, notifications, mobilization, and burn coordination and
execution, small burns of less than a dozen or so acres are much more expensive on a per-acre basis than
larger ones.
Prescribed burning is a safe and cost-effective restoration and
management tool when conducted by trained professionals.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 108
4.2.3 Biocontrol
Biocontrol uses natural enemies to reduce invasive species populations. Several approved biocontrol
agents are available to control invasive species in the City (Table 11), but the most problematic ones—
buckthorn, reed canary grass, invasive cattail—have none.
Table 11. Potential Biocontrol Options for City of Mendota Heights
Community Plant Species Biocontrol Agent Mechanism Application References
Forests &
Woodlands
Garlic mustard
(Alliaria
petiolata)
A root-crown mining
weevil
(Ceutorhychus scrobicollis)
Adult Stage: Herbivory of
foliage.
Larval Stage: Mine petioles and
root crowns in winter and early
spring.
Biocontrol agent
not available in
the U.S. but is
being tested.
Becker et al.
2020
Upland
Grasslands
Leafy spurge
(Euphorbia
esula)
Leafy spurge beetle
(Aphthona lacertosa)
Adult Stage: Herbivory on
foliage, then lay eggs at the
base of plant.
Larval Stage: Eggs hatch, larvae
feed on roots over winter until
pupation and emergence as
adults the next summer.
Exists in City;
recommend
experimental
release first.
Chandler et
al. 2012 Black dot Leafy spurge flea
Beetle (Aphthona
nigriscutis)
Spotted
knapweed
(Centaurea
stoebe)
Seedhead weevils
(Larinus minutus and L.
obtusus)
Adult stage: Herbivory of
foliage.
Larval stage: Consume
developing spotted knapweed
seed.
Exists in City;
recommend
experimental
release first.
Chandler
2020
A root-boring weevil
(Cyphocleonus achates)
Larval Stage: Develop in roots,
consuming starch reservoir and
physically damaging roots.
Wetlands
Purple
loosestrife
(Lythrum
salicaria, L.
virgatum)
Black-margined loosestrife
beetle
(Galerucella calmariensis)
Adult Stage: Herbivory of
foliage.
Larval Stage: First instar larvae
feed concealed in leaf or flower
bud; later instars feed on
aboveground plant parts.
Exists in City;
recommend
experimental
release first.
MNDNR
2020
Purple loosestrife leaf
beetle
(Galerucella pusilla)
Loosestrife root weevil
(Hylobius
transversovittatus)
Adult Stage: Herbivory of
foliage.
Larval Stage: Feed in roots.
4.2.4 Invasive Tree & Shrub Removal
As part of an ecosystem approach, removing invasive woody vegetation often dramatically accelerates
the ecological restoration process. Common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) and non-native
honeysuckles (e.g., Lonicera x bella, T. tatarica) are primary targets in Mendota Heights since they can
dominate forest understories, and Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) and Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia)
trees, saplings, and seedlings can also be abundant. In addition, some native trees and shrubs—Boxelder
(Acer negundo), Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), American elm (Ulmus americana), Eastern red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana), and Chokecherry (Prunus virginiana)—behave as invasive species in native plant
communities damaged by past poor management. In these cases, selectively or completely removing
them from a forest understory may help to accelerate the restoration process; however, aggressive
removal of native species should occur only after thorough assessment of the plant community and
consideration of conservation goals. Once aggressive shrub and understory species are under control,
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 109
soil-anchoring native ground layer vegetation and native trees and shrubs can be planted to stabilize soils
and compete with the invasives. Planting nut- and berry-producing trees and shrubs should be a priority
as these important source of wildlife food are usually missing or scarce in damaged forest ecosystems.
If resource are limited, invasive vegetation management should focus on removing invasives from the
highest quality areas or areas with the rarest natural features. These are experiencing early invasions that
are easier to control than dense infestations.
Removing invasive woody vegetation typically includes the following tasks.
• Native Plant Protection. Protect desirable native woody and herbaceous vegetation by various
means. Avoid: forestry mowing, goat grazing, heavy equipment use, and broadcast herbiciding.
Where native vegetation is sparse in one or more layers of a plant community, these
indiscriminate methods can be used.
• Slope Protection and Safety. Steep slopes may make mechanized woody plant removal very
difficult. Hand cutting with workers in safety harnesses is a better choice. Leaving roots intact
in the soil (i.e., not using a Weed Wrench) will reduce erosion potential. Goat grazing may be
effective on steep slopes, but has disadvantages discussed below.
• Soil Protection. Woody plant removal should be done when the ground is frozen to minimize
rutting and damage to plant roots.
• Hand-Pulling. Where feasible on relatively flat, stable soils, hand-pull seedlings and young
invasive shrubs of up to 2” diameter near the base. This can be done with a Weed Wrench or
similar tool. If control can be executed over several years, buckthorn may be removed from
sites with sandy, mucky, or other loose soil by cutting the stem at a height of 3 feet. These
stems may “sucker” or re-sprout but can then be extracted through leverage or tools after a
year or two, avoiding the use of chemicals. Physical removal of invasive species disturbs soil and
can promote weed seeds in the soil to germinate; therefore, this practice should be used only
after considering site conditions, the likelihood of weed seed growth, and potential for erosion.
• Hand-Cutting or Killing in Place. When other methods are not feasible, invasive woody plants
should be cut and stump-treated with an approved contact herbicide. This is a commonly used
technique as it accommodates most situations, but disposing of material can add significant
costs (see below). If a less expensive method is desired, invasive woody plants can receive a
basal bark application of herbicide and left standing after dying where appropriate. Herbicides
should be appropriate to the task and methods should be used that minimize damage to native
vegetation or soil biota. Unwanted trees can be killed and left to die standing in place by
girdling (i.e., severing the bark, cambium, and sometimes the sapwood in a ring extending
entirely around the trunk of the tree).
• Goat Browsing. Goats have been used at some restoration sites to browse and reduce invasive
woody vegetation. Goats defoliate and stress small shrubs and trees, woody plant seedlings,
and the low-hanging branches of taller plants, but cannot control mature shrubs. Moreover,
browsing may not kill the browsed plant, allowing it to regrow. Because mature invasive shrubs
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 110
are found in many of the City’s forests, goats are often not a suitable tool by themselves. Other
disadvantages are that goats browse native woody species and require the installation and
management of electric fencing and other infrastructure. For these reasons, goats should be
used only at appropriate sites, under close supervision, and with other brush control methods.
• Forestry Mowing. Mechanized forestry mowing is often used for large areas of invasive woody
plants, but may have the disadvantages of removing and damaging desirable native vegetation,
causing soil erosion, and compacting soil. Forestry mowing also leaves uneven/shredded stump-
cuts, making herbicide application challenging. For this reason, resprouts are common,
requiring foliar application of herbicide (see below). For large areas dominated by invasive
woody plants and lacking native woody plants, mechanical forestry may be appropriate.
• Understory Thinning. Where past poor management has allowed early-seral trees to colonize
the forest understory, a deep shade develops. Selective thinning of these trees can accelerate
the restoration process. A continuous forest canopy should be maintained in most forests, as
this reduces the invasion and growth of buckthorn and honeysuckle. Thinning the understory
and creating canopy gaps, however, allows more sunlight to reach the ground, helps the growth
of mid- to late-seral species (e.g., red oak), and stimulates the spread of native ground layer
plants.
• Woody Material Disposal. Cut material is typically hauled off site, chipped and thin-spread on
the site, or stacked into brush piles for wildlife habitat or burning (in approved locations). Care
should be taken to not spread invasive plant seeds and berries during removal. Handling and
transporting cut material should follow all state and federal recommendations to prevent the
movement of pests, such as Emerald ash borer and Gypsy moth. If many large trees are being
cut, these should be moved out of the way to maintain travel routes for material disposal.
Where there are fewer large trees being removed, the boles can be bucked, chopped and thin-
spread, and the trunks left on the ground as wildlife habitat. If generating a commercial product
such as biomass for energy or stream bioengineering material, understory thinning can be done
with lower material removal costs.
• Treating Resprouts and Seedlings. To control woody brush resprouts and seedlings (and
encourage growth of ground layer vegetation, including woodland grasses that can help carry
ground fires for management), “critical period cuts” can be effective. Conducted in July (when
woody plants have expended much of their root resources on growth for the year), cutting brush
at ground level will encourage resprouting later in the season, which uses up the plants limited
resources at a time when it typically would be storing up reserves in its roots for the winter and
following year. Use of prescribed fire the spring following a critical period cut can be particularly
effective at killing the seedlings and resprouts. This approach eliminates the need for herbicide
application, helping to protect native, non-target vegetation.
When a critical period cut is not feasible, treat invasive woody vegetation seedlings and
resprouts with approved foliar herbicide in the growing season after cutting, preferably late
summer or early fall, to avoid collateral damage to native ground layer vegetation. Due to the
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 111
seedbank in well-established stands of buckthorn and honeysuckle, treating seedlings may take
up to seven years after the mature individuals are removed.
4.2.5 Invasive Herbaceous Vegetation Control
• Competition by Native Plants. As invasive plants create a seedbank which produces seedlings
for years, expanding the cover of native vegetation is the most effective way in the long term to
compete with and suppress the germination and growth of invasive plant seedlings.
• Native Plant Protection. Protect desirable native vegetation by avoiding native plants with
equipment and herbicides. Select the right herbicide and apply at the proper time with the
proper method to minimize drift and drip. Properly use prescribed burning. Use a broadleaf-
specific herbicide when protecting native grasses, sedges, and graminoids, and a grass-specific
herbicide when protecting native forbs.
• Multi-Pronged Approach. Employ an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach by
combining manual pulling where erosion is not a concern, spot-application of herbicide, spot-
mowing, and prescribed burning—the combination determined by the vulnerabilities of the
invasive plants being controlled.
• Broadcast Herbicide Treatment. Two or three herbicide treatments are usually required to
control certain perennial weeds, for example: Smooth brome (Bromus inermis), Kentucky
bluegrass (Poa pratensis), and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Spot-herbicide treatment after
initial removal is usually needed in these situations. Broadcast herbicide applications should be
used as a last resort.
4.2.6 Herbaceous Vegetation Installation
• Native Seedbank Assessment. Following initial removal of invasive woody and herbaceous
species, the native seedbank should be allowed to express itself. If in the first year it does not
respond sufficiently in variety or coverage, native seeding should be initiated.
• Native Seeding. Seeding is less expensive than installing live plants, but requires more time to
establish, often up to three years. Always use native seed of the local ecotype, originating
within 150-200 miles of the site. Seeding a native grassy cover crop will rapidly stabilize soils
and create a competitive environment for invasive seedlings emerging from the seedbank. A
native grass seeding also provides fine fuel to carry a prescribed burn, if that is a restoration and
management action. Diversity can be increased by seeding forb species after the graminoids are
established, usually by drilling seed after a burn or mowing. Volunteers can collect native seed
and hand sow it in sparse or low diversity areas. The ground layer vegetation will help stabilize
soils, prevent new invasion by invasive and weedy plants, and restore the ecological
composition, structure, and function of the area being restored.
• Live Plugs. Live plant plugs (“plugging”) produces an immediate effect but is relatively
expensive. An intermediate approach is to add plugs to a native seeding area, either to increase
diversity of species that do not establish well from seed, or to create an impressive floral
display, such as in high visibility areas.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 112
4.2.7 Tree & Shrub Installation
• Planting Trees and Shrubs. Native woody plantings are used to replace or compete with
invasive or early-seral native woody plants, setting the plant community on a trajectory to a
more resilient condition. In restoration projects, plant material typically consists of whips, bare
root stock or small saplings. Using smaller material is less expensive than larger material and
usually results in better establishment over time. As guided by restoration goals and plant
community targets, install ecologically appropriate and local ecotype native trees and shrubs.
Appropriate native species can be selected from the MNDNR species list for each target plant
community (MNDNR 2005). Protection from deer and rodent browsing may be necessary.
• Direct Seeding. Direct seeding of harvested acorns, walnuts, hickory nuts, butternut, and seeds
of elm and maple is a low-cost but slow method to establish woody plants; however, it may be
effective in certain areas.
• Timing of Planting. It is often best to not install woody vegetation in the first year or two of
restoration and management due to the extensive invasive plant removal occurring. Native
trees and shrubs can be added after invasive management is completed.
4.2.8 Conifer Plantation Thinning and Restoration
City of Mendota Heights parkland contains conifer plantings and plantations (e.g., Valley Park). While
often consisting of native species (e.g., White pine, Pinus strobus), these plantings and plantations
represent altered, low-diversity plant communities. Converting conifer plantations to healthier, more
diverse and resilient native plant communities is often best accomplished by selective thinning of conifers
over several years, accompanied by interplanting appropriate native trees and seeding and/or live
plantings other native species. Local conditions (e.g., soils, moisture regime) will help determine an
appropriate target plant community and which species are most appropriate for the particular location.
Tree plantings typically require browse protection from White-tailed deer, rabbits, and rodents.
4.2.9 Turf to Native Vegetation Conversion
Many of Mendota Heights’ parks and other public parcels contain turf lawn; most of these are actively
used, justifying this vegetation cover. To increase habitat for pollinators and other native species, to
improve other ecosystem services, and to reduce long-term maintenance costs, underutilized turf areas
could be converted to native prairie or savanna ground layer vegetation. Native prairie is typically
maintained by prescribed burning once every few years. Compared with regular mowing of turf lawns,
maintenance of prairie represents a significant reduction in time, effort, and cost when compared with
conventional lawns. Even considering prairie installation costs by seeding, these native plant communities
have lower cumulative costs than lawns within a couple years.
The conversion of herbaceous vegetation from turf grass to prairie/savanna grasses, sedges, and
wildflowers involves the following.
• Native Plant Protection. Protect desirable vegetation, especially mature native trees, by
marking a perimeter around them in which turf removal methods are carefully applied.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 113
• Turf Removal without Herbicide. Black plastic laid on the turf in summer will kill turf. However,
this process requires large amounts of plastic sheeting, the plastic must be installed as to not
cause runoff and erosion problems, it may require several months to eliminate turf, and soil-
dwelling biota will also be killed. Sod-cutting is another turf removal method; however, this
procedure also removes topsoil from the site, which requires transport and disposal and may
leave site soils less conducive to revegetation.
• Turf Removal with Herbicide. Use approved broadcast herbicide to kill existing lawn and other
undesired vegetation. A minimum of two herbicide treatments is often required to control turf
species and achieve performance standards. Mowing or burning vegetation prior to or in
between treatments may improve turf removal.
• Native Seeding. Once turf species are removed satisfactorily, seed with local ecotype native
seed. Seeding is less expensive than installing live plant plugs, however seeding requires more
time for establishment, and some prairie and savanna species are slow to develop.
• Live Plugs. Some species are best installed as live plants. If rapid establishment and additional
species diversity is desired, enhancement plugging can be conducted in select areas, such as
along roads and paths, or near buildings, signage, and other site amenities.
4.2.10 Slope & Seep Stabilization
Mendota Heights’ park system includes some
steep slopes, especially along Big
Foot/Interstate Valley Creek and Ivy Creek.
Many of these steep slopes experience
erosion due to a combination of factors:
• Dense shade (by overstocked
canopies or invasive shrubs) inhibits
the growth of soil-anchoring ground
layer vegetation.
• Runoff flowing down steep slopes
causes sheet erosion that displaces
topsoil, inhibiting the growth of soil-
anchoring vegetation.
• Concentrated runoff (e.g., from impervious surfaces at the top of slopes) flows down steep
slopes with highly erosive energy that causes rill and ravine erosion.
• Steep slopes are subject to seeps and springs, which saturate soil. Such soils lack integrity,
which can lead to mass-wasting.
• Digging and other disturbance by people.
Steep, eroding slopes along Big Foot/Interstate Valley Creek in
Valley Park.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 114
4.2.11 Diseased Tree Removals
Tree disease management is conducted by the City of Mendota Heights to control Oak wilt, Dutch elm
disease, and Emerald ash borer. As trees are removed from forests, appropriate native species (see
MNDNR 2005) may be planted in canopy gaps by City staff, partners, or volunteers.
4.2.12 Ecological Monitoring & Reporting
Monitor natural areas’ response to restoration/enhancement activities so management activities are
adjusted accordingly. Monitoring the restoration and management activities at a site will help define the
best management schedule and techniques. Monitoring can range from rapid and simple assessments to
quantitative surveys with detailed reporting. Sharing monitoring results with the public can provide
greater transparency, encourage the community’s appreciation of natural areas, and increase the
commitment to long-term stewardship.
Building on the ecological assessment work conducted for this NRMP, we recommend the following
monitoring protocols for Mendota Heights’ natural areas.
1. Priority Natural Areas (larger intact natural areas and other natural communities with a quality
rank of C or better (see Section 2.2.3)).
a. A qualified ecologist should conduct a baseline field assessment of each plant
community in the area, documenting vegetation species present and percent cover of
each species. Notes should include invasive species, other stressors, erosion features,
rare species observations, etc.
b. A walkabout survey (i.e., qualitative assessment documenting conditions, presence of
invasives, other environmental concerns, etc.) should be conducted annually by a
qualified ecologist. Any concerns should be conveyed to the Natural Resources
Coordinator, and interventions should be scheduled promptly.
2. Active Restoration Areas
a. Prior to initiating restoration activities, a qualified ecologist should inspect the entire
project area confirming existing conditions and validating restoration goals are
appropriate. Notes should include invasive species, other stressors, erosion features,
rare species observations, etc.
b. Prior to installing native seed/plants, a qualified ecologist should inspect the entire
project area confirming site preparation was done properly before installation of plant
materials.
c. During restoration activities, a qualified ecologist should oversee contractors,
volunteers, and other personnel at a frequency pursuant to their skill levels. Any
concerns should be conveyed to the Natural Resources Coordinator.
3. Other Natural Areas
a. Conduct walkabout surveys as time and resources allow and report issues to the Natural
Resources Coordinator.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 115
4.3 Advancing Conservation in Mendota Heights
4.3.1 City-wide Conservation Priorities
Based on RES’s review of existing ecological data, field review of the City’s priority natural areas during
2020 and 2021, and consideration of conservation planning and landscape ecology principles, we
identified the following conservation opportunities, focused on the City’s largest and/or highest quality
core habitats. For each of the ten core habitats identified (Figure 22), there are opportunities to enhance
natural areas (e.g., remove invasive vegetation), widen narrow areas, and expand core habitat by
purchasing or securing conservation easements on adjacent land. In addition to improving, enlarging, and
buffering core habitats, improving ecological connectivity (discussed further under Section 4.3.2) is yet
another strategy to increase the ecological health and resilience of these important natural areas.
The ten identified core habitats (Figure 22) are presented in ecological priority order, considering the
conservation gains that could be achieved (related to ecological quality, size, connectivity, diversity of
habitats, etc.). Some areas are managed by entities other than the City of Mendota Heights and/or are
already undergoing restoration or management projects (e.g., Dodge Nature Preserve, Oȟéyawahe/Pilot
Knob Preserve). They are included in the list because the City should be aware of these opportunities and
consider supporting and advancing them through its own work. Fort Snelling State Park (in the southwest
portion of the City) is the largest natural habitat core in the City; however, it is not addressed in this
section, as it is state-owned and managed.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 116
Figure 22. Conservation Concept for Natural Areas and Connections in Mendota Heights
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 117
1. Dodge Nature Preserve – Lily Property (managed by Dodge Nature Center), Friendly Marsh Park and
Adjacent Natural Areas
Approx. Size: 223 acres
Landscape Context: Highway 62 on north, residences on south, institutional to northwest, estate lots to
east, and City’s Friendly Marsh envelopes southwest corner. Dakota County’s Mendota-Lebanon Hills
Greenway runs along west edge of core, and this core is just south of Dakota County’s River-To-River
Greenway.
Types and Quality of Ecosystems, Plant Communities, Habitats: Representative variety of ecosystems and
plant communities, with some locations having BC and C quality.
Past, Ongoing and Planned Restorations: Dodge Nature Preserve - Lily Property has been conducting
prairie restoration and invasive plant control for many years.
Core Habitat and Edge Effects: Squarish shape maximizes interior core habitat. Friendly Marsh Park,
Dakota County land, estate lots and institutional parcel provide better buffer against damaging edge
effects, and there are opportunities to reduce edge effects through partnerships. Highway 62 noise
reduces quality of bird nesting habitat on north and contributes to fatalities of animals using the nature
preserve.
Conservation Strategy: The northwest corner of this core is connectable to the Valley Park South Core
along the trail underpass beneath Highway 62 and the south-central portion of this core is connectable to
the Copperfield Ponds Core (across Huber Drive). Core expansion opportunities exist by protecting
adjacent land (including where private lots abut the core). Provides a central location and facilities for
conservation education and mobilization for restoration and management projects. See Appendix J for
more discussion of conservation strategies.
2. Valley Park North (City park) and Adjacent Natural Areas
Approx. Size: 91 acres
Landscape Context: I-35E to west, residences along eastern edge, industrial site at northeast corner,
Marie Avenue forms south boundary. Dakota County’s River-To-River Greenway runs through this core.
Adjacent to Lilydale Regional Park in north and to Valley Park South Core just south of Marie Avenue.
Core Habitat and Edge Effects: Long, narrow shape constrains interior core habitat, but I-35E serves as a
barrier to the many damaging edge effects associated with residential development. Industrial site to
northeast offers opportunity to increase buffering against edge effects through partnerships. I-35E noise
reduces quality of bird nesting habitat along entire length of core and contributes to fatalities of animals
using the park.
Types and Quality of Ecosystems, Plant Communities, Habitats: Representative variety of ecosystems and
plant communities; dominated by forested ecosystems with stream valley ecosystem along center. About
three acres are BC and C quality.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 118
Past, Ongoing and Planned Restorations: Focus of much City restoration and management activities.
Ongoing pollinator habitat restoration project. Future streambank stabilization project.
Conservation Strategy: This core is somewhat connected to Lilydale Regional Park in north (across
Highway 13) and Valley Park South (across Marie Avenue). Core expansion opportunities exist by
protecting adjacent land (including where private lots and industrial land abut the core, especially along
east edge). See Appendix J for more discussion of conservation strategies.
3. Valley Park South (City park) and Adjacent Natural Areas
Approx. Size: 46 acres
Landscape Context: I-35E to west, residences along eastern edge, Highway 62 along south edge, Marie
Avenue forms north boundary. Dakota County’s River-To-River Greenway runs through this core.
Adjacent to Valley Park North Core across Marie Avenue.
Core Habitat and Edge Effects: Long, narrow shape constrains interior core habitat, but I-35E serves as a
barrier to the many damaging edge effects associated with residential development. Estate in southern
portion of core invites a partnership to reduce edge effects. I-35E noise reduces quality of bird nesting
habitat along entire length of core and contributes to fatalities of animals using the park.
Types and Quality of Ecosystems, Plant Communities, Habitats: Focus on herbaceous and shrubby
wetlands and lowland forest. No high-quality remnants (most of this area is NN quality, with some D
quality), but opportunity to restore a large wetland system that could simultaneously manage excess
stormwater runoff that is causing stream valley degradation in Valley Park North.
Past, Ongoing and Planned Restorations: Possible future streambank stabilization project in partnership
with Lower Mississippi River WMO and private landowner.
Conservation Strategy: This core is somewhat connectable to Dodge Nature Preserve Core in southeast
corner (via trail underpass beneath Highway 62) and to Valley Park North Core (across Marie Avenue).
Core expansion opportunities exist by protecting adjacent land (including where private lots abut the core,
especially along the east edge). See Appendix J for more discussion of conservation strategies.
4. Lemay-Augusta Lakes Ridge and Shoreline (privately owned)
Approx. Size: 117 acres (mostly open water)
Landscape Context: Residences along west side of Augusta Lake and the north, west and south sides of
Lemay Lake. Resurrection Cemetery (a 174-acre structural savanna) abuts the east side.
Core Habitat and Edge Effects: Although the moderately long, narrow shape constrains interior core
habitat and a trail bisects the area, the adjacent savanna-like cemetery is a good buffer against the many
damaging edge effects associated with residential development and could be improved through a
partnership. Conservation easement agreements exist between the City and two Homeowners’
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 119
Associations (HOAs) adjacent to Augusta and Lemay Lakes. This offers an opportunity for a partnership
to improve habitat and reduce edge effects.
Types and Quality of Ecosystems, Plant Communities, Habitats: Primarily oak forest and degraded forest
(D and NN quality), but with potential for savanna and woodland restoration, as indicated by the presence
of lily-leaved twayblade orchid (Liparis liliifolia) and spring ephemeral wildflowers.
Past, Ongoing and Planned Restorations: Removal of invasive vegetation, shoreline armoring, and native
seeding was conducted in Fall 2020 at The Heights Apartments, just northwest of Lemay Lake. A
stormwater outfall that discharges to the lake was restored and stabilized using bioengineering.
Conservation Strategy: Core expansion opportunities exist by protecting adjacent land. Partnerships with
HOA, and cemetery board, and other adjacent landowners to improve habitat around the two lakes,
create a large core habitat area centered on the lakes and including the west edge of cemetery (where it
meshes with the cemetery’s purpose, goals, and aesthetics). Although the uplands are narrow, restoring
high-quality habitat around much of the lakes’ perimeters will reduce sediment and nutrient loading to
lake from soil erosion off slopes. See Appendix J for more discussion of conservation strategies.
5. Hidden Creek Trail Neighborhood (privately owned)
Approx. Size: 64 acres
Landscape Context: Back acreage of about 20 large private lots. Bounded by Wentworth, Delaware, Marie
and Dodd. Dakota County’s River-To-River Greenway is just south of this core.
Core Habitat and Edge Effects: The somewhat roundish shape results in more interior core habitat.
Opportunity to reduce the edge effects of large lot residences through partnerships. Although may not
be high quality, the size and shape of the area elevate the site among the City’s natural areas.
Types and Quality of Ecosystems, Plant Communities, Habitats: Assumed to be low-quality lowland forest,
marsh, upland forest, and old field; however, not assessed due to private ownership.
Past, Ongoing and Planned Restorations: New landowners along Hidden Creek present an opportunity
for education and establishment of native buffer plantings.
Conservation Strategy: Partnership that unifies neighborhood around the creation of high-quality core
habitat and the reduction of edge effects, facilitated by protecting adjacent land (including where private
lots abut). Opportunity for trail system for neighborhood use and enjoyment. See Appendix J for more
discussion of conservation strategies.
6. Ivy Falls Ravine (City nature preserve) and Adjacent Natural Areas
Approx. Size: 27 acres
Landscape Context: Adjacent to Lilydale Regional Park but separated from it by Highway 13. Residences
on all other sides. An area of private forest to the northeast buffers the City nature preserve. This core is
characterized by steep ravines that drain northwest under Highway 13 to Pickerel Lake.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 120
Core Habitat and Edge Effects: The long narrow shape produces edge effects and little interior habitat.
Types and Quality of Ecosystems, Plant Communities, Habitats: The northern portion of this park (and
adjacent private land) is one of few high-quality upland forests identified in City—BC ranked (fair to good);
the remainder of the parkland is assumed to be comparable quality.
Past, Ongoing and Planned Restorations: None known.
Conservation Strategy: Opportunity to secure a larger area and avoid future encroachment working with
private landowners to the northeast and others abutting this core. Some connectivity exists to Lilydale
Regional Park and potentially other natural areas. See Appendix J for more discussion of conservation
strategies.
7. Rogers Lake (City park and Mn/DOT property) and Adjacent Natural Areas
Approx. Size: 97 acres (mostly open water)
Landscape Context: I-35E to west, residences to north and east, St. Thomas Academy to southeast, and
Patterson Companies, Inc. to south.
Core Habitat and Edge Effects: Narrow strips of upland around the lake constrain interior core habitat,
but I-35E serves as a barrier to the many damaging edge effects associated with residential development.
Types and Quality of Ecosystems, Plant Communities, Habitats: Good variety of ecosystems and plant
communities: upland forest, savanna, lowland forest, marsh. Quality ranges from CD to NN.
Past, Ongoing and Planned Restorations: Buckthorn removal project and shoreline restoration on 10 acres
along west side of lake.
Conservation Strategy: Although the uplands are narrow, restoring high-quality habitat around much of
the lake perimeter will reduce sediment and nutrient loading to lake from soil erosion off slopes. Core
expansion opportunities exist by protecting adjacent land (including where private lots, St. Thomas
Academy, and Patterson Companies, Inc. abut the core). See Appendix J for more discussion of
conservation strategies.
8. Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob Preserve (City-owned) and Adjacent Natural Areas
Approx. Size: 39 acres
Landscape Context: Highway 55/62 along north and east edges, natural lands of Fort Snelling State Park
to west, and Acacia Park Cemetery to southwest. Dakota County’s Big Rivers Regional Trail runs along the
northwest edge of this core.
Core Habitat and Edge Effects: Roundish shape reduces edge effects, and Hwy 55/62 serves as a barrier
to the many damaging edge effects associated with residential development. A 10-acre patch of natural
forest exists between the cemetery proper and the Preserve, providing a good buffer, but residences to
the east increase edge effects overall.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 121
Types and Quality of Ecosystems, Plant Communities, Habitats: A prairie planting a decade ago and
ongoing management has restored most of this area’s natural character to a quality rank of CD. The
remaining portions of this core are generally degraded forest and old field.
Past, Ongoing and Planned Restorations: Site has been threatened by development through the years,
but protection efforts by the City and others were successful. In 2017, the site was listed on the National
Register of Historic Places. The Pilot Knob Preservation Association was established in 2003 as a nonprofit
with the mission of protecting the site and led its nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.
The nonprofit is a current partner of the City of Mendota Heights and Dakota County. Great River
Greening has managed restoration efforts here for several years at the direction of the City, including
prairie management and limited tree and shrub plantings. In December of 2019, the City Council
authorized the establishment of the Oȟéyawahe /Pilot Knob Task Force, with the direction to pursue
short- and long-term goals for the preservation of, and improvements to, the site. Dakota County is a
partner and member of the current Task Force.
Conservation Strategy: Continue ongoing cooperation with Dakota County, Pilot Knob Preservation Assn.,
and Indigenous communities. Core expansion opportunities exist by protecting adjacent land (including
the 10 acres southwest of the Preserve and other adjacent cemetery land). See Appendix J for more
discussion of conservation strategies.
9. Copperfield Ponds (City park) and Adjacent Natural Areas
Approx. Size: 30 acres (mostly open water)
Landscape Context: Surrounded by residences to the northeast, east, and south, and adjacent to Huber
Drive on the west. The Dodge Nature Preserve – Friendly Marsh Core is just northwest of Copperfield
Ponds, and Friendly Hills Park is just southwest (both are across Huber Drive). Dakota County’s Mendota
- Lebanon Hills Greenway runs along the west edge of this core (along Huber Drive).
Core Habitat and Edge Effects: Narrow strips of upland constrain interior core habitat and increase
damaging edge effects associated with residential development.
Types and Quality of Ecosystems, Plant Communities, Habitats: Low-quality upland forest, lowland forest,
aspen woodland and shrubland, ranging from CD to NN quality. The shallow lakes have some of the better
shoreline vegetation in the City, with emergent marsh and wet meadow plants scattered along the
shoreline.
Past, Ongoing and Planned Restorations: Past prairie planting. Ongoing removal of Siberian elm and other
invasive woody species, and savanna restoration.
Conservation Strategy: There is an opportunity for increased connectivity to Friendly Marsh (across
Huber Drive). Core expansion opportunities exist by protecting adjacent land (including where private
lots abut the core). See Appendix J for more discussion of conservation strategies.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 122
10. Wentworth Park (City park) and Adjacent Natural Areas
Approx. Size: 15 acres
Landscape Context: Residences to north, Dodd Road and condominiums to east, Wentworth Ave. and
residences to south, and estates to the west. Core drains west through lowland forest into Valley Park
North Core through the private lands.
Core Habitat and Edge Effects: Irregular shape and limited size results in damaging edge effects associated
with residential development and only a small amount of core habitat.
Types and Quality of Ecosystems, Plant Communities, Habitats: Low-quality lowland and upland forests,
ranging from CD to NN quality.
Past, Ongoing and Planned Restorations: None known.
Conservation Strategy: This core could be expanded within Wentworth Park proper, since much of the
park consists of maintained turf. Additional core expansion opportunities exist by protecting adjacent
land (including where private lots abut the core, especially to the east). Connectivity could be enhanced
along the drainageway to the west. See Appendix J for more discussion of conservation strategies.
4.3.2 Potential Natural Area Connections
As discussed in the preceding section, the City of
Mendota Heights park system encompasses significant
natural areas (most notably Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob
and Valley Park); however, the City’s largest and
highest quality natural habitats are owned by other
entities (e.g., Fort Snelling State Park and Dodge
Nature Preserve). Connecting these and other core
habitats helps sustain native plant and wildlife
communities, and therefore is important to achieving
the City’s conservation goals. Patches of natural lands
create “stepping stones” that can be woven together
for better ecological connectivity. Waterways,
together with their associated, wider floodplain,
represent linear aquatic and riparian habitats, and
often flow between larger patches of natural upland
habitats. Expansion, buffering, enhancement, and
additional connections between the City’s parks and
other natural areas will help protect their ecological
health despite inevitable environmental change while
simultaneously complementing local and regional trails and greenways enjoyed by people. This long-term
resilience will benefit human park users, help secure the persistence of important and uncommon native
plant and animal species and reduce management effort.
A Good Conservation Concept is the
Foundation for Ecosystem Health
Just managing the vegetation inside a
natural area won’t stop the past harm to
ecosystems and biodiversity. To do that,
natural areas need to be part of a larger
Conservation Concept. It takes many years
of discussion, policy change, and steady
work to implement this tool, but
incrementally it does these things:
• Builds a system of large core habitats,
with transitional areas that buffer edge
effects from adjacent incompatible land
uses, which damage the interior
conditions of natural areas.
• Creates meaningful natural connections
among core habitats so that plants and
animals can move between cores and
survive inbreeding and catastrophic
disturbances to any one core.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 123
Figure 22 (above) identifies core habitats within the City as well as general opportunities for expanding
these cores and establishing and enhancing ecological connections. The call-out boxes identify just some
of the City’s potential partners that can help realize this conservation concept (e.g., schools, golf courses,
cemeteries, private landowners, all neighboring municipalities). Appendix J provides additional details
and recommendations regarding how Mendota Heights can advance this City-wide Conservation Concept,
building on the opportunities discussed in Section 4.3.1.
4.3.3 Natural Area Parks
The City of Mendota Heights contains 18 City-owned and managed parks (Figure 7). Many of these parks
consist of, or are dominated by, recreational fields and other cultural land covers (e.g., turf). The data
reviewed for this NRMP, the field assessments, and discussions with City staff identified these seven areas
as Natural Area Parks (NAPs) representing the greatest opportunities for ecological restoration and
management (including several of the City’s core habitats):
Table 12. Natural Area Parks in the City of Mendota Heights
Natural Area Park 2040 Comprehensive Plan Designation
Valley Park North (north of Maria Ave. W) Natural Resource Area
Valley Park South (south of Maria Ave. W) Natural Resource Area
Rogers Lake Park (including land adjacent to park) Community Park
Copperfield Ponds Park Natural Resource Area
Wentworth Park Neighborhood Park
Hagstrom King Park Neighborhood Park
Friendly Marsh Park Natural Resource Area
As with most of the metropolitan region’s natural areas, reintroduction of natural disturbance regimes
and removal and control of invasive vegetation are the greatest conservation needs at these NAPs.
Suppression of ground fires, hydrologic alteration, and loss of large grazing animals such as bison have led
to shifts in ecosystem structure, composition, and function. Dominance by invasive plants depresses
biodiversity and interrupts the normal regenerative processes of native ecosystems, such as tree
germination and growth in forests. A well-designed ecosystem management program, using proven
restoration and management practices, can address these issues, reverse the degradation that has
occurred, and bring these natural areas to a higher level of ecological function and resilience in the face
of environmental change.
To present the full context of each park or natural area complex, adjacent important natural areas are
included in some NAPs. These areas may extend outside the City park boundary, but are important to
include for holistic understanding and sustainable management. Each NAP is described below.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 124
Valley Park North
Setting. Valley Park North consists of approximately 77.6 acres of upland, lowland, and aquatic areas in
the north-central portion of the City (Figure 23). This is by far the largest City-owned natural area
(approximately 72.8 acres) in Mendota Heights. This NAP is bounded by:
North: the City of Lilydale, the Mississippi River Valley, and a Northern States Power tank farm;
East: single-family residential homes;
South: Marie Ave. W., Valley Park South, and single-family residential homes;
West: I-35E and single-family residential homes.
Figure 23. Valley Park North Location and Plant Communities
Characteristics. The vast majority of this NAP consists of a mosaic of natural areas with a network of
walking trails (Figure 23). Recreational elements include a ballfield, tennis courts, and play structure. Big
Foot/Interstate Valley Creek flows northward through the park, through the City of Lilydale, and into the
Mississippi River. Over centuries, the creek and its tributaries have formed steep-sloped valleys in the
northern portion of the park, and currently the creek valley and its tributaries are experiencing channel
downcutting, bank erosion, and slope failure.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 125
Soils are dominated by Chetek sandy loam in the uplands and Colo silt loam (occasionally flooded) in the
lowlands. Chetek soils, found on much of the NAP’s moderate slopes, are excessively drained and arose
in glacial outwash. In a natural state they were associated with mixed deciduous forests with a heavy oak
component. Where fire was a dominant feature of the landscape, oak savannas were the result on these
Chetek soils. Colo silt loam is a poorly drained soil that historically supported wet prairies and wet
meadows.
Bedrock outcrops are exposed along some of the valley side slopes. An Xcel Energy powerline corridor
runs north-south through the center of this NAP, resulting in the maintenance of herbaceous and shrub-
scrub conditions. Table 13 and Figure 24 summarize the NAP’s City-owned natural and semi-natural plant
communities. For each plant community type, the acres, percentage of the NAP’s natural area, and quality
ranks are provided.
Table 13. Natural/Semi-Natural Vegetation of Valley Park North (City-owned land only)
PLANT COMMUNITIES1 ACRES PERCENT OF
PARK NATURAL AREA
ECOLOGICAL
QUALITY RANKS2
Upland Communities 48.8 67.1 BC - NN
Forest/Woodland 41.9 57.5 BC - NN
Mature Forest/Woodland 16.9 23.2 BC - D
Dry-Mesic Forest/Woodland (1) 7.6 10.5 C – D
Mesic Forest (2) 9.2 12.7 BC - CD
Altered Forest/Woodland (3) 25.0 34.4 NN
Savanna/Brushland 1.3 1.7 NN
Savanna (4) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Shrub/Scrub (5) 1.3 1.7 NN
Grassland 5.7 7.8 NN
Prairie (6) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Non-Native Grassland (7) 5.7 7.8 NN
Lowland Communities 24.0 32.9 CD - NN
Lowland Forest/Woodland 15.3 21.0 CD - D
Lowland Forest (8) 15.3 21.0 CD - D
Lowland Shrub/Scrub 1.5 2.1 CD NN
Lowland Shrub/Scrub (9) 1.5 2.1 CD - NN
Lowland Herbaceous 7.2 9.8 CD - NN
Wet Meadow (10) 6.0 8.2 DNN
Marsh (11) 1.2 1.6 CD - NN
Open Water (12) 0.0 0.0 NA
Totals 72.8 100
1 See Table 2 for brief descriptions of plant community types
2 See Section 2.2.3 for Ecological Quality Rank discussion; A = Highest quality; B = Good quality; C = Moderate condition; D =
Poor condition; combinations of letters (e.g., BC) represent a mosaic of quality ranks; NN = Not a natural community; NA = Not
applicable
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 126
Figure 24. Natural/Semi-Natural Vegetation of Valley Park North (City-owned land only)
Valley Park North contains an area of good to moderate (BC) quality Mesic Forest - one of the City’s highest
quality native plant communities. Much of this NAP was characterized as moderate to poor quality (CD)
due to relatively poor native cover, invasive vegetation, and/or species composition resulting from human
disturbances and land use practices over the last 150 years. Big Foot/Interstate Valley Creek and its
tributaries drain highly developed watersheds that produce flashy and erosive flows that degrade the
Creek and valley slopes. Addressing this scale of damage requires a watershed approach (see Section
4.2.1).
Given that this NAP is the largest City-owned natural area and is adjacent to the important Mississippi
River Valley habitat corridor, it provides a unique opportunity for achieving conservation goals – many of
which depend on having large natural areas. Through restoration and enhancement of natural areas,
habitat can be created and improved for a wide variety of native plant and wildlife species – possibly
including Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN). Dakota County’s River to River Greenway, which
passes through the Park, presents an opportunity to better connect several natural areas (see Section
3.3.1).
The City has worked with several partners (e.g., Great River Greening, Conservation Corps of Minnesota
& Iowa, Xcel Energy) on ecological restoration and management projects within the NAP. These include
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 127
brushing of invasive buckthorn in multiple locations and establishment of a “pollinator corridor” along the
Xcel Energy powerline right-of-way.
As part of Phase 1 of this NRMP, a grant application was submitted to the Outdoor Heritage Fund/Lessard-
Sams Conservation Partners Legacy Grants Program. A grant of $50,000 was awarded to the City to
restore and enhance much of the northern portion of Valley Park North, focused on the forests and valley
slopes. This forest enhancement project began in 2021 and builds on the ongoing adjacent restoration
work, and a volunteer planting event is planned for 2022. These projects will illustrate to the public the
benefits of ecological restoration and management in bringing about a more biologically diverse, resilient,
and attractive plant community.
In addition to the ongoing projects above, three Priority Projects were identified in Valley Park North (see
yellow call-out boxes on Figure 23). Priority Projects are addressed in Section 4.3.4 and Appendix H.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 128
Valley Park South
Setting. Valley Park South consists of approximately 18 acres of City-owned land. This NAP consists of
upland, lowland, and aquatic areas in the north-central portion of the City (Figure 25). Valley Park South
is immediately south of Valley Park North, which is by far the largest City-owned natural area in Mendota
Heights. Valley Park South is bounded by:
North: Marie Ave. W. and Valley Park North;
East: single-family residential homes;
South: Highway 62 and Mendakota Country Club;
West: I-35E and single-family residential homes.
Figure 25. Valley Park South Location and Plant Communities
Characteristics. This NAP consists of upland and lowland forests, shrubby and turf areas beneath the Xcel
powerlines, and shrubby and herbaceous wetlands (Figure 25). Recreational elements are limited to a
trail that runs north-south through the park connecting Valley Park North (to the north) down to the north
side of Highway 62 and then extending east to other City trails. Big Foot/Interstate Valley Creek flows
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 129
northward through the park, through Valley Park North, through the City of Lilydale, and into the
Mississippi River. The significant channel downcutting and bank erosion present in portions of Valley Park
North is not apparent at Valley Park South.
Soils are dominated by Hawick loamy sand in the uplands and Spillville loam (occasionally flooded) and
Seelyeville muck in the lowlands. Hawick soils, found on much of the NAP’s moderate to steep slopes, are
excessively drained and arose in glacial outwash. In a natural state they were associated with sandy
upland prairies. Spillville loam is a somewhat poorly drained soil that historically supported floodplain
forest. Seelyeville muck is a very poorly drained, organic soil that is frequently ponded due to its location
in floodplains and depressions. Muck soils typically support wet prairies, wet meadows, and marshes.
An Xcel Energy powerline corridor runs north-south through the center of this NAP, resulting in the
maintenance of herbaceous and shrub-scrub conditions. Table 14 summarizes the NAP’s natural and
semi-natural plant communities. For each plant community type, the acres, percentage of the NAP’s
natural area, and quality ranks are provided.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 130
Table 14. Natural/Semi-Natural Vegetation of Valley Park South (all City-owned land)
PLANT COMMUNITIES1 ACRES PERCENT OF
PARK NATURAL AREA
ECOLOGICAL
QUALITY RANKS2
Upland Communities 9.6 53.3 D - NN
Forest/Woodland 7.6 42.5 NN
Mature Forest/Woodland 0.0 0.0 N/A
Dry-Mesic Forest/Woodland (1) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Mesic Forest (2) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Altered Forest/Woodland (3) 7.6 42.5 NN
Savanna/Brushland 1.6 8.8 NN
Savanna (4) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Shrub/Scrub (5) 1.6 8.8 D
Grassland 0.4 2.0 NN
Prairie (6) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Non-Native Grassland (7) 0.4 2.0 NN
Lowland Communities 8.4 46.7 D - NN
Lowland Forest/Woodland 1.8 9.9 D
Lowland Forest (8) 1.8 9.9 D
Lowland Shrub/Scrub 2.1 11.4 D - NN
Lowland Shrub/Scrub (9) 2.1 11.4 D - NN
Lowland Herbaceous 4.6 25.3 NN
Wet Meadow (10) 4.6 25.3 NN
Marsh (11) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Open Water (12) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Totals 18.0 100
1 See Table 2 for brief descriptions of plant community types
2 See Section 2.2.3 for Ecological Quality Rank discussion; A = Highest quality; B = Good quality; C = Moderate condition; D =
Poor condition; combinations of letters (e.g., BC) represent a mosaic of quality ranks; NN = Not a natural community; NA = Not
applicable
Valley Park South was characterized as a mosaic of altered/disturbed and poor quality habitat (D) due to
poor native cover, invasive vegetation, and/or species composition resulting from human disturbances
and land use practices over the last 150 years. As mentioned above under Valley Park North, Big
Foot/Interstate Valley Creek and its tributaries drain highly developed watersheds that produce flashy
and erosive flows that degrade the Creek and valley slopes. Addressing this scale of damage requires a
watershed approach (see Section 4.2.1).
Ecological restoration and management projects are not currently occurring in this NAP. This is due to its
generally degraded condition and the restoration and management challenges associated with the
significant wetland portion of the NAP. Therefore, no Priority Projects were identified in Valley Park
South.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 131
Rogers Lake Park
Setting. Rogers Lake Park is located in the south-central portion of the City. The City-owned parkland
consists of approximately eight acres, but the City has an agreement with Mn/DOT that permits ecological
management beyond the City park boundary along the I-35E right-of-way adjacent to the west and south
of the Park. Therefore, this NAP extends south of the Park limits along the west shore of Rogers Lake
(Figure 26). This 15.5-acre NAP is bounded by:
North: Wagon Wheel Trail, single-family residential homes, and Mendakota Golf Course;
East: single-family residential homes and Rogers Lake;
South: Patterson Companies, Inc., Mendota Heights Road, and the I-494/I-35E interchange;
West: I-35E and apartment complexes.
Figure 26. Rogers Lake Park Location and Plant Communities
Characteristics. The majority of the northern portion of this NAP is developed, containing a skate park,
playground, picnic shelter, volleyball courts, basketball court, parking lots, and a fishing pier. A
stormwater pond is located near the northeast corner of the NAP. The more natural, southern portion of
this NAP consists of a historical savanna and lowland/altered forests along the west shore of Rogers Lake
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 132
(Figure 26). A popular trail runs along the western edge of the NAP, connecting the park (on the north)
to Mendota Heights Road (on the south) and the larger City trail system.
Soils are dominated by Kanaranzi loam in the uplands and Mayer and Quam silt loam in the lowlands.
Kanaranzi soils, found along the NAP’s western shore of Rogers Lake, have gentle to moderate slopes, are
well drained, and arose in outwash plains. In a natural state they were associated with sandy upland
prairies, as well as savanna. The majority of the developed portion of the park lies on Mayer silt loam, a
poorly drained soil of outwash origin that probably historically supported wet prairies and wet meadows.
The NAP’s Lowland Forest and Marsh (Figure 26) contain Quam silt loam, a very poorly drained soil of
glaciolacustrine sediments that historically supported depressional marsh (as some of this area currently
does today).
Table 15 summarizes the NAP’s City-owned natural and semi-natural plant communities; most of the NAPs
natural areas lie outside of the City park boundary. For each plant community type, the acres, percentage
of the NAP’s natural area, and quality ranks are provided.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 133
Table 15. Natural/Semi-Natural Vegetation of Rogers Lake Park (City-owned land only)
PLANT COMMUNITIES1 ACRES PERCENT OF
PARK NATURAL AREA
ECOLOGICAL
QUALITY RANKS2
Upland Communities 0.4 24.8 NN
Forest/Woodland 0.4 23.7 NN
Mature Forest/Woodland 0.0 0.0 N/A
Dry-Mesic Forest/Woodland (1) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Mesic Forest (2) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Altered Forest/Woodland (3) 0.4 23.7 NN
Savanna/Brushland 0.0 1.1 NN
Savanna (4) 0.0 1.1 NN
Shrub/Scrub (5) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Grassland 0.0 0.0 N/A
Prairie (6) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Non-Native Grassland (7) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Lowland Communities 1.2 75.2 CD - D
Lowland Forest/Woodland 0.3 19.3 CD - D
Lowland Forest (8) 0.3 19.3 CD - D
Lowland Shrub/Scrub 0.0 0.0 N/A
Lowland Shrub/Scrub (9) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Lowland Herbaceous 0.0 0.0 N/A
Wet Meadow (10) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Marsh (11) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Open Water (12) 0.9 55.9 N/A
Totals 1.6 100
1 See Table 2 for brief descriptions of plant community types
2 See Section 2.2.3 for Ecological Quality Rank discussion; A = Highest quality; B = Good quality; C = Moderate condition; D =
Poor condition; combinations of letters (e.g., BC) represent a mosaic of quality ranks; NN = Not a natural community; NA = Not
applicable
Much of Rogers Lake Park consists of cultural landscapes (e.g., turf and park amenities) and forests and
savannas of poor quality due to relatively poor native cover, invasive vegetation, and/or species
composition resulting from human disturbances and land use practices over the last 150 years. A strip of
CD quality Savanna exists along the west shore of Rogers Lake, where ongoing volunteer efforts have
removed invasive buckthorn, enhancing this savanna remnant. Buckthorn removal has recently extended
into some of the NAPs Lowland Forests as well. Years ago, the northwest shoreline of the Lake was
restored as a native buffer. Currently, this shoreline exhibits moderate cover and diversity by native plant
species west of the fishing pier, but east of the pier has poor native cover and diversity.
In order to build on previous volunteer efforts in this NAP (in Savanna, Lowland Forest, and shoreline
buffer areas), one Priority Project was identified in Rogers Lake Park (see yellow call-out box on Figure
26). Priority Projects are addressed in Section 4.3.4 and Appendix H.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 134
Copperfield Ponds Park
Setting. Copperfield Ponds Park is located in the southeastern portion of the City just east of Friendly Hills
Park. The majority of the 24.6-acre Copperfield Ponds Park consists of two open water wetlands with
upland parkland present on an isthmus between the waterbodies and along the shoreline of the
northwest wetland (Figure 27). This NAP is bounded by:
North: Huber Drive, Friendly Marsh Park, single-family residential homes, and Dodge Nature
Preserve;
East: single-family residential homes;
South: single-family residential homes;
West: single-family residential homes and Friendly Hills Park.
Figure 27. Copperfield Ponds Park Location and Plant Communities
Characteristics. The NAP’s wetlands are shallow ponds that contain floating and submersed aquatic
vegetation. The uplands consist of a mosaic of disturbed and remnant natural areas, including forests,
woodlands, shrublands, and grasslands. A walking trail runs through the center of the park along the
isthmus.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 135
Soils are dominated by Chetek sandy loam and Crystal Lake silt loam in the uplands and Quam silt loam
and open water in the lowlands. Chetek soils, found along the NAP’s isthmus, are somewhat excessively
drained and arose in glacial outwash. In a natural state they were associated with deciduous forests and
savannas. Crystal Lake silt loam was mapped in the northwest portion of the NAP and consists of
moderately well drained soils originating from glaciolacustrine sediments. In their natural state, these
soils typically supported loamy upland forests. Quam silt loam is a very poorly drained soil that also
originated from glaciolacustrine sediments and historically supported depressional marsh.
Table 16 summarizes the NAP’s natural and semi-natural plant communities. For each plant community
type, the acres, percentage of the NAP’s natural area, and quality ranks are provided.
Table 16. Natural/Semi-Natural Vegetation of Copperfield Ponds Park (all City-owned land)
PLANT COMMUNITIES1 ACRES PERCENT OF
PARK NATURAL AREA
ECOLOGICAL
QUALITY RANKS2
Upland Communities 7.6 31.0 CD - NN
Forest/Woodland 5.2 21.0 CD - NN
Mature Forest/Woodland 1.0 4.1 CD - D
Dry-Mesic Forest/Woodland (1) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Mesic Forest (2) 1.0 4.1 CD - D
Altered Forest/Woodland (3) 4.2 16.9 NN
Savanna/Brushland 2.5 10.0 D - NN
Savanna (4) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Shrub/Scrub (5) 2.5 10.0 D - NN
Grassland 0.0 0.0 N/A
Prairie (6) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Non-Native Grassland (7) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Lowland Communities 17.0 69.0 CD - D
Lowland Forest/Woodland 0.5 2.2 CD - D
Lowland Forest (8) 0.5 2.2 CD - D
Lowland Shrub/Scrub 0.0 0.0 N/A
Lowland Shrub/Scrub (9) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Lowland Herbaceous 0.0 0.0 N/A
Wet Meadow (10) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Marsh (11) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Open Water (12) 16.4 66.8 N/A
Totals 24.6 100
1 See Table 2 for brief descriptions of plant community types
2 See Section 2.2.3 for Ecological Quality Rank discussion; A = Highest quality; B = Good quality; C = Moderate condition; D =
Poor condition; combinations of letters (e.g., BC) represent a mosaic of quality ranks; NN = Not a natural community; NA = Not
applicable
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 136
Copperfield Ponds Park consists of moderate to poor (CD) to altered/degraded habitats due to poor native
cover, invasive vegetation, and/or species composition resulting from human disturbances and land use
practices over the last 150 years. Recent volunteer efforts have removed invasive Siberian elm, Amur
maple, and buckthorn in portions of this park, and years ago native prairie seeding occurred in portions
of the Park.
In order to build on previous volunteer efforts in this NAP (primarily along the isthmus), one Priority
Project was identified in Copperfield Ponds Park (see yellow call-out box on Figure 27). Priority Projects
are addressed in Section 4.3.4 and Appendix H.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 137
Wentworth Park
Setting. Wentworth Park is located in the northeastern portion of the City. The majority of the 10.4-acre
Park consists of mowed turf and park amenities (Figure 28). This NAP is bounded by:
North: single-family residential homes;
East: single-family residential homes, condominiums/townhomes, and Somerset Country Club;
South: Wentworth Avenue and single-family residential homes;
West: large estate and single-family residential homes.
Figure 28. Wentworth Park Location and Plant Communities
Characteristics. The majority of this NAP is developed parkland containing a baseball field, ice hockey
rink, tennis courts, playground, picnic shelters, and a pond. A stand of degraded forest exists in the west-
central portion of this NAP (Figure 28). Trails connect the NAP’s parking area to the neighborhoods north
and east of the Park and to Wentworth Ave. W to the south.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 138
Soils are dominated by Cylinder loam and Kato silty clay loam in the uplands and Klossner muck in the
lowlands. Cylinder soils, found in the southwestern portion of the NAP, are generally flat, somewhat
poorly drained, and arose in fine-loamy glaciofluvial deposits over sandy and gravelly outwash. In a
natural state they were associated with sandy upland prairies, as well as savanna. Kato soils, occupying
an east-west band through the center of the Park, are poorly drained, hydric soils found on flat outwash
deposits. While these soils likely supported wet prairie in the past, this area of the NAP is not currently
wetland. Klossner muck, a hydric, organic soil, was mapped around the NAP’s pond and in the eastern
portion of the ballfield. This soil is very poorly drained and historically supported marsh.
Table 17 summarizes the NAP’s natural and semi-natural plant communities. For each plant community
type, the acres, percentage of the NAP’s natural area, and quality ranks are provided.
Table 17. Natural/Semi-Natural Vegetation of Wentworth Park (all City-owned)
PLANT COMMUNITIES1 ACRES PERCENT OF
PARK NATURAL AREA
ECOLOGICAL
QUALITY RANKS2
Upland Communities 0.5 23.9 NN
Forest/Woodland 0.5 23.9 NN
Mature Forest/Woodland 0.0 0.0 N/A
Dry-Mesic Forest/Woodland (1) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Mesic Forest (2) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Altered Forest/Woodland (3) 0.5 23.9 NN
Savanna/Brushland 0.0 0.0 N/A
Savanna (4) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Shrub/Scrub (5) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Grassland 0.0 0.0 N/A
Prairie (6) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Non-Native Grassland (7) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Lowland Communities 1.7 76.1 CD - NN
Lowland Forest/Woodland 1.2 55.3 CD - D
Lowland Forest (8) 1.2 55.3 CD - D
Lowland Shrub/Scrub 0.0 0.0 N/A
Lowland Shrub/Scrub (9) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Lowland Herbaceous 0.0 0.4 NN
Wet Meadow (10) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Marsh (11) 0.0 0.4 NN
Open Water (12) 0.4 20.5 N/A
Totals 2.2 100
1 See Table 2 for brief descriptions of plant community types
2 See Section 2.2.3 for Ecological Quality Rank discussion; A = Highest quality; B = Good quality; C = Moderate condition; D =
Poor condition; combinations of letters (e.g., BC) represent a mosaic of quality ranks; NN = Not a natural community; NA = Not
applicable
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 139
Wentworth Park’s patch of forest represents an altered/degraded habitat with planted conifers, volunteer
tree species (e.g., Boxelder), and poor ground layer vegetation. Lowland Forest on the east edge of the
NAP is CD quality, based on poor native cover, invasive vegetation, and/or species composition resulting
from human disturbances and land use practices over the last 150 years. One Priority Project (consisting
of four locations, Figure 28) was identified in Wentworth Park; this is addressed further in Section 4.3.4
and Appendix H.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 140
Hagstrom King Park
Setting. Hagstrom King Park is located in the southeastern portion of the City. About half of the 9.9-acre
Park consists of mowed turf and park amenities (Figure 29). This NAP is bounded by:
North: single-family residential homes and a pond;
East: single-family residential homes;
South: Mendota Heights Road, single-family residential homes, and a pond;
West: single-family residential homes and a pond.
Figure 29. Hagstrom King Park Location and Plant Communities
Characteristics. About half of this NAP is developed parkland containing a baseball field, playground, and
basketball court. A stand of degraded (D quality) Mesic Forest/oak woodland exists in the northwest
portion of this NAP, and altered/non-native Lowland Forest and Altered Forest/Woodland exist around
the NAPs ponds, extended off-site to the northeast and northwest (Figure 29). A trail connects Mendota
Heights Road on the south to the neighborhood north of the Park.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 141
Soils consist of Chetek and Kingsley sandy loams in the uplands and Auburndale and Quam silt loams in
the lowlands. Chetek soils, found in the southwestern portion of the NAP, are rolling, somewhat
excessively drained, and arose from outwash plains and moraines. In a natural state they were associated
with mixed deciduous forests with a heavy oak component. Where fire was a dominant feature of the
landscape, oak savannas were the result on these Chetek soils. Kingsley soils, found in the northern and
eastern portions of the NAP, are well-drained soils of glacial till origin and are typically found on slopes.
The northern map unit of this soil is associated with the NAP’s Mesic Forest (located on a south-facing
slope); however, the eastern map unit encompasses much of the (flat) ballfield and adjacent area of
planted trees. Historically Kingsley soils supported loamy upland savannas. Auburndale soils, poorly
drained and derived from glaciofluvial sediments, occupy the generally flat central portion of the NAP,
including portions of the site’s marshes and ballfield. These soils historically supported wet prairie. Quam
soils are topographically lower and wetter than Auburndale soils. Quam’s very poorly drained, frequently
ponded soils are of glaciolacustrine origin and are mapped throughout the NAP’s northeast and northwest
ponds. These depressional areas historically supported marsh, as they do today.
Table 18 summarizes the NAP’s natural and semi-natural plant communities. For each plant community
type, the acres, percentage of the NAP’s natural area, and quality ranks are provided.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 142
Table 18. Natural/Semi-Natural Vegetation of Hagstrom King Park
PLANT COMMUNITIES1 ACRES PERCENT OF
PARK NATURAL AREA
ECOLOGICAL
QUALITY RANKS2
Upland Communities 1.3 23.7 D - NN
Forest/Woodland 1.3 23.7 D - NN
Mature Forest/Woodland 0.6 10.2 D
Dry-Mesic Forest/Woodland (1) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Mesic Forest (2) 0.6 10.2 D
Altered Forest/Woodland (3) 0.8 13.5 NN
Savanna/Brushland 0.0 0.0 N/A
Savanna (4) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Shrub/Scrub (5) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Grassland 0.0 0.0 N/A
Prairie (6) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Non-Native Grassland (7) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Lowland Communities 4.3 76.3 NN
Lowland Forest/Woodland 0.0 0.0 N/A
Lowland Forest (8) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Lowland Shrub/Scrub 0.0 0.0 N/A
Lowland Shrub/Scrub (9) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Lowland Herbaceous 1.3 22.3 NN
Wet Meadow (10) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Marsh (11) 1.3 22.3 NN
Open Water (12) 3.1 54.0 N/A
Totals 5.7 100
1 See Table 2 for brief descriptions of plant community types
2 See Section 2.2.3 for Ecological Quality Rank discussion; A = Highest quality; B = Good quality; C = Moderate condition; D =
Poor condition; combinations of letters (e.g., BC) represent a mosaic of quality ranks; NN = Not a natural community; NA = Not
applicable
Hagstrom King Park’s natural and semi-natural plant communities include a small patch of poor (D quality)
Mesic Forest/oak woodland. Oak wilt has killed several of the native oaks in this stand of forest/woodland,
but several mature oaks continue to persist, especially in the western portion of the woodland.
Altered/non-native (quality rank NN) forests and marshes are associated with the NAP’s wetlands and
ponds. Quality ranks are based on poor native cover, invasive vegetation, and/or species composition
resulting from human disturbances and land use practices over the last 150 years. One Priority Project
was identified in Hagstrom King Park (see yellow call-out box on Figure 29); this is addressed further in
Section 4.3.4 and Appendix H.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 143
Friendly Marsh Park
Setting. Friendly Marsh Park is located in the southeastern portion of the City. The majority of the 32-
acre Park consists of Friendly Marsh and adjacent forests (Figure 30). This NAP is bounded by:
North: apartments, strip mall, and Highway 62;
East: Friendly Marsh and Dodge Nature Preserve – Lily Property;
South: single-family residential homes and Copperfield Ponds Park;
West: strip of forest owned by Dakota County Community Development Agency, single-family
residential homes, and Mendakota Park.
Figure 30. Friendly Marsh Park Location and Plant Communities
Characteristics. Most of this NAP consists of Friendly Marsh and forests along its perimeter. A strip of
mowed turf exists on the western edge of the Park (Figure 30). A trail meanders through the turf portion
of the Park, connecting the neighborhood to the west with the one to the north.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 144
Soils are dominated by lowland/wetland soils: Klossner muck, Quam silt loam, and Udorthents, wet.
Klossner is a hydric, organic soil that is very poorly drained. Quam is a very poorly drained, frequently
ponded soil of glaciolacustrine origin. Both of these soil map units historically supported marsh, as they
do today. Udorthents, mapped along the western edge of the NAP (generally the turf portion of the NAP),
are disturbed soils often consisting of fill.
Table 19 summarizes the NAP’s natural and semi-natural plant communities. For each plant community
type, the acres, percentage of the NAP’s natural area, and quality ranks are provided.
Table 19. Natural/Semi-Natural Vegetation of Friendly Marsh Park
PLANT COMMUNITIES1 ACRES PERCENT OF
PARK NATURAL AREA
ECOLOGICAL
QUALITY RANKS2
Upland Communities 8.4 29.4 NN
Forest/Woodland 8.4 29.3 NN
Mature Forest/Woodland 0.0 0.0 N/A
Dry-Mesic Forest/Woodland (1) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Mesic Forest (2) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Altered Forest/Woodland (3) 8.4 29.3 NN
Savanna/Brushland 0.0 0.0 N/A
Savanna (4) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Shrub/Scrub (5) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Grassland 0.0 0.0 N/A
Prairie (6) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Non-Native Grassland (7) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Lowland Communities 20.3 70.6 NN
Lowland Forest/Woodland 0.0 0.0 N/A
Lowland Forest (8) 0.0 0.0 N/A
Lowland Shrub/Scrub 10.4 36.1 NN
Lowland Shrub/Scrub (9) 10.4 36.1 NN
Lowland Herbaceous 8.6 29.9 NN
Wet Meadow (10) 1.5 5.2 NN
Marsh (11) 7.1 24.8 NN
Open Water (12) 1.3 4.6 N/A
Totals 28.8 100
1 See Table 2 for brief descriptions of plant community types
2 See Section 2.2.3 for Ecological Quality Rank discussion; A = Highest quality; B = Good quality; C = Moderate condition; D =
Poor condition; combinations of letters (e.g., BC) represent a mosaic of quality ranks; NN = Not a natural community; NA = Not
applicable
Friendly Marsh consists of a complex of marsh, shrub swamp, and wet meadow. These wetland plant
communities are dominated by non-native, invasive species (primarily reed canary grass, narrow-leaved
cattail, and hybrid cattail), resulting in a quality rank of NN (altered/non-native). However, native shrubs,
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 145
grasses, sedges, and forbs are scattered throughout much of the marsh. Altered Forest/Woodland (NN)
exists along the edge of the marsh. Quality ranks are based on poor native cover, invasive vegetation,
and/or species composition resulting from human disturbances and land use practices over the last 150
years. One Priority Project (see yellow call-out box on Figure 30) was identified in Friendly Marsh Park;
this is addressed further in Section 4.3.4 and Appendix H.
4.3.4 Priority Projects
Section 4.3.1 identifies and prioritizes broad-scale, City-wide conservation opportunities, focusing on the
City’s core habitats. However, several of those natural areas are managed by other entities or are located
on private lands. Section 4.3.3 identifies the City’s seven NAPs, which represent the best parklands to
advance the City’s natural resources program. Phasing in of system-wide ecological restoration and
management in the City’s natural areas will take many years. Therefore, priorities need to be established
to schedule actions in a strategic and efficient manner. Prioritization can be based on a variety of
considerations, including location considerations (e.g., protection of high-quality plant communities and
managing areas of previous investment), cultural considerations (e.g., safety issues and educational
programs and opportunities), and specific actions (e.g., control of noxious invasive species).
Based on our field assessment, restoration potential, previous investments, visibility, feasibility, and
discussions with City staff, the following eight Priority Projects (A through H) were identified. Priority
Projects represent discrete restoration and management projects located within the City’s NAPs (see
Figures 23 and 25 - 30). Several of these Priority Projects represent higher quality natural areas, areas
with better restoration potential, and/or areas where initial investments have been made, but additional
short-term establishment management is warranted.
Valley Park North
A. NW Forest Enhancement
B. E Forest Enhancement
C. S Oak/Aspen Knoll Enhancement
Rogers Lake Park
D. W Savanna/Forest & N Shoreline Enhancement
Copperfield Ponds Park
E. Isthmus Enhancement
Wentworth Park
F. Forest Enhancement, Aquatic Buffer & Turf-to-Prairie
Hagstrom King Park
G. Oak Woodland Enhancement
Friendly Marsh Park
H. Turf-to-Prairie
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 146
Appendix H provides Management Briefs for each of the eight above Priority Projects. The Management
Briefs summarize and characterize each Priority Project, including a project area overview, plant
communities, existing ecological quality, issues to address, goals, recommended restoration and
management tasks (strategies), restoration and management costs (over the first three years of work), a
general implementation schedule, indicators of success, and a map. Species lists appropriate for restoring
or enhancing Mendota Heights’ native plant communities are referenced in each Management Brief and
provided in Appendix I (MNDNR 2005).
4.3.5 How Work Gets Done
Implementation of the City’s priority restoration and management projects will require additional
planning and capacity. In addition to City funds, ecological work can be advanced by using volunteers,
hiring professional ecological contractors, and engaging partners.
Volunteers
Volunteers provide opportunities for cost-savings during implementation of restoration and management
programs. Volunteers learn about ecological restoration and the natural world and may develop or
strengthen their personal connections to City parks. Currently, the City of Mendota Heights does not have
an organized volunteer program. Staffing investments are necessary to operate a safe, effective, and
sustainable volunteer program.
Many benefits can arise from engaging volunteers in a specialized natural resource management
volunteer program:
• The public learns about natural resources, increasing their awareness and appreciation of
natural areas and the natural world.
• Valuable data can be collected for baseline and trend monitoring.
• Cost-savings to the MPRB through volunteer labor and in-kind match for grants.
• Building community and appreciation of MPRB parks.
Natural resources volunteers typically conduct physical work (e.g., planting, seeding, removing invasive
species). Additionally, volunteers can be used effectively for monitoring and research (e.g., field
observations, data collection, and data analysis). Volunteer monitoring/research advances knowledge
and builds public support for natural resource programs. Some volunteer activities require oversight,
typically provided by City staff, trained volunteers, or partners (e.g., Great River Greening).
Volunteers can assist in a variety of tasks, and with additional training and oversight they can effectively
accomplish tasks. Some volunteer tasks may be one-time events, and other tasks may be repeated over
time by dedicated volunteer stewards. Table 20 presents how the City envisions conducting various
restoration tasks, with a focus on how volunteers can assist.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 147
Table 20. Using City Staff/CCMI1, Volunteers & Private Contractors for Ecological Tasks
Restoration Tasks
City
Staff/
CCMI
Volunteers Professional
Ecological
Contractor
Equipment Source
Comments
Generally
Appropriate
Appropriate
With Training
& Supervision
Not
Appropriate
*Use Check-In & Check-Out Equipment
Procedure & List
Collect native seed X X X City Collecting buckets, seed bags
Hand-broadcasting
native seed X X X N.A. Small areas
Machine-
broadcast/drill native
seed
X X
Truax seed drill, Vicon seed spreader, light
tractor with PTO; Ford 150-style truck and
trailer to haul equipment
Install live trees,
shrubs, herbaceous
plugs
X X X City
Spades, trowels, pruning shears, watering
equipment, weed wrench (City provides
plants, mulch, stakes, guys, protective
screening, PPE (goggles, yellow vests; cart;
safety cones); younger people do not plant
well and work often needs to be re-done
Hand-pull invasive
plants X X X
Volunteer provides
gloves, City provides
rest
Weed wrenches, gloves, PPE (goggles &
yellow vests), bags or disposal vessels, shoe
brushes to remove invasive plant seed/dirt
Drag & clear-cut
brush X X X
Volunteer provides
gloves, City provides
rest
Gloves, PPE (goggles & yellow vest), shoe
brushes to remove invasive plant seed/dirt
Hand-cut brush X X X
Volunteer provides
gloves and cutting
tools
Loppers, hand saws; adults can use all
equipment; 12-18 year-olds cannot use
loppers or saws unless it's personal
equipment and adults are nearby; gloves,
PPE
Machine-cut brush X X
Chain saws, brush saws, forestry mower on
tracked skid steer; PPE including hard-hats,
chaps, and face shields
Apply herbicide X X X
Applicator wands and sponges, backpack
sprayers, 50-gal ATV-mounted spray rig
with hose sprayer or boom sprayer; PPE,
including full-body protective suits
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 148
Restoration Tasks
City
Staff/
CCMI
Volunteers Professional
Ecological
Contractor
Equipment Source
Comments
Generally
Appropriate
Appropriate
With Training
& Supervision
Not
Appropriate
*Use Check-In & Check-Out Equipment
Procedure & List
Conduct prescribed
burns X X X
Drip torches (2), backpack sprayers/Indian
pumps (5), swatters (4), rakes (4), 50-gal
water tank mounted on ATV, mowers and
leaf-blowers for creating fire breaks in grass
and woodlands (respectively), walkie-
talkies, fuel tanks
Stabilize slopes,
streambanks,
lakeshores
X X X
Volunteer provides
gloves, City provides
rest
Coir logs, erosion control mats, stakes,
rock, (see above for seed & live plugs), live
stakes, etc.; mallets, shovels; PPE
Mow or hay by hand X X X
Volunteer provides
gloves and
cutting/mowing
equipment if
necessary
Weed whips, scythes, sickles, hand
mowers; adults only for weed whips, if they
bring their own; PPE
Mow or hay by
tractor, etc. X X
Tractor-pulled, 8-foot deck flail-mower to
mow; tractor-pulled hay-cutter and baler
for haying; truck and trailer for hauling
equipment and hay bales
Construct best
practices for water
management
X X X
Volunteer provides
gloves, City provides
rest
Planting, weeding, drain stenciling; nothing
structural; (see above for planting &
weeding equipment);
Conduct simple
ecological monitoring X
Adults primarily
(young people
can assist)
X
Walkabout for annual workplan & bioblitz
for baseline data; simple photo-point
documentation; simple annual count of
organisms (e.g. already doing WEP &
CAMP); statistically valid randomized
sampling for year-to-year change detection
Conduct ecological
monitoring for permit
compliance &
technical standards
X X X Specific to monitoring needs
1 CCMI = Conservation Corps of Minnesota & Iowa
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 149
Ecological Contractors
Private, professional ecological contractors have staff, equipment, and experience to efficiently
implement natural resource restoration and management projects. Unlike non-profits and government,
however, their overhead costs must be included in their prices in order to remain viable businesses.
When used, qualified ecological contractors should meet the following criteria:
• Firm has local project experience in the past five years providing the specific ecological
restoration and management tasks required for the project.
• On-site field supervisor(s) overseeing project implementation communicate effectively through
verbal and written communication and are present on site or available at all times during work.
Field supervisor(s) should have a minimum of five years’ experience conducting ecological
restoration and vegetation management in the region.
• Proper training and certifications for restoration and management activities with inherent risks,
such as use of heavy equipment, herbicides, chainsaws, and prescribed fire.
• Positive references from past clients.
• Sufficient bonding for the work being performed.
While professional contractors are typically more expensive than using in-house resources and volunteers,
qualified contractors complete high-quality work efficiently and meet performance standards under their
guarantee. Bidding documents and specifications should state required qualifications for contractors
(such as those listed above), project schedules, and performance standards that ensure the City’s goals
are met for the project. Solicitation, assessment, and selection of bids, as well as contractor oversight and
contract administration takes expertise and time and need to follow appropriate procurement and
purchasing procedures.
Partnerships
As with volunteers, partnerships provide opportunities to foster relationships with partner organizations
and the community. However, developing and sustaining partnerships requires dedicated staff time. The
City of Mendota Heights has partnered with the following entities on natural resource-related projects or
initiatives.
• Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR)
• Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
• Minnesota Historical Society
• Dakota County
• Dakota County Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD)
• Mississippi Watershed Management Organization (MWMO)
• Great River Greening
• Friends of the Mississippi River (FMR)
• National Park Service (NPS) and Mississippi Park Connection
• Conservation Corps of Minnesota & Iowa
• Master Gardeners, Master Tree Stewards, Minnesota Water Stewards, and Master Naturalists
• University of Minnesota
• Xcel Energy
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 150
• Rogers Lake Association
• Pilot Knob Preservation Association
• Mendota Heights neighborhood groups
It is recommended that the City establish agreements or contracts with partner organizations to help
implement ecological restoration and management projects, especially long-term management.
4.3.6 Cost of Natural Areas Restoration & Management
Natural areas restoration and management requires an investment. An NRMP can help focus limited
resources by presenting real unit costs, such as dollar per acre to carry out a prescribed burn in a savanna.
Many variables influence unit costs. The size of an area being restored, the existing site conditions, access
and slope issues all affect cost. For planning purposes, it is useful to understand unit costs in general.
Table 21 provides unit costs for the most common restoration and short-term management tasks,
assuming a professional natural resource contracting firm does the work. Section 4.2 describes most of
these tasks. Some of the costs apply to long-term management, too, as discussed in Section 1.2.3.
Table 21. Unit Costs for Ecological Restoration & Management
Task Unit Unit Cost Range
Invasive/Aggressive Tree & Shrub Removal Tasks
Tree removal (size, access, and disposal method influence cost) each $180-$600
Brushing (non-steep slopes; cut and stump treat) acre $1,500-$3,500
Brushing (steep slopes; cut and stump treat) acre $3,000-$6,000
Brushing (forestry mower) acre $800-$2,000
Brushing (goat browsing) acre $3,000-$4,000
Foliar spray young woody brush acre $200-400
Invasive/Aggressive Herbaceous Species Removal Tasks
Broadcast herbicide acre/trip $175-300
Spot herbicide acre/trip $200-400
Mowing acre/trip $150-350
Conservation haying acre/trip $350-$1,000
Prescribed burn (minimum 3 acres) acre $300-700
Tilling acre $150-350
Native Seeding & Planting Tasks
Native seed (material only) acre $200-$1,100
Native seeding (no-till drill, labor only) acre $200-500
Native seeding (hand-broadcast, labor only) acre $300-600
Straw mulch (spread and crimp) acre $600-900
Installed live herbaceous plant plug each $3-7
Installed shrub (2-gallon pot) each $25-40
Installed shrub (5-gallon pot) each $50-75
Installed tree (10-gallon pot) each $150-250
Installed tree (2” ball & burlap) each $300-600
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 151
Costs can often be reduced by using City staff and equipment, partners, youth workers and volunteers;
however, some tasks are best conducted by trained/licensed professionals. Use of volunteers or youth
workers typically requires training. Contractors, seasonal staff, youth and volunteers all require oversight,
close supervision of all steps (including contract development, material acquisition, installation, and
management) is prudent to ensure work is done properly and restoration goals are achieved.
Unit costs can be multiplied by acres needing restoration and management in order to arrive at a total
estimated cost for ecological restoration and management. In this exercise, opinions of probable cost are
developed for each different plant community present in City parks and parcels (Table 3), anticipating the
restoration and management tasks (described in Section 4.2) needed in each plant community, and
assigning average unit costs for each task (similar to those found in Table 21). The following table
summarizes preliminary opinions of probable cost for carrying out the necessary restoration and
management tasks to improve the ecological health of all City-owned natural areas.
Table 22. Preliminary Opinions of Probable Cost for All City Parks & Parcels
PLANT COMMUNITIES1 ACRES2
AVG. UNIT COST (PER ACRE)
TO RESTORE/MANAGE
PLANT COMMUNITY2
ESTIMATED INITIAL
RESTORATION & SHORT-
TERM MANAGEMENT COSTS2
Upland Communities 123.8 - $828,493
Forest/Woodland 79.9 - $588,628
Mature Forest/Woodland 26.2 - $ 169,664
Dry-Mesic Forest/Woodland (1) 7.7 $ 7,250 $ 55,615
Mesic Forest (2) 18.5 $ 6,150 $ 114,049
Altered Forest/Woodland (3) 53.7 $ 7,800 $ 418,964
Savanna/Brushland 16.2 - $ 126,618
Savanna (4) 0.4 $ 12,000 $ 4,559
Shrub/Scrub (5) 15.9 $ 7,700 $ 122,060
Grassland 27.7 - $113,247
Prairie (6) 21.4 $ 3,400 $ 72,597
Non-Native Grassland (7) 6.3 $ 6,450 $ 40, 650
Lowland Communities 65.1 - $257,163
Lowland Forest/Woodland 22.9 - $ 139,400
Lowland Forest (8) 22.9 $ 6,100 $ 139,400
Lowland Shrub/Scrub 14.0 - $ 87,363
Lowland Shrub/Scrub (9) 14.0 $ 6,250 $87,363
Lowland Herbaceous 28.3 - $30,400
Wet Meadow (10) 12.0 $ 2,525 $30,400
Marsh (11) 16.2 Assumed $0 Assumed $0
TOTALS (Uplands + Lowlands)3 188.9 $ 1,085,656
1 See Table 2 for brief descriptions of plant community types
2 Includes all natural areas within City parks and parcels that were mapped for this NRMP; assumes initial restoration and short-
term management (usually first 3 years) conducted by professional ecological contractors; costs do not address long-term
management
3 Rounding of values may make totals appear inaccurate
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 152
The total system-wide anticipated cost is substantial, but it results from the acreage of City-owned natural
areas, their generally degraded ecological condition, and the need for significant restoration and
management efforts. This anticipated cost, however, is not out of line with other municipalities having
similar land holdings. It is clear that the City’s existing natural resource budget, staff, and equipment limit
what can be done in a given year. To implement at the level of the anticipated costs, it is necessary to
prioritize projects and phase them over many years.
In addition to the initial restoration and short-term management costs presented above, the City also
needs to plan and budget for long-term management in perpetuity. This means that new restoration
projects should be initiated only as aggressively as there are funds or other resources to complete the
project and manage the project in perpetuity as well as continue to maintain all previously restored
natural areas. Variations in the type and size of plant community, ecological quality, type and intensity of
stressors, site-specific management techniques and goals, and other factors all influence the effort
required to maintain restored natural areas. As a general rule of thumb, the City should assume annual
long-term management costs of $200 to $400 for each acre of natural area. For comparison, actively
maintained turf requires approximately $750 to $1,000 per acre per year.
4.3.7 City of Mendota Heights Natural Resources Budget
The City of Mendota Heights approved budget for 2022 includes the following allocations for its Natural
Resources Program, dedicated through its Park and Recreation Department funds.
Table 23. City of Mendota Heights Natural Resources Budget (2022)
Natural Resources Task 2022 Budget Comments
Eradicate invasive plants $50,000 Mostly dedicated to Valley Park, Copperfield Ponds Park, and
Rogers Lake Park
Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob
Preserve restoration $11,000 City funding, supporting work coordinated by Dakota County
Maintenance supplies/costs $7,500 A portion of the Parks Department maintenance budget is
used for maintenance of natural resources projects
Native plantings $10,000 This is a new budget allocation as of 2022
Tree removal/replacement $40,000
Removal and replacement of ash trees (result of EAB);
replacement species selected considering climate change
resilience
TOTAL $118,500
In addition to the above natural resources allocations, the City’s Street Department has been allocated
$50,000 for tree removals, much of which will be used for removal of ash trees in response to the Emerald
ash borer.
4.3.8 Five-Year Phased Implementation Plan
Table 23 lists the City of Mendota Height’s major natural resources expenditures budgeted for 2022.
There are also several ecological restoration and management projects already underway in the City
(primarily in Valley Park); the City will be responsible for providing long-term management of this acreage
over the coming years. Lastly, there is a commitment to expand the City’s restoration and stewardship
efforts by advancing new, prioritized restoration projects (Section 4.3.4). Implementation of the City’s
natural resources restoration and management program requires careful planning to ensure limited
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 153
resources are used efficiently and that projects are phased in at a rate such that projected system-wide
management costs do not exceed available resources.
Working closely with City staff, a five-year
implementation scenario was developed that ensures
management of ongoing restoration projects, initiates
all seven new Priority Projects identified in this NRMP
(Section 4.3.4), and would be phased in to manage
program expenses each year (assuming a two percent
annual inflation rate). This scenario calls for an annual
expenditure of approximately $68,000-$94,000, over a
total of five years, totaling approximately $400,000
(Table 24). These costs would be in addition to the
City’s annual baseline natural resources budget, such
as shown in Table 23 for 2022. At the end of the five-
year period (Table 24), initial restoration will have been completed for over 60 acres of natural area, and
the majority will be under a short-term management regime (which is then followed by long-term
management. Many assumptions are embedded in these opinions of probable cost and, therefore, these
costs should be viewed as preliminary, with details worked out in annual budgets and Capital
Improvement Plans. Details regarding the seven Priority Projects are provided in the management briefs
(Appendix H). During the initial five-year implementation plan (Table 24) progress should be monitored,
and near the end (around 2027) a subsequent five-year implementation plan should be developed for
2028-2032.
Table 24. Five-Year Phasing of Mendota Heights Priority Projects
Budgeting for Success
This Plan:
• Identifies a need of over $1 million to
address the first few years of ecological
restoration and management if all City-
owned natural areas were to be
addressed.
• Presents the City’s 2022 natural
resources budget of $118 thousand.
• Recommends additional annual
investments of <$100 thousand to
advance the City’s priority projects.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 154
Figure 31 illustrates how, over time, the number of acres
under management increases, while the per-acre cost of
management decreases, allowing for the initiation of new
restoration projects, which ultimately will be brought into
long-term management. The City can continue this
implementation model into the coming decade by identifying
priority projects, estimating costs, securing funds, and
implementing work in a sustainable fashion using City-
allocated and other available resources. In this way, the City’s
natural resources program will grow and mature, resulting in
a healthier, lower maintenance, and more resilient system of
natural areas.
Figure 31. Increasing Acres Under Management and Decreasing Per-Acre Costs Over Five-Year Plan
Budgeting for the Long Haul
While grants, partners, and
volunteers may provide financial and
labor support for initial restoration
and short-term management of
projects, these resources may not be
available in the long term. To protect
its initial restoration investment, the
City would need to augment its
annual budget for the natural
resources program and ensure that
stewardship of natural areas can
continue in perpetuity.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 155
4.3.9 How Work Gets Funded
Securing financial resources – both for initial restoration
efforts and long-term management – is critical to the long-
term success of any management plan. Funding typically
comes from internal budgets and external sources such as
grants. To augment the City’s existing internal budget
allocation, the following entities or programs may provide
funds to help implement this plan. However, additional
staffing time and expertise will be required to pursue and
administer such funds, if awarded.
State Programs
• Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment (funded by State sales tax)
o Outdoor Heritage Fund/Lessard-Sams Conservation Partners Legacy Grants. Thirty-
three percent of the sales tax revenue from the Clean Water, Land and Legacy
amendment is distributed to the Outdoor Heritage Fund. Those funds, administered by
the MNDNR, "may be spent only to restore, protect, and enhance wetlands, prairies,
forest and habitat for fish, game, and wildlife."
Information: https://www.legacy.mn.gov/outdoor-heritage-fund
The Conservation Partners Legacy (CPL) Grant Program funds conservation projects
under the Outdoor Heritage Fund. CPL is currently funding the forest enhancement
project underway in Valley Park North.
Information: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/grants/habitat/cpl/index.html
o Clean Water Fund. Thirty-three percent of the sales tax revenue from the Clean Water,
Land and Legacy amendment is allocated to the Clean Water Fund. Those funds,
administered by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, may only be spent to protect,
enhance, and restore water quality in lakes, rivers, and streams and to protect
groundwater from degradation. At least five percent of the Clean Water Fund must be
spent to protect drinking water sources.
Information: https://www.legacy.mn.gov/clean-water-fund
o Parks & Trails Fund. The Parks and Trails Fund receives 14.25 percent of the sales tax
revenue resulting from the Clean Water, Land and Legacy amendment. Those funds,
administered by the Greater Minnesota Regional Parks and Trails Commission, may
only be spent to support parks and trails of regional or statewide significance.
Information: https://www.legacy.mn.gov/parks-trails-fund
• Environment & Natural Resource Trust Fund. The Environment and Natural Resources Trust
Fund (ENRTF) was established following voter approval of a constitutional amendment in 1988.
The money in the Trust Fund is generated by the Minnesota State Lottery, and the Legislative-
Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR) makes funding recommendations to the
Minnesota Legislature. The Trust Fund holds assets that can be appropriated, "for the public
The Limits of Grant Funding
Many grants can be used only for
initial restoration and short-term
management. Perpetual
management of natural areas usually
depends on funding from sources
other than grants.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 156
purpose of protection, conservation, preservation, and enhancement of the state's air, water,
land, fish, wildlife, and other natural resources."
Information: https://www.legacy.mn.gov/environment-natural-resources-trust-fund
County Programs
• Dakota County SWCD Cost Share Programs. Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation
District (SWCD) staff use these initiatives to connect citizens, developers and local government
with the educational, technical and financial support needed to put innovative stormwater
management and conservation practices on the land. Many types of non-agricultural
conservation practices to improve and protect water quality will qualify for program assistance,
including landscaping for clean water and prairie restoration.
Information: https://dakotaswcd.org/services/incentives/
• Dakota County-City Conservation Collaborative. Newly formed County initiative included in
the County’s Land Conservation Plan that establishes partnerships with cities within the County
to help restore natural areas on public property.
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF)
• Five Star and Urban Waters Restoration Grant. This partnership grant focuses on water quality
issues in priority watersheds, such as erosion due to unstable streambanks, pollution from
stormwater runoff, and degraded shorelines caused by development. More information is
available at: https://www.nfwf.org/programs/five-star-and-urban-waters-restoration-grant-
program
• Monarch Butterfly and Pollinators Conservation Fund. A recently initiated program to protect
and increase habitat for monarch butterflies on the breeding grounds and along their migration
routes, and to educate people about this incredible species. More information is available at:
https://www.nfwf.org/programs/monarch-butterfly-and-pollinators-conservation-
fund/monarch-butterfly-and-pollinators
• Resilient Communities Program. Designed to prepare for future environmental challenges by
enhancing community capacity to plan and implement resiliency projects and improve the
protections afforded by natural ecosystems by investing in green infrastructure and other
measures. Information: https://www.nfwf.org/programs/resilient-communities-program
4.3.10 NRMP Updates
This NRMP represents an important foundational step in advancing the management of Mendota Heights’
natural resources. As with most planning documents, NRMPs warrant regular updating as the program is
implemented, successes (and failures) are tracked, and changing circumstances warrant different
strategies. This is no different from practicing adaptive management, whereby a plan is implemented,
progress monitored, and changes are made based on achievement of desired outcomes. For this reason,
this NRMP should be consulted regularly to assess its effectiveness at achieving the City’s goals, and a
comprehensive NRMP update should be conducted at least every ten years. These regular updates
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 157
represent a relatively small investment that ensures the best practices and strategies are being used for
successful, cost-effective achievement of conservation goals.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 158
This page left intentionally blank
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 159
5 NEXT STEPS
The City of Mendota Heights has approximately 267 acres of natural/semi-natural areas in its parks and
City-owned parcels. These areas harbor a variety of ecosystems native to east-central Minnesota. City
residents use and enjoy these parks and natural areas, which also deliver ecosystem services that
undergird human life and society. But over a century of land alteration, soil erosion, and colonization by
invasive species has compromised the functions and value of the City’s natural resources, including on
private land. Implementing this Natural Resources Management Plan can reverse that situation and help
achieve the City’s conservation goals.
Next steps the City of Mendota Heights can take to implement this NRMP are:
• Communicate staffing and funding needs to decision makers, including City Council and staff.
• Increase the capacity of the City’s Natural Resources Program, including:
o Hire one additional full-time staff person to support the Natural Resources Coordinator.
o Increase the Natural Resources Program annual budget to $200,000 in 2023 and increase by
5 percent annually over the next 5 years.
• Incorporate the principles, goals, and recommendations of this NRMP into the City’s operating
procedures, including but not limited to:
o Implement more sustainable urban forestry management practices (Section 2.2.4).
o Improve protection of water resources (Section 2.2.7).
o Increase the management of invasive plants (Section 2.2.8).
o Protect the City’s rare natural features (Section 2.2.12).
o Assimilate recommended changes to City ordinances and finalize and adopt the Urban
Forest Management Ordinance and supporting documents (Section 2.2.14).
o Advance discussions with strategic partners to strengthen ecological connectivity (Section
3.3.1).
o Implement climate resilience practices (Section 3.3.2).
o Use an ecosystem approach to natural resources management (Section 4.1.2).
• Secure grant funds and/or other funding/support to implement the five-year plan of Priority
Projects (Table 24).
• Collaborate with and secure commitments from partner organizations and private landowners.
• Increase community engagement and effectively use volunteer labor.
• Hold a celebration of progress and initial success.
This Natural Resources Management Plan will enable the City of Mendota Heights (helped by volunteers,
partners, and professional contractors) to carry out prioritized natural resource projects over the coming
decades. Results will be evaluated and reported annually, staff will adapt the plan to meet changing
circumstances, and residents and City leadership will be kept informed. In this way, healthy ecosystems
and wildlife populations will be passed on to future generations for the enjoyment of all and the benefit
of nature. One can envision that the restoration and management of natural areas in the City’s parks and
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 160
parcels will improve other natural open space in the City, and over time will raise this portion of the Twin
Cities to a higher level of ecological health and resilience, to the benefit of all residents and visitors.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 161
6 REFERENCES & RESOURCES
Alstad, A. O., E. I. Damschen, T. J. Givnish, J. A. Harrington, M. K. Leach, D. A. Rogers, D. M. Waller. 2016.
The pace of plant community change is accelerating in remnant prairies. Sci. Adv. 2, e1500975.
Barr Engineering Company. 2002. Natural Resources Management Plan, City of Mendota Heights.
Minneapolis, MN.
Becker, R. and E. Katovich. 2021. Garlic mustard biocontrol: ecological host range of biocontrol agents.
University of Minnesota. Available at https://mitppc.umn.edu/project/biocontrol-garlic-
mustard. (Accessed October 2021).
Bentrup, G. 2008. Conservation buffers: design guidelines for buffers, corridors, and greenways. Gen.
Tech. Rep. SRS-109. Asheville, NC: Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern
Research Station. 110 p.
Birdsey, R.A. (1996) Regional Estimates of Timber Volume and Forest Carbon for Fully Stocked
Timberland, Average Management After Final Clearcut Harvest. In Forests and Global Change:
Volume 2, Forest Management Opportunities for Mitigating Carbon Emissions, eds. R.N.
Sampson and D. Hair, American Forests, Washington, DC.
Brewer, R. 2003. Conservancy: the land trust movement in America. Dartmouth College Press,
Lebanon NH.
Bridgham SD, Megonigal JP, Keller JK, Bliss NB, Trettin. 2006. The carbon balance of North American
wetlands. Wetlands 26: 889–916.
Chandler, M. 2021. Spotted Knapweed Biocontrol. Minnesota Department of Agriculture. Available at
https://www.mda.state.mn.us/plants/pestmanagement/weedcontrol/noxiouslist/spottedknap
weed/knapweed. (Accessed October 2021).
Chandler, M.A., L.C. Skinner and L.C. Van Piper. 2012. Biological control of invasive plants in Minnesota.
Available at: https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/natural_resources/invasives/biocontrolofplants.pdf.
(Accessed October 2021).
Chen, I-C., J.K. Hill, R. Ohlemüller, D.B. Roy and C.D. Thomas. 2011. Rapid range shifts of species
associated with high levels of climate warming. Science 333:1024-1026.
Chicago Wilderness, Applied Ecological Services and The Conservation Fund. 2012. Refinement of the
Chicago Wilderness Green Infrastructure Vision Final Report. Report prepared for the Chicago
Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP). Available
at: https://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/11696/GIV20_FinalReport_2012-
06.pdf/dd437709-214c-45d6-a036-5d77244dcedb (Accessed May 2022).
City of Mendota Heights. 2019. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan (draft). Prepared with
assistance by Stantec. Mendota Heights, MN.
Conservation Measures Partnership. 2007. Open standards for the practice of conservation, Version 2.
Crompton, J.L. 2001. The Impact of Parks on Property Values: A Review of the Empirical
Evidence. Journal of Leisure Research 33, 1:1-31.
Dakota County. 2020. Natural Resource Management Plan for the River to River Greenway. Apple
Valley, MN.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 162
eBird. 2020. Hotspots for Ramsey County, Minnesota. https://ebird.org/hotspots?env.minX=-
93.227189&env.minY=44.892371&env.maxX=-92.983802&env.maxY=45.125782&yr=all&m=
(Accessed November 2020).
Early Detection and Distribution Mapping System (EDDMapS). 2020. https://www.eddmaps.org/
(Accessed November 2020).
Follett, R.F., J.M. Kimble and R. Lal (2001) The Potential of U.S. Grazing Lands to Sequester Carbon and
Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect, Lewis Publishers.
Galatowitsch, S., L. Frelich, and L. Phillips-Mao. 2009. Regional climate change adaptation strategies for
biodiversity conservation in a midcontinental region of North America. Biological Conservation
142: 2012–22.
Hassan, R., R. Scholes, and N. Ash. (Eds.) 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current State and
Trends, Volume 1 - Findings of the Condition and Trends Working Group of the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, Washington, Covelo, London.
https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.766.aspx.pdf (Accessed March
2019).
Herb, W., B. Janke, O. Mohseni and H. Stefan. 2007. Estimation of runoff temperatures and heat export
from different land and water surfaces. St. Anthony Falls Laboratory Report 488, University of
Minnesota, Minneapolis MN.
Hilty, J.A., W.Z, Jr. Lidicker and A.M. Merenlender. 2006. Corridor ecology: the science and practice of
linking landscapes for biodiversity conservation. Island Press, Washington DC.
Jeje, Y. 2006. Export coefficients for total phosphorus, total nitrogen and total suspended solids in the
southern Alberta region: a review of literature. Alberta Environment, Edmonton, Canada.
Lal, R., J.M. Kimble, R.F. Follett and C.V. Cole (1999) The Potential of U.S. Cropland to Sequester Carbon
and Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect. Lewis Publishers.
Le Maitre, D.C., B. W. Van Wilgen, R. A. Chapman and D. H. McKelly. 1996. Invasive plants and water
resources in the Western Cape Province, South Africa: modeling the consequences of a lack of
management. Journal of Applied Ecology. Vol. 33, No. 1 (Feb 1996), pp. 161-172
Leach, M.K. and T.J. Givnish. 1996. Ecological determinants of species loss in remnant prairies. Science.
New Series, Volume 273, Issue 5281 (Sep. 13, 1996), 1555-1558.
Maes, J., Braat, L., Jax, K., Hutchins, M., Furman, E., Termansen, M., Luque, S., Paracchini, M.L., Chauvin,
C., Williams, R., Volk, M., Lautenbach, S., Kopperoinen, L., Schelhaas, M.-J., Weinert, J., Goossen,
M., Dumont, E., Strauch, M., Görg, C., Dormann, C., Katwinkel, M., Zulian, G., Varjopuro, R.,
Ratamäki, O., Hauck, J., Forsius, M., Hengeveld, G., Perez-Soba, M., Bouraoui, F., Scholz, M.,
Schulz-Zunkel, C., Lepistö, A., Polishchuk, Y., Bidoglio, G., 2011. A spatial assessment of
ecosystem services in Europe: methods, case studies and policy analysis—phase 1. PEER Report
no. 3. Ispra: Partnership for European Environmental Research.
Malak, A., D., Marin, A.I., Trombetti, M., San Roman, S., 2021. Carbon pools and sequestration potential
of wetlands in the European Union, European Topic Centre on Urban, Land and Soil Systems,
Viena and Malaga.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 163
Marschner, F.J. 1974. The Original Vegetation of Minnesota (map, scale 1:500,000). USDA Forest
Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minnesota (redraft of the original
1930 edition).
Metro Vancouver Regional Planning. 2018. metrovancouver Ecological Health website.
http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/conserving-connecting/about-
ecological-health/Pages/default.aspx. (Accessed December 2020).
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR). 2021. Purple loosestrife control: Biological.
Available at
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/aquaticplants/purpleloosestrife/biocontrol.html.
(Accessed October 2021).
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR). 2020. Natural Heritage Information System
(NHIS)/Biotics data. Accessed under License Agreement 1025.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2019. Ecological Classification System (ECS).
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ecs/index.html. (Accessed November 2020).
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2016. Minnesota’s Wildlife Action Plan 2015-2025.
Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mnwap/index.html. (Accessed November 2020).
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2013. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Central
Minnesota Update. Digital mapping. St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2009. Conservation Status Ranks for Native Plant
Community Types and Subtypes.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2008. Regionally Significant Ecological Areas. Digital
mapping prepared by Central Region, St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2005. 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.
St. Paul, MN.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2004. Minnesota Land Cover Classification System User
Manual, Version 5.4. DNR Central Region, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2001. MNDNR Natural Community Element Occurrence
Ranking Guidelines. Minnesota Natural Heritage Program. St. Paul, Minnesota.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 1997. Natural Communities and Rare Species of Dakota
County, Minnesota. Map by the Minnesota County Biological Survey.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2017. Minnesota Stormwater Manual - Stormwater re-use and
rainwater harvesting. https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Stormwater_re-
use_and_rainwater_harvesting&redirect=no#:~:text=A%20general%20rule%20of%20thumb,app
roximately%20600%20gallons%20of%20runoff (Accessed January 2021).
Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium. 2016. National Land Cover Database (NLCD).
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 164
National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Partnership. 2012. National Fish, Wildlife and
Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Council on
Environmental Quality, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC.
https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/ecosystems/documents/NFWPCAS-Final.pdf
NatureServe. 2020. Definitions of NatureServe Conservation Status Ranks.
https://help.natureserve.org/biotics/Content/Record_Management/Element_Files/Element_Tra
cking/ETRACK_Definitions_of_Heritage_Conservation_Status_Ranks.htm (Accessed November
2020).
Noss, R.F. and A.Y. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving nature’s legacy: protecting and restoring biodiversity.
Island Press, Washington DC.
Pilot Knob Preservation. 2020. Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob Pocket Guide.
http://www.pilotknobpreservation.org/Pocket%20Guide%20Interactive.htm. (Accessed
November 2020).
Pyne, S.J. 1982. Fire in America: A cultural history of wildland and rural fire. Princeton: Princeton
University Press. Princeton, NJ.
Consulting Group. 2018. Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob – Draft Historical Landscape Plan. Prepared for Great
River Greening. St. Paul, MN.
Staudinger, Michelle D., N.B. Grimm, A. Staudt, S.L. Carter, F.S. Chapin III, P. Kareiva, M. Ruckelshaus,
B.A. Stein. 2012. Impacts of Climate Change on Biodiversity, Ecosystems, and Ecosystem
Services: Technical Input to the 2013 National Climate Assessment. Cooperative Report to the
2013 National Climate Assessment. 296 p. http://assessment.globalchange.gov
Stewart, O.C. 2002. Forgotten Fires – Native Americans and the transient wilderness. University of
Oklahoma Press: Norman, OK.
Tangen B., Bansal S. 2020. Soil organic carbon stocks and sequestration rates of inland, freshwater
wetlands: Sources of variability and uncertainty. Science of the Total Environment 749, 1-11.
The Nature Conservancy. 1996. Land protection options: a handbook for Minnesota Landowners. The
Nature Conservancy, Minneapolis MN.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)/Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1986. Urban
hydrology for small watersheds: Technical Release 55. Washington DC.
U.S. Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1999. Grassland Bird - Fish and
Wildlife Habitat Management Leaflet Number 8.
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs144p2_054067.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2022. Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Sinks: 1990-2020. U.S. Environmental Protection 9 Agency, EPA 430-P-22-001.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/draft-inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and10 sinks-
1990-2020.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020a. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) website.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/index. (Accessed November 2020).
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 165
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2020b. Northern Long-Eared Bat Final 4(d) Rule, White-Nose Syndrome
Zone Around WNS/Pd Positive Counties/Districts, Map Created July 26, 2020.
https://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/mammals/nleb/pdf/WNSZone.pdf (Accessed
November 2020).
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2019. Range-wide Indiana bat summer survey guidelines.
https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/inba/surveys/pdf/2019_Rangewide_IBat
_Survey_Guidelines.pdf. (Accessed November 2020).
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2016. Final 4(d) Rule for the Northern Long-Eared Bat. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
West, T.O. and W.M. Post (2002) Soil Carbon Sequestration by Tillage and Crop Rotation: A Global Data
Analysis. Soil Science Society of America Journal. Available at DOE CDIAC site.
Wohlleben, P., Flannery, T. F., Simard, S., & Billinghurst, J. 2016. The hidden life of trees: What they
feel, how they communicate : discoveries from a secret world. David Suzuki Institute and
Greystone Books, Vancouver/Berkeley.
Zhu, Zhiliang, Sleeter, B.M., Griffith, G.E., Stackpoole, S.M., Hawbaker, T.J., and Bergamaschi, B.A., 2012.
An assessment of carbon sequestration in ecosystems of the Western United States—Scope,
methodology, and geography, chap. 1 of Zhu, Zhiliang, and Reed, B.C., eds., Baseline and
projected future carbon storage and greenhouse-gas fluxes in ecosystems of the Western
United States: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1797.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 166
This page left intentionally blank
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 167
Appendix A. Glossary & Acronyms
Adaptive
Management
Structured decision making in the face of uncertainty, with an aim to reducing
uncertainty over time by a cycle of implementation, monitoring, evaluation,
and adjustment.
Biocontrol The use of natural enemies to reduce invasive species populations.
Biodiversity The variety of life in a particular habitat or ecosystem, including plants and
animals.
Bioengineering Use of natural materials (e.g., dead wood, live stakes/fascines, plants, seeds,
etc.), sometimes in combination with more “hard” techniques (e.g., riprap) to
stabilize eroding soil along streambanks, shorelines, ravines, etc.
Cultural Land Cover
or Ecosystem
Developed or significantly altered land, typically used regularly and/or
intensively by people (e.g., buildings, parking lots, roads, crop fields, turf
lawns).
Cultural Resource A historically significant feature, such as Works Progress Administration
(WPA) walls.
Ecological
Enhancement
Improving an existing natural area, such as adding more native flower species
to a prairie or removing an undesirable tree like Boxelder from an oak forest.
Ecological
Restoration
As a general term, improving the natural environment by stabilizing and
enhancing biodiversity, resilience, and ecosystem services. In contrast to
Ecological Enhancement, Ecological Restoration typically refers to converting
a non-natural area (e.g., turf grass or cropland) to a native plant community
(e.g., prairie or wetland).
Ecological
Stewardship
Refers to responsible use and protection of the natural environment through
conservation and sustainable practices.
Ecosystem Approach An approach to land and water management that considers all interacting
factors in an ecosystem and designs management techniques that replicate,
at the lowest practical cost, the ecological structures and processes that
enable ecosystems to adapt to changing conditions.
Ecosystem Services The natural outputs of healthy ecosystems that benefit people—air and water
purification, flood control, groundwater recharge, fish and wildlife
production, soil building, recreation, food and fiber production, and spiritual
renewal and recreational pleasure. Ecosystem services are worth trillions of
dollars annually worldwide.
Edge Effects The (usually negative) impacts that altered or developed land have on
adjacent natural habitats (e.g., increased noise, microclimate changes,
increased predation). Smaller, narrower habitats are more impacted by edge
effects than larger, rounder ones.
Generalist Wildlife
Species
Animal species that can live in many different types of environments and
have a varied diet and broad habitat requirements.
Geographic
Information System
(GIS) A computer-based mapping system designed to capture, store,
manipulate, analyze, manage, and present spatial or geographic data.
Glaciofluvial A combination of boulders, gravel, sand, silt and clay from ice
sheets or glaciers.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 168
Glaciolacustrine Sediments deposited into glacier-formed lakes.
Habitat
Fragmentation
Habitat fragmentation is the process by which habitat loss results in the
division of large, continuous habitats into smaller, more isolated remnants.
Integrated Pest
Management
(IPM) Integrated Pest Management is an ecosystem-based approach that uses
a combination of practices that minimize risk to beneficial insects and
organisms, wildlife, humans, and the environment. Pesticides and herbicides
are used only after monitoring indicates they are necessary and applied with
the goal of removing only the target pest or species.
Invasive Species Aggressive species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or
environmental harm or harm to human health.
Mesic Moist, typically referring to soil conditions (as opposed to dry or wet).
Moraine An accumulation of rocks and sediment deposited by a glacier, typically along
the glacier’s edge.
Native Plants Plants indigenous to a given area in geologic time. This includes plants that
have developed, occur naturally, or existed for many years in an area.
Natural Area Areas consisting of natural and/or semi-natural vegetation and not intensively
managed for human use.
Non-invasive Species Species that are not likely to cause economic or environmental harm.
Non-point Source
Pollution
Pollution (e.g., contaminants, excessive nutrients) that comes from a diffuse
source; in contrast to point-source pollution, which comes from a
concentrated location, such as an industrial discharge pipe.
Specialist Wildlife
Species
Animal species that have specific environmental needs related to habitat, diet
or another environmental factor, without which they cannot sustain their
populations.
Species of Greatest
Conservation Need
(SGCN) Wildlife species, including state-listed and non-listed species, that are
regionally rare or in decline, often as a result of habitat loss.
Spot Herbicide
Application
Using targeted application methods (e.g., backpack sprayer with wand or
sponge) to apply herbicide to undesirable vegetation, such as invasive plants.
Stormwater
Treatment Train
A series of various stormwater best management practices (BMPs) designed
to manage stormwater runoff. These BMPs may include structural or
engineered features (e.g., sediment-removal devices, rain barrels, cisterns) as
well as naturalized BMPs (e.g., rain gardens, vegetated swales, stormwater
wetlands).
Till (Glacial) Unsorted glacial deposits (i.e., from small particles to large rocks) that may
form moraines and other glacier landforms.
Watershed
Management
An approach to water and other natural resources management that
considers the entire drainage area or catchment.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 169
Appendix B. Assessment of Mendota Heights’ Natural Resources Program & Volunteer
Activities
1. Goal
a. Assess municipal budget, staff and equipment and volunteer programs for the overall
capacity to restore and manage natural areas.
2. Natural Resources Program
a. Review and synthesize Municipal information: complete benchmarking questionnaire.
b. Summarize
i. Ongoing natural resources management programs
1. Forestry – 50%
a. EAB Control. Inspect all public ash trees, removal when
diseased, with replanting.
b. Mitigation of EAB grant with tree planting from MN DNR ($10k
grant). Planting 100 trees by June 2022.
c. Invasive species removal MN Dept. Agric. ($10k grant).
Japanese hedge parsley (exploding in population), treatment of
all noxious weeds.
d. Annual tree sale partnering with American Tree Trust, pay half
the cost and resident pays half the cost.
e. Invasive species control and removal of woody species by
volunteer groups and partnership with Great River Greening.
2. Stormwater Management – 50%
a. Aquatic invasive species grant program from Dakota Co. ($7k
grant) to remove curly-leaf pondweed (Rogers Lake).
b. Raingardens with every street project funded with stormwater
improvement budget. Install curb cuts, install live plants
(contractor installs topsoil mix). City pays for construction and
materials, but property owner agrees to non-drainage-related
maintenance and installation. In 2020, installed five
raingardens as part of the Wesley-Marie Avenue Road
Improvements project. Eleven raingardens were installed as
part of the Lexington Ave. street project .
c. CAMP Program. Citizen Assisted Monitoring Program with Met
Council. Partner with local cities and agencies to sample all
metro lakes and publish annual report with A-F grade given to
each lake. Lower Mississippi River WMO sponsors one monitor;
and City sponsors two monitors. Augusta (WMO), Rogers (City)
and Lemay Lakes (City). Monitors measure indicators and
Natural Resources Coordinator coordinates the volunteers and
stores, cleans and restocks the sampling kits.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 170
d. Wetland Health Evaluation Program through Dakota County.
Citizen supervisor runs this program for Mendota Heights, and
City stores sampling kits and selects wetlands to monitor.
Reports are published annually.
e. The City is the Local Government Unit charged with
administering Chapter 8420 of the Wetland Conservation Act
f. MS4 Stormwater Permit requirements.
i. Adopt-A-Drain program with the Lower Mississippi
WMO & Freshwater Society.
ii. Erosion control inspections on construction sites.
iii. Inspect all permanent BMPs – stormwater ponds,
underground infiltration systems, raingardens, etc. with
new construction and reconstruction.
iv. MCM6 categories: Natural Resources Coordinator
coordinates Education and Outreach, Public
Participation and Involvement, Construction Site
Stormwater Inspections, Post-Construction BMPs, Illicit
Discharge Detection & Elimination (annual outfall
inspections), Pollution Prevention & Good
Housekeeping (Public Works Supervisor is mainly
responsible for Pollution Prevention and Good
Housekeeping). Natural Resources Coordinator
completes annual report for City.
ii. Current and past restoration projects – request map
1. City Hall Native Planting & Rain Garden. 2018. <1 ac. Front of City Hall,
rock and shrubs replaced with native pollinator planting on upland and
small raingarden receiving rooftop runoff .
2. City Hall Solar Garden. 2018. <1 ac. Next to City Hall, native prairie mix
under solar panels.
3. Copperfield Ponds. 2020 and ongoing. 5 acs. Great River Greening
installing prairie along trail between two wetland ponds. Removing
invasive trees and shrubs (Siberian elm, Amur maple, buckthorn),
replanting with upland grass/forb mix, plus wetland buffer and a small
wetland edge planting.
4. Hagstrom King Park Oak Wilt Management. 2020 and ongoing. 1 ac.
Severe oak wilt infestation of red oak, mostly private requiring
permission. Root plow to contain was used with some success.
Removing oaks on City easement, private on their own land. Will be
replanted with native trees and groundcover.
5. Ivy Hills Park. In planning. 2.5 acs. Ivy Keep HOA interested in moving
project forward, but no recent progress.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 171
6. North Kensington Park. In planning. 4 acs. Open turf area north of
soccer fields. Replace with bee lawn, other native plantings.
7. Oȟéyawahe Pilot Knob. 2011 and in planning. 23 acs. Upland prairie
restoration. New acquisition in 2020 at end of Vallencourt. Task force
formed to determine plan for site. Interpretive Plan for the site is
currently in the development phase, seeking input from members of the
Dakota Community and other Indigenous communities.
8. Par 3 Golf Course. 2017. 1 ac. Native plant garden in middle of golf
course, raingarden in parking lot, native plant garden in front of
clubhouse. City runs this site.
9. River to River Greenway. In planning. Acres not reported. Dakota
County project that City will partner on. Includes all of Valley Park,
which is its own restoration project.
10. Rogers Lake Buckthorn Removal. Pre-2018 and ongoing. 10 ac.
MNDOT property with City trail easement on west side of Rogers Lake.
Removing buckthorn but no grant is possible because City is not
property owner. Paying Great River Greening to do the removal.
Remove buckthorn and replant with woodland herbaceous mix.
11. Rogers Lake Shoreline Restoration. <2018 and ongoing. 0.05 ac. (120 ft
long). Shoreline stabilization project near the fishing pier.
12. Valley Park Pollinator Corridor. 2019 and ongoing. 10 ac. Grant to
remove invasive plants. AES did snow-seeding of southern part of
corridor north of Marie Ave. in late 2019. Remove invasives and
stabilize with upland plantings favoring pollinators. One small wetland
area involved.
13. Victoria Road. 2016. 0.5 ac. Road upgrade project in ditch with riprap.
Removed riprap, flattened ditch to create slope to road, planted upland
prairie mix (MN State Mix 35-621 Dry Prairie Southeast).
14. Welcome Sign Outlot. 2019. 0.25 ac. Two parcels. First parcel is
Mendota Meadows HOA property under conservation easement held by
City. Required to remove invasives every five years. Buckthorn
removed, but no replanting due to reluctant landowners. Second parcel
is MNDOT property maintained by City. City removed buckthorn on its
property and planted with native grasses, trees and shrubs. No-mow or
bee lawn intended for hillside and not mow hillside in future.
iii. Staff capacity to deliver programs and projects
1. At capacity right now. Insufficient funding to hire out additional work.
2. Natural Resources Coordinator is 100% dedicated to natural resources.
Tasks listed above.
3. Parks staff have a portion of their hours dedicated to natural resources.
Three full-time employees & several seasonal employees dedicated to
parks. Focused on tree care, watering, tree removal, tree pruning for
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 172
safety, buckthorn removal & chemical treatment. Limited weeding of
native plantings by a couple full-time staff who have native species
knowledge. Turf maintenance, ballfield maintenance and general park
upkeep occupies most time.
4. Utilities staff make minor contribution to natural resources
management. Follow up and reporting on stormwater issues raised
(e.g., storm drain blockage, illicit discharge) or that they notice
themselves.
5. Finding physical space for interns and seasonal employees is very
limited at City Hall. Would be easier out of Public Works building. Due
to COVID-19, even more challenging at City Hall. As a result, it is
difficult to take advantage of programs like Community Forestry Corps
(under AmeriCorps). These positions require employment of 40
hours/week for one year but keeping them busy in winter with the
duties listed by the program, unless buckthorn can be removed to
regenerate oak canopy.
iv. Equipment, material, training needs to deliver programs and projects
1. Lack storage for equipment and materials.
2. Current Natural Resources Coordinator certified for Type 2 Wildland
Prescribed Burning
3. Needed equipment
a. Kayak for stormwater inspections & stormwater basins depth
sampling at 4-5 points for storage capacity (some inspections
currently done during winter months using an ice auger).
b. Depth finder instead of Secchi disk or rod (obtained).
c. ATV for traversing larger areas, carrying equipment, pulling
broadcast seeder.
d. Broadcast seeder dedicated to natural resources.
e. Field laptop for inspections.
f. Equipment for small prescribed burns
i. Water pump for ATV fire control (have 60 gal. tank)
ii. Indian backpack pumps
iii. Swatters & rakes
iv. Drip torch
v. Mower to cut fire breaks in grass
vi. Leaf blowers to blow fire breaks in woods using oak
leaves for fuel
g. Bulb auger for planting plugs for raingarden projects when
insufficient volunteer labor available
c. Summarize in table of findings and map of past and current projects
3. Volunteer program
a. Assessment
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 173
i. Organization & Training
1. Volunteer program is in the development phase, currently there is not a
standing list of volunteers, database, or schedule; Krista has stepped in
to help organize, but it is challenging given other duties
2. Citizen/Resident Volunteers call for participants and Krista organizes
event with their help – challenging to continue to recruit volunteers
who are not already engaged in City’s restoration and management
efforts
3. Need a part-time volunteer coordinator and more organized and
formalized process; this person must be an inspirational, well-organized,
detail-oriented, people person who enjoys and is good field work and
knows local ecology, plant identification, and restoration and
management practices.
4. Need a database to schedule events and notify volunteers; can piggy-
back on Parks and Recreation platform
5. No newsletter or way to communicate to community and volunteers on
regular basis; would like to see more back-and-forth between City and
volunteers and the larger community to generate interest in restoration
and management
6. Increasing size of volunteer pool requires more training and supervision;
training the trainer model can leverage Krista’s time
7. Young people tend to do work quality that must be re-done (e.g., tree
and plug planting); corporate groups doing community service often
come poorly prepared (e.g., wearing flip-flops) – chose the event that
families are better able to participate in
8. Core group of volunteers will be the backbone of the effort, building
expertise and dedication to attendance and quality work
9. Without a feedback loop from monitoring data to activity, the practical
application of the data to Mendota Heights restoration and
management is not there; adaptive management must be used; must be
a framework to use the data; County has developed a CWMA
(Cooperative Weed Management Area) using EDDMapS to have citizens
report invasives and target control in those areas
ii. Work Plan for Pollinator Friendly Activities
1. Master gardeners worked with Public Works since 2016 to educate and
engage residents, partner with U of MN master gardeners for education
and events
a. Some progress made in outreach and education, including
providing materials, educational workshops, and a question &
answer table at Parks Celebration
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 174
b. City to promote ongoing restoration projects (Victoria Road and
Plot Knob) with master gardeners and residents; events were
held at Victoria Road
c. City and volunteer master gardeners collaborating on taking
care of existing native plantings and expanding those plantings
(with City transportation dept., for instance); workshops held
d. Events: Buckthorn Bash Education Event; native planting on
City Hall grounds as showcase for public to learn from and
replicate on own properties; Par 3 invasive species removal and
native species planting event; rain garden planting events with
City and Master Water Stewards
e. Review developer’s landscape plans to guide toward pollinator-
friendly plantings and green infrastructure; often too late to
influence in a big way
iii. Locations and Activities for Volunteers
1. Private property. Biggest acreage in City for natural resources and place
where volunteers can have immediate large impact
a. Educational focus, workshops, outreach
b. Master gardeners cannot compete with private sector for
landscaping design and installation projects, but can assess and
make recommendations to City if City requests it
2. Golf courses, cemeteries, institutions/campuses – how to approach?
a. One idea: master gardeners approach golf courses and
cemeteries with education, but need approval and introduction
from City to proceed, especially with businesses; use Audubon
International Signature Program for golf courses (two private
courses plus City’s Par 3)
b. City staff and Council would need to approve, advocate and
promote this approach.
3. City properties.
a. Raingardens easy to do
b. Model also exists for pollinator-friendly road reconstruction
projects with Public Works through Work Plan (e.g., bump-outs
on Marie Avenue—plan exists but planting has not been done
by volunteers yet)
c. Valley View Park as part of park’s natural resource management
plan; use Great River Greening model of “blitzes” and “random
acts of restoration” – much more challenging
d. Follow-up maintenance is weak link in system.
iv. Numbers of participants
1. Regular basis 3 steering committee members are regular volunteers
(another committee member is not); 2 other community volunteers
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 175
(Rosemary & Sally) help weed already-restored projects; City Hall
raingarden & Victoria Road native planting)
2. In general, challenging to secure volunteers. Number depends on
events:
a. Biggest: neighborhood curb cut neighborhood planting
(multiple sites, many plants) – Leslie Pilgrim’s master water
steward project and master gardener (Cindy Johnson & Sue
Light) event, which recruited all the volunteers – 21 people
b. Parks clean-up & buckthorn removal event (Arbor/Earth Day) –
15 people at 3 parks
c. Four raingardens with Wesley neighborhood during COVID;
staggered volunteer attendance, fewer plants – smaller number
of people
v. Frequency and type of activities undertaken
1. One big project and a few small projects each year
2. Planting, weeding, buckthorn and other invasive plant removal; usually
plugs or 1-gal pots; can go up to 10-gal pots, but use Public Works to dig
holes
3. Tree planting canceled due to COVID; planning fall tree planting event
vi. Supervision
1. Natural Resources Coordinator supervises all, helped by Resident
Volunteers.
vii. Equipment needs versus available equipment
1. City asks volunteers to bring all their own equipment
a. Raingardens and simple projects – ask volunteers to bring own
tools
b. Cutting tools are biggest gap in equipment
2. Wish list & discussion of volunteer equipment
a. Would like to have 30 trowels and spades for planting
b. Loppers for volunteer invasive brush removal
b. Summarize in table of findings and table of appropriate tasks for volunteers
i. Big benefit from interest in community members; people are calling to offer
help
ii. Burnout – few events and not hard events and in good weather – can avoid
burnout – won’t give quantity, but master gardeners will give quality
iii. What does growth look like?
1. Purchase equipment
2. Don’t have volunteer coordinator – time sink is…
a. Training volunteers before season starts – train the trainer
model?
b. Coordination of the event
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 176
3. Have a volunteer coordinator online sign-up system and sign liability
release waiver online.
4. Would use volunteers to fill gap in funding for outside coordinator
5. Liability issue if master gardeners are leading; should City person always
be there? Legal department to state whether always a city employee
should be present.
6. Reportable/recordable standards for volunteers.
a. Train the trainers in safety standards, report back to Krista after
each event.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 177
Appendix C. Climate-Adapted Trees to Plant in the Twin Cities Region
The following climate-adapted tree species have been identified for planting in the Twin Cities region.
AES ecologists used their field experience and scientific information to identify tree species having the
greatest chance of persisting in the Twin Cities region over the coming decades, despite predicted
changes in local climate. AES’s used the following approach.
The National Park Service’s (NPS) local Twin Cities office prepared a list of 42 tree species suitable for
planting in the changing local climate (NPS No Date). These included 21 tree species native to
Minnesota, 15 species with ranges outside Minnesota, four species to plant in limited numbers due to
their susceptibility to pests, and two species soon to be extirpated.
AES reviewed the NPS list and adjusted the species with information from three reputable sources:
1. A native tree species list maintained by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(MNDNR 2019);
2. US Department of Agriculture (USDA 2019) PLANTS Database to identify tree species in adjacent
states likely to migrate into Minnesota in the next few decades;
3. US Forest Service’s (Prasad et al. 2019) climate change and tree response model to identify trees
predicted to move into or out of the Twin Cities region in the next few decades.
This analysis identified 94 climate-adapted tree species potentially suitable for planting in the Twin
Cities region. Each tree species was evaluated as to its suitability for planting in the Twin Cities region by
dividing them into three categories: 1) trees suitable to plant currently; 2) trees suitable to plant in
2040; and 3) trees not suitable for planting.
Trees considered suitable to plant in currently met four criteria.
1. Native to Minnesota.
2. Neither an invasive or potentially invasive exotic species, nor a native species that colonized
new ground readily, grew aggressively, and would be the target of control efforts in natural
areas (e.g., box-elder, Acer negundo).
3. Not susceptible to pests or diseases.
4. Predicted to remain in the Twin Cities region’s plant hardiness zone at least until 2100, based on
the USFS climate change and tree response model.
Trees currently not present in Minnesota (USDA PLANTS Database) but suitable to plant met four
criteria.
1. Native to nearby parts of states adjacent to Minnesota: northern Iowa, western Wisconsin,
northwest Illinois and eastern South Dakota and North Dakota.
2. Not considered invasive or potentially invasive.
3. Not susceptible to pests or diseases.
4. Predicted to enter the Twin Cities region in the coming decades based on the USFS climate
change and tree response model.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 178
Trees were considered unsuitable for planting if they met any of the following criteria.
1. Grew as a native species 450-500 miles from Minnesota, or did not grow as a native species in
North America.
2. Currently outside or predicted to move out of its plant hardiness zone in Minnesota.
3. Abundant species that will seed in without assistance.
4. Susceptible to pests or diseases, including emerald ash borer.
5. Considered an invasive species.
This winnowing process resulted in 45 climate-adapted tree species suitable for planting in the Twin
Cities region. This list differs somewhat from the NPS list (NPS No Date) by taking advantage of the most
current data from the USFS climate change and tree response model (Prasad et al 2019).
Soil moisture and plant community context are two important field conditions that must be considered
when deciding which tree species to plant at which location. For instance, a sugar maple should not be
planted in an oak savanna because it has low fire tolerance and would not persist in a fire-managed
plant community like savanna. In addition, its greater shade tolerance would result in the eventual
replacement of canopy oaks. Likewise, planting a white oak in a hydric soil type would likely result in
the death of the white oak because it does not tolerate high moisture, low soil oxygen conditions.
Because soil moisture and plant community context are essential field conditions for proper selection of
tree species, AES ecologists assessed each tree species’ soil moisture tolerance and identified the
appropriate plant community in which each species should be planted. Soil moisture tolerance
information was obtained from the MNDNR and Iowa State University’s Forestry Extension program.
The plant communities to which each tree species was assigned were determined by AES ecologists
based on extensive field experience throughout the Midwest and in particular work in Twin Cities
natural areas.
References
Iverson, L. R., A. M. Prasad, S. N. Matthews, and M. Peters. 2008. Estimating potential habitat for 134
eastern US tree species under six climate scenarios. Forest Ecology and Management 254:390-406.
Prasad, A. M., L. R. Iverson., S. Matthews., M. Peters. 2007-Ongoing. A climate change atlas for 134
forest tree species of the eastern United States [database]. Northern Research Station, USDA Forest
Service, Delaware, Ohio. https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/atlas/tree (accessed April 2019).
MNDNR (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources). 2019. Minnesota native trees.
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/trees_shrubs/index.html (accessed April 2019).
NPS (National Park Service). No Date. Climate adapted trees Twin Cities. Excel File. National Park
Service Office, Twin Cities MN.
Texas A&M AgriLife Extension. 2019. Texas plant disease handbook. Texas A&M University, College
Station, TX. https://plantdiseasehandbook.tamu.edu/ (accessed April 2019).
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 179
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). Plants database. USDA, Washington DC.
https://plants.sc.egov.usda.gov/java/ (accessed April 2019).
USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2019. Climate change tree atlas. USDA USFS, Washington DC.
https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/tools/ (accessed April 2019).
Table C.1. Climate-Adapted Trees to Plant in the Twin Cities Region
Species Name
1, 2
Common Name
1, 2 Family 1, 2
Plant
Community
Suitable for
Planting 3
Wet Soil
Tolerant
4, 5
Dry Soil
Tolerant
4, 5
Potential
Diseases,
Pests &
Problems 6, 7, 8
Acer rubrum Red maple Aceraceae MF, LF Yes
Susceptible to
storm
damage,
inviting fungi
and insect
pest; leaf
chlorosis
Acer
saccharinum Silver maple Aceraceae LF Yes Yes
Storm
damage;
verticillium
wilt
Acer
saccharum Sugar maple Aceraceae MF Yes Verticillium
wilt
Aesculus
glabra Ohio buckeye Sapindaceae DMFW, LF Yes
Buckeye
lacebug, leaf
blotch, Asian
long-horned
beetle
Amelanchier
arborea Serviceberry Rosaceae DMFW, S Yes None serious
Amelanchier
laevis Serviceberry Rosaceae DMFW, S Yes None serious
Betula nigra River birch Betulaceae LF Yes
Bronze birch
borer,
chlorosis,
Asian long-
horned beetle
host
Carpinus
caroliniana
Blue beech,
Musclewood,
Hornbeam
Betulaceae MF, LF Yes Fire
Carya
cordiformis Bitternut hickory Juglandaceae MF Yes Yes
Hickory bark
beetles, pecan
weevils,
anthracnose,
and powdery
mildew
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 180
Species Name
1, 2
Common Name
1, 2 Family 1, 2
Plant
Community
Suitable for
Planting 3
Wet Soil
Tolerant
4, 5
Dry Soil
Tolerant
4, 5
Potential
Diseases,
Pests &
Problems 6, 7, 8
Carya
illinoinensis 8 Pecan Juglandaceae DMFW Yes Scab
Carya ovata Shagbark hickory Juglandaceae DMFW, S Yes
Hickory
anthracnose
or leaf spot
Catalpa
speciosa 8 Northern catalpa Bignoniaceae DMFW Yes Verticillium
wilt
Celtis
occidentalis
Common
hackberry Cannabaceae MF, LF Yes
Nipple gall and
witches broom
gall
Cercis
canadensis 8 Eastern redbud Fabaceae MF, S Yes
Leaf
anthracnose;
Botryosphaeri
a canker;
verticillium
wilt
Cornus
alternifolia
Pagoda
dogwood Cornaceae MF, SS Yes Anthracnose,
crown canker
Fraxinus
americana White ash Oleaceae MF Yes Yes
Emerald ash
borer, ash
dieback,
environmental
pollutants
Gleditsia
triacanthos Honeylocust Fabaceae LF Yes Yes Nectria canker
Gymnocladus
dioicus
Kentucky coffee
tree Fabaceae LF Yes Pest resistant
species
Hamamelis
virginiana Witch hazel Hamamelidaceae DMFW, S Yes
Japanese
beetles can
damage the
leaves
Juglans nigra Black walnut Juglandaceae DMFW, S Yes
Thousand
canker
disease,
Fusarium
cankers, root
rot diseases,
walnut
anthracnose
Juniperus
virginiana
Eastern red
cedar Cupressaceae DMFW, S, SS Yes
Host of cedar-
apple rust,
susceptible to
leaf blights
Morus rubra Red mulberry Moraceae LF Yes
Hybridizes
with invasive
white
mulberry
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 181
Species Name
1, 2
Common Name
1, 2 Family 1, 2
Plant
Community
Suitable for
Planting 3
Wet Soil
Tolerant
4, 5
Dry Soil
Tolerant
4, 5
Potential
Diseases,
Pests &
Problems 6, 7, 8
Ostrya
virginiana
Ironwood,
Eastern
hophornbeam
Betulaceae DMFW, MF Yes Trunk and butt
rots
Pinus strobus Eastern white
pine Pinaceae DMFW Yes
White pine
weevil, white
pine blister
rust, Armillaria
root rot
Platanus
occidentalis 8
American
sycamore Platanaceae DMFW Yes Yes Anthracnose
Populus
deltoides
Eastern
cottonwood Salicaceae LF Yes
Clearwing
borer, possible
host of Asian
long-horned
beetle
Prunus
americana Wild plum Rosaceae S, SS Yes Yes Insects and
pests
Prunus
pensylvanica Pin cherry Rosaceae DMFW, S Yes Insects and
pests
Prunus
serotina Black cherry Rosaceae DMFW Yes Yes
Eastern tent
caterpillar,
cherry scallop
shell moth
Ptelea
trifoliata Hoptree Rutaceae S, SS Yes Yes
Leaf spots and
rust, nothing
serious
Quercus alba White oak Fagaceae DMFW, MF Yes Yes
Oak wilt, oak
scale,
oakworm,
gypsy moth
Quercus
bicolor
Swamp white
oak Fagaceae LF Yes Yes Anthracnose,
Oak wilt
Quercus
ellipsoidalis Northern pin oak Fagaceae DMFW, S Yes Oak wilt
Quercus
imbricaria 8 Shingle oak Fagaceae DMFW Yes Oak wilt, gypsy
moth
Quercus
macrocarpa Bur oak Fagaceae DMFW, MF,
S, LF Yes Yes
Bur oak blight,
Oak wilt, gypsy
moth
Quercus
muehlenbergii Chinkapin oak Fagaceae DMFW, S Yes
Oak wilt,
Nectria
canker,
Armillaria root
rot, gypsy
moth, two-
lined chestnut
borer
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 182
Species Name
1, 2
Common Name
1, 2 Family 1, 2
Plant
Community
Suitable for
Planting 3
Wet Soil
Tolerant
4, 5
Dry Soil
Tolerant
4, 5
Potential
Diseases,
Pests &
Problems 6, 7, 8
Quercus
palustris 8 Pin oak Fagaceae DMFW Yes Oak wilt, gypsy
moth
Quercus rubra Northern red
oak Fagaceae DMFW, MF Yes Oak wilt
Quercus
velutina Black oak Fagaceae DMFW, S Yes Oak wilt
Salix
amygdaloides Peachleaf willow Salicaceae LF Yes
Willow rust,
aphids, Asian
long-horned
beetle host
Salix nigra Black willow Salicaceae LF Yes
Willow rust,
aphids, Asian
long-horned
beetle
Sassafras
albidum8 Sassafras Lauraceae DMFW Yes Laurel wilt
Tilia
americana
American
basswood Tiliaceae DMFW, MF Yes
Borers,
beetles,
lacebugs,
caterpillars,
scale, spider
mites
Ulmus
americana American elm Ulmaceae MF, LF Yes Yes
Dutch elm
disease, Asian
long-horned
beetle host
Ulmus rubra Slippery elm Ulmaceae MF, LF Yes Yes
Dutch elm
disease, Asian
long-horned
beetle host
1 https://plants.sc.egov.usda.gov/java/
2 https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/trees_shrubs/index.html
3 DMFW = Dry-Mesic Forest/Woodland; MF = Mesic Forest; S = Savanna; SS = Shrub/Scrub; LF = Lowland Forest
4 https://www.extension.iastate.edu/forestry/iowa_trees/trees/
5 https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/forestry/nursery/choosing.html
6 http://campustrees.umn.edu/tree-species
7 https://www.extension.iastate.edu/forestry/iowa_trees/trees/
8 These trees currently may not be naturally present in Minnesota
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 183
Appendix D. Other Ecosystem Services in Mendota Heights
This appendix provides a land cover-based analysis of the following ecosystem services in the City of
Mendota Heights:
• Air Pollution Removal
• Runoff Pollution (P) Removal
• Runoff Volume Reduction
• Carbon Sequestration
Air Pollution Removal
Air quality is a growing concern in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, and climate forecasts suggest it will
become an even greater health issue. Different land cover types provide different levels of air purification.
Forests are some of the most effective land covers to filter out particulates and improve air quality. This is
due to the extensive surface area of their leaves and their respiration function. Impervious surfaces provide
little if any air pollution removal. Figure D.1 provides a landscape-scale representation of this ecosystem
service across the City of Mendota Heights. Reference: Maes et al., 2011.
Figure D.1 Air Pollution Removal in Mendota Heights
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 184
Runoff Pollution (P) Removal
Phosphorus (P) is the primary pollutant of concern in most surface waters throughout the Upper Midwest.
The growth of undesirable algae is typically limited by this nutrient; therefore, preventing P from reaching
surface waters can help maintain higher water quality and reduce the frequency and severity of algal blooms
(including harmful blue-green algae, which can pose a health concern for people, pets, and wildlife).
Different land cover types provide different levels of runoff purification, depending on opportunities for
runoff filtration (through soil and vegetation), slowing down (which enables particulates with adhered P to
drop out), vegetative uptake of nutrients, etc. Water bodies often accumulate phosphorus and retain this
nutrient in the form of aquatic plant growth, algae, fish, and bottom sediments. Forests and wetlands are
effective at removing P from runoff. Stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces and development continue
to be a major source of P and other pollutants in runoff (e.g., nitrogen species, oil and grease, heavy metals,
etc.). Figure D.2 provides a landscape-scale representation of this ecosystem service across the City of
Mendota Heights. Reference: Jeje 2006.
Figure D.2 Runoff Pollution (P) Removal in Mendota Heights
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 185
Runoff Volume Reduction
Urban and suburban landscapes contain impervious surfaces and stormwater infrastructure that is designed
to collect and concentrates runoff into nearby surface waters. While these systems are typically effective at
preventing flood damages (the primary objective of stormwater management), they also result in high flows
of runoff. This urban runoff often carries heavy loads of nutrients, sediments, and other pollutants, and
results in volatile water levels (“hydrologic bounce”) in surface waters, which degrades habitat for native
aquatic plants and wildlife. Therefore, volume reduction has become an important goal in modern
stormwater design. Different land cover types provide different levels of runoff volume reduction,
depending primarily on the opportunity for infiltration into the soil. Forests and prairies act like sponges in
the landscape, with tree and grass leaves intercepting and absorbing precipitation, their roots sucking up
moisture in shallow soils, and their soils, which typically have high infiltration rates. Impervious surfaces
provide very little reduction in runoff volume. Figure D.3 provides a landscape-scale representation of this
ecosystem service across the City of Mendota Heights. Reference: USDA NRCS 1986.
Figure D.3 Runoff Volume Reduction in Mendota Heights
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 186
Carbon Sequestration
Climate change (driven largely by high and rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air) has underscored
the importance of carbon sequestration. There are various ways to sequester carbon, but our analysis
focuses on the ability of natural ecosystems to extract carbon from the air (in the form of carbon dioxide) and
assimilate that carbon into growing plant matter – both above ground (tree trunks, leaves, herbaceous
plants) and below ground (their root systems, which over time die, enriching the soil with carbon). Different
land cover types provide different levels of carbon sequestration, depending primarily on the nature of the
vegetation growing in the area. Forests typically have the highest rates of carbon sequestration due to their
considerable growth rates and aboveground and below ground biomass. Impervious surfaces do not actively
sequester carbon, and they displace vegetation growth, which otherwise would sequester carbon. Figure D.4
provides a landscape-scale representation of this ecosystem service across the City of Mendota Heights.
References: USEPA 2022, Malak et al. 2021, Tangen et al. 2020, Zhu et al. 2012, Bridgham et al. 2006, West
and Post 2002, Follett et al. 2001, Lal et al. 1999, Birdsey 1996.
Figure D.4 Carbon Sequestration in Mendota Heights
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 187
Appendix E. Practices to Avoid Introducing & Moving Invasive Species (MNDNR)
It is the MNDNR’s policy to limit the introduction of invasive species onto MNDNR managed lands and
waters, limit their rate of geographical spread, and reduce their impact on high value resources.
The movement of equipment, organisms, and organic and inorganic material are potential pathways for the
introduction or spread of invasive species. Each of these pathways should be considered and addressed to
reduce risk associated with invasive species movement.
General Procedures for Intentional Movement of Equipment
1. Before arriving at a work site, inspect for and remove all visible plants, seeds, mud, soil, and animals
from equipment.
2. Before leaving a work site, inspect for and remove all visible plants, seeds, mud, soil and animals
from equipment.
3. After working on infested waters or waters known to harbor pathogens of concern, clean and dry
equipment prior to using in locations not known to be infested with species or pathogens present at
the last location visited.
Specific Procedures: Vehicles and Heavy Equipment
4. When possible maintain separate equipment to use on uninfested sites.
5. If working on multiple sites, work in uninfested sites before infested sites and clean equipment after
use.
6. When working within a site with invasive species work in uninfested areas before infested areas and
clean equipment after use.
7. Avoid entering site under wet conditions to minimize rutting and other soil disturbances.
8. Minimize area of soil disturbance with equipment.
9. Minimize number of access points to site.
10. When creating roads and trails minimize area of vegetation and soil disturbance.
11. Survey site before management treatment and treat or avoid moving equipment through existing
patches of invasive species.
12. Conduct post management treatment monitoring and treat any responding invasive species.
13. Inspect all gear and remove vegetation, soil, and organisms prior to arriving and leaving site.
14. On sites that are known to be infested with species such as garlic mustard, spotted knapweed, leafy
spurge, etc. (species with small seed that can collect on cloth material) wash clothing after work is
complete.
15. Carry boot brush in or on all vehicles and clean boots and clothing (in a controlled area) when leaving
any site.
16. Use brush to clean gear and equipment such as chainsaws to remove loose soil and plant materials.
17. Avoid parking in patches of invasive species. When unavoidable, clean vehicle of all visible evidence
of soil and vegetation when leaving site.
18. Brush off (hand remove) plants, seeds, mud, soil and animals from vehicles, including wheel wells,
tracks, hums, blades, grills, etc.
19. Power spray equipment after hand removal if necessary to remove aquatic plant remnants
(particularly curly-leaf pondweed, Eurasian watermilfoil, flowering rush, and purple loosestrife) and
earthworms.
General Procedures for Intentional Movement of Organisms, Organic and Inorganic Material (including water,
fish, plants, mulch, soil, gravel, rock)
1. Do not plant or introduce prohibited or regulated invasive species or other listed invasive species.
2. Do not transport water from infested waters, except by permit. When you must use water from an
infested waters, do not drain this water or water that has come in contact with organisms from the
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 188
infested waters, where it can run into another basin, river, or drain system that does not go to a
treatment facility.
3. Use only mulch, soil, gravel, etc. that is invasive species-free or has a very low likelihood of having
invasive species.
4. Do not transplant organisms or plant material from any waters with known populations of invasive
aquatic invertebrates
5. Do not move soil, dredge material, or raw wood projects that may harbor invasive species from
infested sites.
Specific Procedures: Re-vegetation (Aquatic and Terrestrial Plants)
1. Do not plant or introduce prohibited or regulated invasive species or other listed invasive species.
2. Inspect transplanted vegetation for signs of invasive species that may be attached to the vegetation
and remove (i.e., other plant material and animals, etc.)
3. Re-vegetate with native species.
4. Preserve existing native vegetation. Peel topsoil that contains natives away from the work zone,
stockpile and then replace it at the end of construction. This can help re-establish native species
quickly.
5. If stockpiled invasive free topsoil isn’t adequate for post-construction landscaping, and black dirt,
sand or gravel must be purchased, purchase invasive species (i.e., worm) free material.
6. Purchase certified weed-free mulch.
7. Inspect outside of storage containers and materials for visible presence of invasive species.
8. If possible, use seeding material, plants, fill, straw, gravel, and mulch that are certified as uninfested.
9. Monitor areas where materials are added for evidence of invasive species germination.
10. When possible minimize the use of outside materials.
Procedures to Minimize the Risk of Increasing the Dominance of Invasive Species on Site
1. Survey site before burning and treat or avoid moving through patches of invasive species before
burn is conducted.
2. Avoid entering site under wet conditions to minimize rutting and other soil disturbances.
3. Conduct post-treatment monitoring and treat any invasive species (such as resprouts and
germination).
Site Planning and Management
Construction activities that disturb the soil surface can expose dormant invasive species seed banks and
create a growth medium that favors invasive plants. Landscaping can also introduce invasive plant species, as
can maintenance activities such as mowing, grading, and stormwater pond maintenance.
Exercise site-level management to minimize the introduction, spread, and impact of invasive species. Site-
level management shall include planning, implementation and evaluation procedures that reduce the risk of
introduction, spread, and impact of invasive species. Procedures include identification of invasive species,
monitoring for invasive species, developing strategies and actions to minimize spread and impact,
implementing management actions, and evaluating success.
References
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Operational Order #113, Invasive Species, May 31, 2007.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Invasive Species Operational Handbook, May 31, 2007.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Standard Protocols for Invasive Species Prevention on
Terrestrial Sites (Draft).
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 189
Appendix F. Studies of Ecosystem Services Response to Restoration and Management
Notes: green = positive effect; yellow = neutral effect
Water Soils & Plants Species Atmosphere Human Focus
Management Activity &
Land Cover Type
Water
Flow
Regula-
tion
Water
Purifi-
cation
Ground-
water
Recharge
Erosion
Control
Carbon
Storage
Wildlife
Popula-
tion
Stabili-
zation
Pollina-
tion
Rare
Species
and
Habitat
Air
Purfica-
tion
Micro
Climate
Modera-
tion
Pest &
Disease
Control
Game &
Fish
Produc-
tion
Genetic &
Wild
Materials
Recrea-
tion,
Tourism,
Spiritual,
Aesthetic
A. Remove Invasive Plants (numbers refer to citations following the table)
Dry-Mesic Forest/Woodland, Mesic
Forest, Altered Forest/Woodland,
Savanna, Shrub/Scrub
2 2 3 3, 14 4, 12 7, 9 9, 12 4 4 2, 10 6 6 6
Dry-Mesic Forest/Woodland, Mesic
Forest, Altered Forest/Woodland,
Savanna, Shrub/Scrub
2 2 3 3, 14 1, 5, 12 7, 9, 13 1, 9, 12 2, 10 6 6 6
Herbaceous Uplands (e.g., Prairie,
Non-native Grassland & Ground
layer of Forest/Woodland
2 2 14 13 7, 9, 13 7, 9 2, 10
Herbaceous Lowlands (e.g., Wet
Meadow, Marsh) 15 15 14 3, 11, 13,
15 3, 9, 13 3, 11
B. Plant Native Species (numbers refer to citations following the table)
Cultural Landscapes (e.g., turf) 4, 11 5, 12 12 4, 11 3, 4 4, 11 2, 14 2, 11 6 6 1, 5 4 5, 15
Forest, Woodland & Savanna 7, 10 7, 10 7, 10 8, 13,
15 7, 8, 9 7 7 7, 10,
13, 15
7, 10, 13,
15 7 7 7, 15
C. Restore Natural Processes (Fire, Hydrology, Erosion Rate, etc.; numbers refer to citations following the table)
Savanna & Shrub/Scrub,
Herbaceous Upland & Lowland 5, 11 5, 11 5 5, 11 4 1, 10, 11 1, 9 1, 10 2 3 1 3 3, 10 1
Prairies & Wetlands 14 14
River, Stream, Lake, Pond 6, 13 6, 13 6, 7, 13 7, 12, 13 8 1 8 7 7 7
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 190
Appendix F. (continued) - Ecosystem Services References
A. Remove Invasive Species
1. Hudson, J.R., J.L. Hanula and S. Horn. 2013. Removing Chinese privet from riparian forests still
benefits pollinators five years later. Biological Conservation 167:355–362.
2. Madritch, M.D. and R.L. Lindroth. 2009. Removal of invasive shrubs reduces exotic earthworm
populations. Biological Invasions 11:663-671.
3. McNeish, R.E., M.E. Benbow and R.W. McEwan. 2017. Removal of the invasive shrub, Lonicera
maackii (Amur Honeysuckle), from a headwater stream riparian zone shifts taxonomic and
functional composition of the aquatic biota. Invasive Plant Science and Management 10:232–
246.
4. Larkin, D.J., J.F. Steffen., R.M Gentile and C.R. Zirbel. 2014. Ecosystem changes following
restoration of a buckthorn-invaded woodland. Restoration Ecology 22:89–97.
5. Hopfensperger, K.N., R.L. Boyce and D. Schenk. 2017. Removing invasive Lonicera maackii and
seeding native plants alters riparian ecosystem function. Ecological Restoration 35:320-327.
6. MNDNR (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources). 2011. Ruffed Grouse in Minnesota: A
Long-Range Plan for Management. Division of Fish and Wildlife, St. Paul MN.
7. Tonietto, R.K. and D.J. Larkin. 2018. Habitat restoration benefits wild bees: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Ecology 55:582–590.
8. Roth, A.M. 2015. Common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), European earthworms, and
ecosystem management: invasion and restoration in Minnesota’s deciduous forests.
Dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis MN.
9. Fiedler, A.K., D.A. Landis and M. Arduser. 2011. Rapid shift in pollinator communities following
invasive species removal. Restoration Ecology 20: 593-602.
10. Allan, B.F., H.P. Dutra., L.S. Goessling., K. Barnett., J.M Chase., R.J. Marquis., G.Pang., G.A.
Storch., R.E. Thach and J.L. Orrock. 2010. Invasive honeysuckle eradication reduces tick-borne
disease risk by altering host dynamics. Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences 107:
18523-18527.
11. DeMeester, J.E. and D.B. Richter. 2009. Restoring restoration: removal of the invasive
plant Microstegium vimineum from a North Carolina wetland. Biological Invasions 12: 781–
793.
12. Hanula, J. L. and S. Horn. 2011. Removing an exotic shrub from riparian forests increases
butterfly abundance and diversity. Forest Ecology and Management 262:674–680.
13. Hanula, J. L. and S. Horn. 2011. Removing an invasive shrub (Chinese privet) increases native
bee diversity and abundance in riparian forests of the southeastern United States. Insect
Conservation and Diversity 4:275-283.
14. Martin, P.A., A.C. Newton and J.M Bullock. 2017. Impacts of invasive plants on carbon pools
depend on both species’ traits and local climate. Ecology 98:1026-1035.
15. Newman, R.M., M. Dunne and T. Ostendorf. 2018. Aquatic plant community of lakes Lucy,
Mitchell, Susan, Riley and Staring within the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed: final report
for 2015-2017. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis MN.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 191
B. Plant Native Species
1. Borsari, B., N. Mundahl., M. F. Vidrine and M. Pastorek. 2014. The significance of micro-prairie
reconstruction in urban environments. The Prairie Naturalist 23:70–77.
2. Harmon-Threatt, A. N. and S.P. Hendrix. 2015. Prairie restorations and bees: the potential
ability of seed mixes to foster native bee communities. Basic and Applied Ecology 16:64–72.
3. Von Haden, A.C. and M.E. Dornbush. 2017. Ecosystem carbon pools, fluxes, and balances
within mature tallgrass prairie restorations. Restoration Ecology 4:549–558.
4. Gascoigne, W.R., D. Hoag., L.Koontz., B.A. Tangen., T.L. Shaffer and R.A. Gleason. 2011. Valuing
ecosystem and economic services across land-use scenarios in the Prairie Pothole Region of the
Dakotas, USA. Ecological Economics 70:1715–1725.
5. USFS (U.S Forest Service). 2019. Ecosystem services from national grasslands. Accessed
2/20/2019 at https://www.fs.fed.us/grasslands/ecoservices/index.shtml.
6. Schulte, L. A., J. Niemi, M. J. Helmers, M. Liebman, J. G. Arbuckle, D. E. James, K. Randall, M. E.
O. Neal, M. D. Tomer, J. C. Tyndall, P. Drobney, J. Neal, G. Van Ryswyk, L. A. Schulte, J. Niemi, M.
J. Helmers, M. Liebman, J. G. Arbuckle and D. E. James. 2017. Prairie strips improve biodiversity
and the delivery of multiple ecosystem services from corn–soybean croplands. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences 114:11247–11252.
7. Nowak, D.J. 2017. Assessing the benefits and economic values of trees. In Ferrini, Francesco;
van den Bosch, Cecil C.K., A. Fini (eds.), Chapter 11, pp. 152-163. Routledge handbook of urban
forestry. New York, NY.
8. Mc Pherson, E.G. 2014. Monitoring Million Trees LA: tree performance during the early years
and future benefits. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 40:285-300.
9. Aerts, R. and O. Honnay. 2011. Forest restoration, biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. BMC
Ecology 29:1-10.
10. S.J. Livesley, E.G. McPherson, and C. Calfapietra. 2016. The urban forest and ecosystem
services: impacts on urban water, heat, and pollution cycles at the tree, street, and city scale.
Journal of Environmental Quality 45:119–124.
11. Helmers, M.J., X. Zhou., H. Asbjornsen., R. Kolka., M. D. Tomer and R. M. Cruse. 2012. Sediment
removal by prairie filter strips in row-cropped ephemeral watersheds. Journal of Environmental
Quality 41:1531–1539.
12. Zhou, X., M.J. Helmers., H. Asbjornsen., R. Kolka and M.D. Tomer. 2010. Perennial filter strips
reduce nitrate levels in soil and shallow groundwater after grassland-to-cropland conversion.
Journal of Environmental Quality 39:2006–2015.
13. Nowak, D.J. and G.M. Heisler. 2010. Air quality effects of trees and parks. National Recreation
and Park Association, Ashburn, VA.
14. Feltham, H. K. Park., J. Minderman and D Goulson. 2015. Experimental evidence that
wildflower strips increase pollinator visits to crops. Ecology and Evolution 5:3523–3530.
15. Elmqvist, T., H.Setala., S.N. Handel., S. der Ploeg., J. Aronson., J.N. Blignaut., E. Gomez-
Baggethun., D.J. Nowak., J.Kronenberg and R.Groot. 2015. Benefits of restoring ecosystem
services in urban areas. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14:101-108.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 192
C. Restore Natural Processes (Fire, Hydrology, Erosion Rate, etc.)
1. Moorman, C., T. Sharpe., J. Evans and L. Thomas. 2016. Using fire to improve wildlife habitat.
North Carolina State University, Raleigh NC.
2. USFS (U.S Forest Service). 2019. Controlled burning. Accessed 2/20/2019 at
https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/dbnf/home/?cid=stelprdb5281464.
3. Walkingstick, T. and H. Liechty. 2004. Why we burn: prescribed burning as a management tool.
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville AR.
4. Sommers, W.T., R.A Loehman and C.C Hardy. 2014. Wildland fire emissions, carbon, and
climate: science overview and knowledge needs. Forest Ecology and Management 317: 1-8.
5. Cawson, J.G., G.J. Sheridan., H.G. Smith and P.N.J. Lane. 2012. Surface runoff and erosion after
prescribed burning and the effect of different fire regimes in forests and shrublands.
International Journal of Wildland Fire 12:857-872.
6. Cluer, B. and C. Thorne. 2013. A stream evolution model integrating habitat and ecosystem
benefits. River Research and Applications 30:135–154.
7. Strayer, D.L. and S.E.G. Findlay. 2010. Ecology of freshwater shore zones. Aquatic Sciences
72:127–163.
8. Raitif, J., J.M. Roussel and M. Plantegenest. 2019. From stream to land: ecosystem services
provided by stream insects to agriculture. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 270-271:32-
40.
9. Hanula, J.L., M. D. Ulyshen and S. Horn. 2016. Conserving pollinators in North American forests:
a review. Natural Area Journal 36:427-439.
10. Ryan, K.C., E. E. Knapp and J. M. Varner. 2013. Prescribed fire in North American forests and
woodlands: history, current practice, and challenges. The Ecological Society of America 1:15-24.
11. Rieman, B. E., P. F. Hessburg, C. Luce and M. R. Dare. 2010. Wildfire and management of
forests and native fishes: conflict or opportunity for convergent solutions? BioScience 60:460–
468.
12. Smiley P. C. and E. D. Dibble. 2007. Influence of spatial resolution on assessing channelization
impacts on fish and macroinvertebrate communities in a warmwater stream in the southeastern
United States. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 138:17-29
13. Pracheil, C.M. 2010. Ecological impacts of stream bank stabilization in a Great Plains river.
Thesis, University of Nebraska, Lincoln NE.
14. Cowdery, T.K., Christenson, C.A., and Ziegeweid, J.R., 2019, The hydrologic benefits of wetland
and prairie restoration in western Minnesota—Lessons learned at the Glacial Ridge National
Wildlife Refuge, 2002–15: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2019–5041, 81
p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20195041.
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 193
Appendix G. Example Outline of a Park Natural Resources Management Plan (NRMP)
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1. Precedent Planning Efforts
2.2. Regional Natural Resource Conservation Context
2.3. Natural Resource Public Values
3. EXISTING NATURAL RESOURCES
3.1. Landscape Context
3.1.1. Location
3.1.2. Regional Natural Resources Context
3.1.3. Adjacent Land Use
3.2. Physical Conditions
3.2.1. Geology
3.2.2. Topography
3.2.3. Soils
3.3. Vegetation
3.3.1. Historical Vegetation and Land Use
3.3.2. Land Cover and Use Trends
3.3.3. Land Cover Mapping and Assessment
3.4. Aquatic Resources
3.4.1. Groundwater and Aquifer Sensitivity
3.4.2. Surface Waters
3.5. Wildlife
3.5.1. General Wildlife Habitat
3.5.2. Wildlife in the Park Today
3.5.3. At Risk Wildlife Populations
3.6. Rare Natural Features
4. NATURAL RESOURCES ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
4.1. Issues
4.1.1. Issue 1
4.2. Opportunities
4.2.1. Opportunity 1
5. NATURAL RESOURCE VISION AND GOALS
5.1. Vision for Park Name
5.2. Goals for Park Name
5.2.1. Goal 1
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 194
5.2.2. Goal 2
5.2.3. Goal 3
6. PARK MANAGEMENT UNITS
6.1. Management Unit 1
6.1.1. Description
6.1.2. Amenities
6.1.3. Plant Communities
6.1.4. Invasive Species
6.1.5. Wildlife
6.1.6. Water
6.1.7. Additional Management Recommendations
6.2. Management Unit 2…
7. MONITORING AND REPORTING
7.1. Monitoring
7.2. Reporting
8. PRIORITIZATION, SCHEDULING AND COSTS
8.1. Prioritization
8.2. Initial Implementation Schedule and Costs
9. REFERENCES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A. Plant Species Inventory (including invasives)
Appendix B. Wildlife Species Inventory (including invasives)
Appendix C. Acceptable Source Location for Native Species Seed
City of Mendota Heights - Natural Resources Management Plan 195
Appendix H. Management Briefs for Priority Projects
Valley Park North
1. NW Forest Enhancement
2. E Forest Enhancement
3. S Oak/Aspen Knoll Enhancement
Rogers Lake Park
4. W Savanna/Forest & N Shoreline Enhancement
Copperfield Ponds Park
5. Isthmus Enhancement
Wentworth Park
6. Forest Enhancement, Aquatic Buffer & Turf-to-Prairie
Hagstrom King Park
7. Oak Woodland Enhancement
Friendly Marsh Park
8. Turf-to-Prairie
VALLEY PARK NORTH - NW FOREST ENHANCEMENT.
IDENTIFIERS & BASIC INFORMATION.
Natural Area Park: Valley Park North Primary Habitat Type(s): Forest
Natural Acres: 8.0 Primary Activity: Enhancement
ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT CONDITIONS.
Site History: Remnant mesic forest and oak savanna.
Existing Vegetation Type, Area & Quality Rank: Altered Forest/Woodland (6.3 ac, NN quality); Mesic Forest (0.3 ac, BC-C quality);
Dry-Mesic Forest/Woodland (1.0 ac, CD quality); Non-Native Grassland (0.4 ac, NN quality)
Current Condition (2021): The project area consists of three patches of forest and woodland, most of which are second-growth
forest. The southern portion of the project area includes Dry-Mesic Forest/Woodland (a fire-dependent plant community) that has
undergone initial restoration work. Adjacent forest/woodland and prairie restoration efforts are ongoing.
RESTORATION & MANAGEMENT ISSUES, GOALS & STRATEGIES.
Issues
- Invasive woody species, primarily Common buckthorn; Invasive herbaceous species, including Garlic mustard
- Historical land uses resulted in low tree species diversity and few age classes
Goals (transition to a natural forest community and increase biodiversity by implementing the following)
- Maintain/establish ≥90% canopy cover
- Control invasive species, including those listed above
- Improve biodiversity by increasing abundance and diversity of native plants throughout area
Strategies
- Use prescribed fire where feasible for site preparation and management
- Manually remove invasive vegetation where safe and feasible
- Conduct stump and foliar spray treatments
- Spot spray invasive vegetation where manual removal infeasible
- Install native trees, shrubs, live plant plugs, and seed to diversify canopy (over time), shrub stratum, and ground layer; for
Dry-Mesic Forest/Woodland see MNDNR species lists for MHs37 (Southern Dry-Mesic Oak Forest) and narrative for UPs24
(Southern Mesic Savanna) and species lists for UPs23 (Southern Mesic Prairie, understory species appropriate for mesic
savanna); for remaining forests see MHs38 (Southern Mesic Oak-Basswood Forest) and MHs39 (Southern Mesic Maple-
Basswood Forest)
RESTORATION & MANAGEMENT TASKS, TIMEFRAME, INDICATORS OF SUCCESS & COSTS (OPC).
Restoration/Management Task Timeframe Indicator of Success OPC (first 3 yrs)
Restore processes: Conduct prescribed
burn when and where feasible for site
preparation and initial management
Yr 1 (prep of Non-Native Grassland
and Dry-Mesic Forest/Woodland) ≥80% of target vegetation burned $503
Restore structure: Remove invasive
trees/shrubs Yr 1, dormant season All target woody species cut & treated $22,466
Restore structure: Treat woody re-
sprouts & seedlings Yrs 2-3 (min.), fall <3% cover by target woody species $6,881
Restore structure: Broadcast herbicide Yr 1, 2x during growing season All Non-Native Grassland killed prior to seeding $287
Introduce species diversity: Install
native trees/shrubs
Phased in following adequate
preparation and with available
resources
Tree/shrub strata diversified (≥5 native tree
species and ≥5 native shrub species well
distributed), with ≥90% canopy cover achieved in
forests in 10 yrs
$7,330
Introduce species diversity: Native
seeding (and mulching where
warranted)
Yr 1 (Non-Native Grassland seeded
& mulched); other areas overseed
following adequate preparation
and with available resources
All Non-Native Grassland seeded & mulched;
≥50% of seeded species germinate, survive, and
are well distributed in all seeding zones
$9,704
Introduce species diversity: Native
herbaceous plantings
Optional, phased in with available
resources ≥50% survivorship of live plantings $0
Continue short-term management:
Management mow Yr 2 (2x), Yr 3 (1x) All Non-Native Grassland mowed after seeding $287
Continue short-term management:
Spot herbicide Yrs 1-3, semi-annually <3% cover by target herbaceous species by end of
Yr 3 $11,119
Restore processes: Prescribed burn Yr 3 (where sufficient fuel) ≥80% of target vegetation burned $1,226
Practice adaptive management:
Ecological monitoring/oversight Yrs 1-3, at least annually Inspection report of findings & recommendations $4,249
Total Cost (first 3 yrs): $64,052
VALLEY PARK NORTH - E FOREST ENHANCEMENT.
IDENTIFIERS & BASIC INFORMATION.
Natural Area Park: Valley Park North Primary Habitat Type(s): Forest
Natural Acres: 3.7 Primary Activity: Enhancement
ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT CONDITIONS.
Site History: Remnant mesic forest.
Existing Vegetation Type, Area & Quality Rank: Mesic Forest (3.7 ac, C quality)
Current Condition (2021): The project area consists of a remnant Mesic Forest located primarily within a ravine. A variety of native
trees are present, as are patches of native wildflowers. An intermittent drainageway flows west into Big Foot/Interstate Valley
Creek. Most of the project area exhibits moderate to steep slopes, some of which contain patches of bare soil.
RESTORATION & MANAGEMENT ISSUES, GOALS & STRATEGIES.
Issues
- Invasive woody species, primarily Common buckthorn (but generally not dense/abundant)
- Invasive herbaceous species, including Garlic mustard
- Extensive sheet erosion on steep slopes, and some channel downcutting and bank erosion in ravine
Goals (transition to a natural forest community and increase biodiversity by implementing the following)
- Maintain/establish ≥90% canopy cover
- Control invasive species, including those listed above
- Establish ≥90% cover by soil-anchoring herbaceous vegetation in ground layer to reduce sheet erosion on slopes
- Improve biodiversity by increasing abundance and diversity of native plants throughout area
- Better manage upstream stormwater to reduce flashy flows and erosion in ravine
Strategies
- Manually remove invasive vegetation where feasible
- Conduct stump and foliar spray treatments
- Spot spray invasive vegetation where manual removal infeasible
- Install native seed to increase ground layer cover and stabilize soils
- Install native trees, shrubs, live plant plugs, and seed to diversify canopy (over time), shrub stratum, and ground layer; see
MNDNR species lists for MHs38 (Southern Mesic Oak-Basswood Forest) and MHs39 (Southern Mesic Maple-Basswood Forest)
- Install stormwater BMPs (e.g., rain gardens) in contributing watershed to reduce volume and rate and improve water quality.
RESTORATION & MANAGEMENT TASKS, TIMEFRAME, INDICATORS OF SUCCESS & COSTS (OPC).
Restoration/Management Task Timeframe Indicator of Success OPC (first 3 yrs)
Restore structure: Remove invasive
trees/shrubs Yr 1, dormant season All target woody species cut & treated $9,164
Restore structure: Treat woody re-
sprouts & seedlings Yrs 2-3 (min.), fall <3% cover by target woody species $3,297
Restore structure: Native overseeding
of soil-stabilizing herbaceous species
Yr 1 or 2, following adequate
preparation
≥50% of seeded species germinate, survive, and
are well distributed in all seeding zones, resulting
in ≥90% ground layer cover
$4,396
Introduce species diversity: Install
native trees/shrubs
Phased in following adequate
preparation and with available
resources
Tree/shrub strata diversified (≥5 native tree
species and ≥5 native shrub species well
distributed), with ≥90% canopy cover maintained
$2,203
Introduce additional species diversity:
Native overseeding
Optional, phased in following
stabilization overseeding (under
“Restore structure” above) and
with available resources
≥50% of seeded species germinate, survive, and
are well distributed in all seeding zones $0
Introduce species diversity: Native
herbaceous plantings
Optional, phased in with available
resources ≥50% survivorship of live plantings $0
Continue short-term management:
Spot herbicide Yrs 1-3, semi-annually <3% cover by target herbaceous species by end of
Yr 3 $3,304
Restore processes: Identify and
implement stormwater BMPs in
watershed
Optional, phased in with available
resources
Ravine downcutting and bank erosion reduced
(measurable indicator of success to be
determined)
$0
Practice adaptive management:
Ecological monitoring/oversight Yrs 1-3, at least annually Inspection report of findings & recommendations $2,559
Total Cost (first 3 yrs): $24,923
VALLEY PARK NORTH – S OAK/ASPEN KNOLL ENHANCEMENT.
IDENTIFIERS & BASIC INFORMATION.
Natural Area Park: Valley Park North Primary Habitat Type(s): Woodland
Natural Acres: 1.5 Primary Activity: Enhancement
ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT CONDITIONS.
Site History: Remnant oak woodland.
Existing Vegetation Type, Area & Quality Rank: Dry-Mesic Forest/Woodland (1.5 ac, CD quality)
Current Condition (2021): The project area is a woodland knoll dominated by Bur oaks and Quaking aspen. This is a fire-dependent
plant community. The eastern portion of the project area has already been brushed and overseeded with natives; however, the
western portion contains dense buckthorn and other invasive species.
RESTORATION & MANAGEMENT ISSUES, GOALS & STRATEGIES.
Issues
- Invasive woody species, primarily Common buckthorn
- Invasive herbaceous species, including Garlic mustard, Common burdock, and Japanese hedge parsley
- Fire suppression has led to aggressive woody growth
Goals (transition to a natural savanna/woodland community and increase biodiversity by implementing the following)
- Maintain/establish 50-70% canopy cover
- Control invasive species, including those listed above
- Improve biodiversity by increasing abundance and diversity of native plants throughout area
Strategies
- Use prescribed fire where feasible for site preparation and management of this fire-dependent plant community
- Manually remove invasive vegetation where feasible
- Conduct stump and foliar spray treatments
- Spot spray invasive vegetation where manual removal infeasible
- Install native trees, shrubs, live plant plugs, and seed to diversify canopy (over time), shrub stratum, and ground layer; see
MNDNR species lists for MHs37 (Southern Dry-Mesic Oak Forest); see narrative for UPs24 (Southern Mesic Savanna) and species
lists for UPs23 (Southern Mesic Prairie, understory species appropriate for mesic savanna)
RESTORATION & MANAGEMENT TASKS, TIMEFRAME, INDICATORS OF SUCCESS & COSTS (OPC).
Restoration/Management Task Timeframe Indicator of Success OPC (first 3 yrs)
Restore processes: Conduct prescribed
burn when and where feasible for site
preparation and initial management
Yr 1 ≥80% of target vegetation burned $1,224
Restore structure: Remove invasive
trees/shrubs Yr 1, dormant season All target woody species cut & treated $2,294
Restore structure: Treat woody re-
sprouts & seedlings Yrs 2-3 (min.), fall <3% cover by target woody species $1,147
Introduce species diversity: Install
native trees/shrubs
Phased in following adequate
preparation and with available
resources
Tree/shrub strata diversified (≥5 native tree
species and ≥5 native shrub species well
distributed), with 50-70% canopy cover
maintained
$1,223
Introduce species diversity: Native
overseeding
Phased in following adequate
preparation and with available
resources
≥50% of seeded species germinate, survive, and
are well distributed in all seeding zones $1,529
Introduce species diversity: Native
herbaceous plantings
Optional, phased in with available
resources ≥50% survivorship of live plantings $0
Continue short-term management:
Spot herbicide and/or spot mow Yrs 1-3, semi-annually <3% cover by target herbaceous species by end of
Yr 3 $1,376
Restore processes: Prescribed burn Yr 3 ≥80% of target vegetation burned $1,224
Practice adaptive management:
Ecological monitoring/oversight Yrs 1-3, at least annually Inspection report of findings & recommendations $1,070
Total Cost (first 3 yrs): $11,087
ROGERS LAKE PARK – W SAVANNA/FOREST &.N SHORELINE ENHANCEMENT.
IDENTIFIERS & BASIC INFORMATION.
Natural Area Park: Rogers Lake Park Primary Habitat Type(s): Savanna, Lowland Forest & Prairie
Natural Acres: 7.9 Primary Activity: Enhancement
ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT CONDITIONS.
Site History: Remnant oak savanna, lowland forest, and mesic-wet prairie.
Existing Vegetation Type, Area & Quality Rank: Savanna (3.2 ac, CD quality); Lowland Forest (2.6 ac, CD-D quality); Altered
Forest/Woodland (1.1 ac, NN quality); Marsh (0.7 ac, D quality); Shrub/Scrub (0.2 ac, NN quality); Prairie (0.1 ac, C to NN quality)
Current Condition (2021): The project area is a mosaic of wooded and more open habitats. Previous restoration work created the
project area’s NE sliver of shoreline prairie, and significant brushing was underway in the savanna and forests.
RESTORATION & MANAGEMENT ISSUES, GOALS & STRATEGIES.
Issues
- Invasive woody species, primarily Siberian elm and Common buckthorn
- Invasive herbaceous species, including Garlic mustard, invasive cattails, and Reed canary grass (Purple loosestrife nearby)
- Fire suppression has led to aggressive woody growth in Savanna
Goals (transition to healthier natural communities and increase biodiversity by implementing the following)
- Maintain/establish 50-70% canopy cover in Savanna and ≥90% canopy cover in remaining forests
- Restore native vegetation to Marsh
- Control invasive species, including those listed above
- Improve biodiversity by increasing abundance and diversity of native plants throughout area
Strategies
- Use prescribed fire where feasible for site preparation and management of fire-dependent plant communities
- Manually remove invasive vegetation where feasible
- Conduct stump and foliar spray treatments
- Spot spray invasive vegetation where manual removal infeasible
- Install native trees, shrubs, live plant plugs, and seed to diversify canopy (over time), shrub stratum, and ground layer;
for Savanna and Shrub/Scrub see MNDNR narrative for UPs24 (Southern Mesic Savanna) and species lists for UPs23 (Southern
Mesic Prairie, understory species appropriate for mesic savannas); for other forests see MHs37 (Southern Dry-Mesic Oak
Forest), MHs38 (Southern Mesic Oak-Basswood Forest), MHs39 (Southern Mesic Maple-Basswood Forest), and FFs59 (Southern
Terrace Forest); for Marsh see MRn83 (Northern Mixed Cattail Marsh) and MRn93 (Northern Bulrush-Spikerush Marsh); for
Prairie see UPs23 (Southern Mesic Prairie) and WPs54 (Southern Wet Prairie)
RESTORATION & MANAGEMENT TASKS, TIMEFRAME, INDICATORS OF SUCCESS & COSTS (OPC).
Restoration/Management Task Timeframe Indicator of Success OPC (first 3 yrs)
Restore processes: Conduct prescribed
burn when and where feasible for site
preparation and initial management
Yr 1 ≥80% of target vegetation burned $3,457
Restore structure: Remove invasive
trees/shrubs Yr 1, dormant season All target woody species cut & treated $13,312
Restore structure: Treat woody re-
sprouts & seedlings Yrs 2-3 (min.), fall <3% cover by target woody species $6,562
Restore structure: Broadcast herbicide Yr 1, 2x during growing season All invasive Marsh vegetation killed prior to
seeding $654
Introduce species diversity: Install
native trees/shrubs
Phased in following adequate
preparation and with available
resources
Tree/shrub strata diversified (≥5 native tree
species and ≥5 native shrub species well
distributed), with 50-70% canopy cover
maintained
$5,341
Introduce species diversity: Native
seeding
Phased in following adequate
preparation and with available
resources
≥50% of seeded species germinate, survive, and
are well distributed in all seeding zones $8,859
Introduce species diversity: Native
herbaceous plantings
Optional, phased in with available
resources ≥50% survivorship of live plantings $0
Continue short-term management:
Spot herbicide and/or spot mow Yrs 1-3, semi-annually <3% cover by target herbaceous species by end of
Yr 3 $9,366
Restore processes: Prescribed burn Yr 3 ≥80% of target vegetation burned $2,400
Practice adaptive management:
Ecological monitoring/oversight Yrs 1-3, at least annually Inspection report of findings & recommendations $4,260
Total Cost (first 3 yrs): $54,211
COPPERFIELD PONDS PARK – ISTHMUS ENHANCEMENT.
IDENTIFIERS & BASIC INFORMATION.
Natural Area Park: Copperfield Ponds Park Primary Habitat Type(s): Forest, Woodland & Shrub/Scrub
Natural Acres: 5.3 Primary Activity: Enhancement
ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT CONDITIONS.
Site History: Disturbed site with patches of remnant oak forest/woodland.
Existing Vegetation Type, Area & Quality Rank: Altered Forest/Woodland (2.3 ac, NN quality); Shrub/Scrub (2.1 ac, D to NN quality);
Mesic Forest (0.7 ac, CD to D quality); Lowland Forest (0.2 ac, D quality)
Current Condition (2021): The project area is a mosaic of wooded and more open habitats. Previous restoration work included
limited prairie planting, and removal of invasive Siberian elm and brushing was underway.
RESTORATION & MANAGEMENT ISSUES, GOALS & STRATEGIES.
Issues
- Invasive woody species, including Siberian elm, Common buckthorn, invasive honeysuckles, and significant Amur maple
- Invasive herbaceous species, including Garlic mustard, Japanese hedge parsley, and Common burdock
- Fire suppression has led to aggressive woody growth in forests/woodlands
Goals (transition to healthier natural communities and increase biodiversity by implementing the following)
- Maintain/establish ≥90% canopy cover in areas maintained as forest and 50-70% canopy cover in areas maintained as Savanna
- Control invasive species, including those listed above
- Improve biodiversity by increasing abundance and diversity of native plants throughout area
Strategies
- Use prescribed fire where feasible for site preparation and management of fire-dependent plant communities
- Manually remove invasive vegetation where feasible
- Conduct stump and foliar spray treatments
- Spot spray invasive vegetation where manual removal infeasible
- Install native trees, shrubs, live plant plugs, and seed to diversify canopy (over time), shrub stratum, and ground layer; for
forests see MNDNR species lists for MHs37 (Southern Dry-Mesic Oak Forest), MHs38 (Southern Mesic Oak-Basswood Forest),
MHs39 (Southern Mesic Maple-Basswood Forest), and FFs59 (Southern Terrace Forest); for Savanna see narrative for UPs24
(Southern Mesic Savanna) and species lists for UPs23 (Southern Mesic Prairie, understory species appropriate for mesic
savannas); for more open areas (i.e., Prairie) see UPs23 (Southern Mesic Prairie)
RESTORATION & MANAGEMENT TASKS, TIMEFRAME, INDICATORS OF SUCCESS & COSTS (OPC).
Restoration/Management Task Timeframe Indicator of Success OPC (first 3 yrs)
Restore processes: Conduct prescribed
burn when and where feasible for site
preparation and initial management
Yr 1 ≥80% of target vegetation burned $1,900
Restore structure: Remove invasive
trees/shrubs Yr 1, dormant season All target woody species cut & treated $11,752
Restore structure: Treat woody re-
sprouts & seedlings Yrs 2-3 (min.), fall <3% cover by target woody species $4,759
Introduce species diversity: Install
native trees/shrubs
Phased in following adequate
preparation and with available
resources
Tree/shrub strata diversified (≥5 native tree
species and ≥5 native shrub species well
distributed), with 50-70% canopy cover
maintained
$3,625
Introduce species diversity: Native
overseeding
Phased in following adequate
preparation and with available
resources
≥50% of seeded species germinate, survive, and
are well distributed in all seeding zones $6,167
Introduce species diversity: Native
herbaceous plantings
Optional, phased in with available
resources ≥50% survivorship of live plantings $0
Continue short-term management:
Spot herbicide and/or spot mow Yrs 1-3, semi-annually <3% cover by target herbaceous species by end of
Yr 3 $7,397
Restore processes: Prescribed burn Yr 3 ≥80% of target vegetation burned $1,041
Practice adaptive management:
Ecological monitoring/oversight Yrs 1-3, at least annually Inspection report of findings & recommendations $2,998
Total Cost (first 3 yrs): $39,639
WENTWORTH PARK – FOREST ENHANCEMENT, AQUATIC BUFFER &.
TURF-TO-PRAIRIE.
IDENTIFIERS & BASIC INFORMATION.
Natural Area Park: Wentworth Park Primary Habitat Type(s): Forest & Turf
Natural Acres: 2.2 Primary Activity: Convert turf to prairie and enhancement
ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT CONDITIONS.
Site History: Disturbed site with no remnant native plant communities.
Existing Vegetation Type, Area & Quality Rank: Turf (1.5 ac, NN quality); Altered Forest/Woodland (0.5 ac, NN quality); pond
shoreline (0.2 ac, NN quality)
Current Condition (2021): The project area is primarily maintained turf with a patch of second-growth forest and an excavated
pond.
RESTORATION & MANAGEMENT ISSUES, GOALS & STRATEGIES.
Issues
- Low-use, high-maintenance turf
- Poor quality patch of forest and pond
- Invasive woody species, including Common buckthorn, invasive honeysuckles, and White mulberry
- Invasive herbaceous species, including Garlic mustard, Dame’s rocket, and Common burdock
Goals (convert to, or enhance existing, natural communities and increase biodiversity by implementing the following)
- Maintain ≥90% canopy cover in forest patch
- Control invasive species, including those listed above
- Establish diverse native Prairie areas
- Augment seeded native aquatic buffer around pond by installing live emergent plants
Strategies
- Use prescribed fire for management of Prairie and aquatic buffer
- Manually remove invasive vegetation where feasible
- Conduct stump and foliar spray treatments
- Spot spray invasive vegetation where manual removal infeasible
- Install native trees, shrubs, live plant plugs, and seed to establish or diversify forest canopy (over time), shrub stratum, and
ground layer; for forest see MNDNR species lists for MHs38 (Southern Mesic Oak-Basswood Forest) and MHs39 (Southern Mesic
Maple-Basswood Forest); for Prairie see UPs23 (Southern Mesic Prairie, for majority of project area) and WPs54 (Southern Wet
Prairie, for buffer around pond); for aquatic edge of pond see MNDNR species lists for MRn83 (Northern Mixed Cattail Marsh)
and MRn93 (Northern Bulrush-Spikerush Marsh)
RESTORATION & MANAGEMENT TASKS, TIMEFRAME, INDICATORS OF SUCCESS & COSTS (OPC).
Restoration/Management Task Timeframe Indicator of Success OPC (first 3 yrs)
Restore structure: Remove invasive
trees/shrubs Yr 1, dormant season All target woody species cut & treated $1,568
Restore structure: Treat woody re-
sprouts & seedlings Yrs 2-3 (min.), fall <3% cover by target woody species $470
Restore structure: Broadcast herbicide Yr 1, 2x during growing season All turf killed prior to seeding $770
Introduce species diversity: Install
native trees/shrubs
Phased in following adequate
preparation and with available
resources
Tree/shrub strata diversified (≥5 native tree
species and ≥5 native shrub species well
distributed), with 50-70% canopy cover
maintained
$523
Introduce species diversity: Native
seeding (drill seed into killed turf areas)
Yr 1 (turf-to-prairie seeded); other
areas overseed following adequate
preparation and with available
resources
All Prairie seeded; ≥50% of seeded species
germinate, survive, and are well distributed in all
seeding zones
$2,675
Introduce species diversity: Native
herbaceous plantings (emergent zone)
Optional, phased in with available
resources ≥50% survivorship of live plantings $2,500
Continue short-term management:
Spot herbicide and/or spot mow Yrs 1-3, semi-annually <3% cover by target herbaceous species by end of
Yr 3 $3,856
Restore processes: Prescribed burn Yr 3 ≥80% of target vegetation burned $1,540
Practice adaptive management:
Ecological monitoring/oversight Yrs 1-3, at least annually Inspection report of findings & recommendations $1,557
Total Cost (first 3 yrs): $15,459
HAGSTROM KING PARK – OAK WOODLAND ENHANCEMENT.
IDENTIFIERS & BASIC INFORMATION.
Natural Area Park: Hagstrom King Park Primary Habitat Type(s): Woodland
Natural Acres: 0.6 Primary Activity: Enhancement
ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT CONDITIONS.
Site History: Remnant oak woodland.
Existing Vegetation Type, Area & Quality Rank: Mesic Forest (0.6 ac, D quality); some Dry-Mesic Forest/Woodland attributes
Current Condition (2021): The project area is a woodland dominated by Bur oak, Northern pin oak, and Black cherry. While
classified as Mesic Forest (due to shrub and ground layer species observed), over time this can likely be maintained with prescribed
fire. Several oaks have succumbed to oak wilt, but several Bur oaks appear healthy.
RESTORATION & MANAGEMENT ISSUES, GOALS & STRATEGIES.
Issues
- Invasive woody species, primarily Common buckthorn, invasive honeysuckles, and Siberian elm
- Invasive herbaceous species, including Garlic mustard and Common burdock
- Fire suppression has led to aggressive woody growth
- Oak wilt resulting in loss of mature canopy trees
Goals (transition to a natural savanna/woodland community and increase biodiversity by implementing the following)
- Maintain/establish 50-70% canopy cover
- Control invasive species, including those listed above
- Improve biodiversity by increasing abundance and diversity of native plants throughout area
Strategies
- Use prescribed fire where feasible for site preparation and management
- Manually remove invasive vegetation where feasible
- Conduct stump and foliar spray treatments
- Spot spray invasive vegetation where manual removal infeasible
- Install native trees, shrubs, live plant plugs, and seed to diversify canopy (over time), shrub stratum, and ground layer; see
MNDNR species lists for MHs37 (Southern Dry-Mesic Oak Forest); see narrative for UPs24 (Southern Mesic Savanna) and species
lists for UPs23 (Southern Mesic Prairie, understory species appropriate for mesic savanna)
RESTORATION & MANAGEMENT TASKS, TIMEFRAME, INDICATORS OF SUCCESS & COSTS (OPC).
Restoration/Management Task Timeframe Indicator of Success OPC (first 3 yrs)
Restore processes: Conduct prescribed
burn when and where feasible for site
preparation and initial management
Yr 1 ≥80% of target vegetation burned $747
Restore structure: Remove invasive
trees/shrubs Yr 1, dormant season All target woody species cut & treated $1,435
Restore structure: Treat woody re-
sprouts & seedlings Yrs 2-3 (min.), fall <3% cover by target woody species $574
Introduce species diversity: Install
native trees/shrubs
Phased in following adequate
preparation and with available
resources
Tree/shrub strata diversified (≥5 native tree
species and ≥5 native shrub species well
distributed), with 50-70% canopy cover
maintained
$574
Introduce species diversity: Native
overseeding
Phased in following adequate
preparation and with available
resources
≥50% of seeded species germinate, survive, and
are well distributed in all seeding zones $574
Introduce species diversity: Native
herbaceous plantings
Optional, phased in with available
resources ≥50% survivorship of live plantings $0
Continue short-term management:
Spot herbicide and/or spot mow Yrs 1-3, semi-annually <3% cover by target herbaceous species by end of
Yr 3 $919
Restore processes: Prescribed burn Yr 3 ≥80% of target vegetation burned $747
Practice adaptive management:
Ecological monitoring/oversight Yrs 1-3, at least annually Inspection report of findings & recommendations $459
Total Cost (first 3 yrs): $6,029
FRIENDLY MARSH PARK – TURF-TO-PRAIRIE.
IDENTIFIERS & BASIC INFORMATION.
Natural Area Park: Friendly Marsh Park Primary Habitat Type(s): Turf
Natural Acres: 1.3 Primary Activity: Convert turf to prairie
ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT CONDITIONS.
Site History: Disturbed site with no remnant native plant communities.
Existing Vegetation Type, Area & Quality Rank: Turf (1.3 ac, NN quality)
Current Condition (2021): The project area is maintained turf. A paved trail runs north-south to the west of the project area.
RESTORATION & MANAGEMENT ISSUES, GOALS & STRATEGIES.
Issues
- Low-use, high-maintenance turf
Goals (convert to native Prairie and increase biodiversity by implementing the following)
- Establish diverse native Prairie
Strategies
- Use prescribed fire for management
- Install native seed (and optionally live plant plugs); see MNDNR species lists for UPs23 (Southern Mesic Prairie, for higher/drier
portions of project area) and WPs54 (Southern Wet Prairie, for lower/wetter portions of project area)
RESTORATION & MANAGEMENT TASKS, TIMEFRAME, INDICATORS OF SUCCESS & COSTS (OPC).
Restoration/Management Task Timeframe Indicator of Success OPC (first 3 yrs)
Restore structure: Broadcast herbicide Yr 1, 2x during growing season All turf killed prior to seeding $660
Introduce species diversity: Native
seeding (drill seed into killed turf)
Yr 1, following adequate
preparation
All Prairie seeded; ≥50% of seeded species
germinate, survive, and are well distributed in
seeding area
$1,584
Introduce species diversity: Native
herbaceous plantings
Optional, phased in with available
resources ≥50% survivorship of live plantings $0
Continue short-term management:
Spot herbicide and/or spot mow Yrs 1-3, semi-annually <3% cover by target herbaceous species by end of
Yr 3 $2,376
Restore processes: Prescribed burn Yr 3 ≥80% of target vegetation burned $1,320
Practice adaptive management:
Ecological monitoring/oversight Yrs 1-3, at least annually Inspection report of findings & recommendations $792
Total Cost (first 3 yrs): $6,732
This page left intentionally blank
Appendix I. Species Lists for Mendota Heights Native Plant Communities (MNDNR 2005)
Note: The following native species lists are a useful guide for restoring and enhancing Mendota Heights’ various
types of natural areas. However, due to past human disturbances and other ecological stressors, attention must
be paid to each particular site’s existing environmental conditions, and projected future conditions (e.g., in light
of climate change) should be considered.
SPECIES LISTS FOR MENDOTA HEIGHTS NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES
1. Southern Dry-Mesic Oak Forest (MHs37)
2. Southern Mesic Oak-Basswood Forest (MHs38)
3. Southern Mesic Maple-Basswood Forest (MHs39)
4. Southern Terrace Forest (FFs59)
5. Southern Mesic Savanna (UPs24) – narrative, not species lists
6. Southern Mesic Prairie (UPs23)
7. Southern Wet Prairie (WPs54)
8. Northern Mixed Cattail Marsh (MRn83)
9. Northern Bulrush-Spikerush Marsh (MRn93)
Appendix J. Conservation Core & Connection Opportunities in Mendota Heights
The Conservation Concept developed for Mendota Heights (Figure 22) envisions how existing natural
areas (including the ten identified core habitats) could be better connected to each other, expanded,
and enhanced to ensure their ecological health and resilience. Some of these areas are publicly-owned,
but many are private lands. Willing landowners, cooperative agreements among institutions, and much
coordination are needed to advance this Conservation Concept. However, this approach offers
tremendous potential to prevent further habitat loss, reverse landscape fragmentation, improve the
health and resilience of natural areas, stabilize and restore wildlife populations, and prevent rare species
from disappearing.
Conservation easements and fee-title acquisition of core habitats, adjacent natural areas, and connections
has been essential for decades to the success of The Nature Conservancy, Minnesota Land Trust, Trust for
Public Lands, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ducks Unlimited,
Pheasants Forever, and other conservation entities. The history and successes of land trusts can be found
in Conservancy: The Land Trust Movement in America (Brewer 2003). Land Protection Options: A
Handbook for Minnesota Landowners (The Nature Conservancy 1996) is an excellent resource for those
wishing to understand the complex and myriad tools available to protect natural areas in perpetuity.
An essential early step to realizing the Conservation Concept is to solicit the support of partners,
funders, political leaders, and community members to create and sustain ecologically meaningful
connections that link the City’s natural areas. Some of these connections exist to a degree today, others
will take decades to realize, while still others may exist only as aerial connections; i.e., used by birds,
flying insects, and wind-disseminated seeds. Based on analysis of land cover, plant communities, and
land ownership, as well as discussions with City staff and in consideration of feedback from the Steering
Committee, three “conservation improvement districts” were identified and are presented in priority
order below. In each district, opportunities are summarized for: 1) better connecting core habitats
through improved linkages of native vegetation and mitigating obstacles to terrestrial wildlife (e.g., road
crossings), 2) expanding cores by working with private landowners and other partners to establish
conservation easements or other protections, and 3) general ecological restoration and enhancement
activities in improve habitat quality in cores and along connections.
1. River to River Greenway District. Connection opportunities in this district focus on the three most
important core habitats in the City: Dodge Nature Preserve, Valley Park North, and Valley Park South,
with connections to other lower priority but nearby cores. The existing Dakota County “River to River
Greenway” runs along the western and southern portions of this district and is described as follows:
The River to River Greenway connects Lilydale, Mendota Heights, West St. Paul and South St.
Paul. The trail is in place between Robert Street and the Mississippi River in South St. Paul.
Future construction projects will link Valley Park in Mendota Heights to the area near Dodge
Nature Center in West St. Paul.
Some of the best opportunities to improve the ecological health and resilience in this district are shown
in Figure J.1 and discussed below.
Figure J.1. River to River Greenway District
Core habitats (numbered) can be connected at four primary locations (yellow arrows), with secondary connections
elsewhere (blue arrows).
Connect Cores
This district’s primary connectors (yellow arrows in Figure J.1) are the most important and are discussed
below.
Valley Park - Dodge Connection. Perhaps the most important connection in this district is the
corridor between Valley Park South and Dodge Nature Preserve. Highway 62 presents a formidable
challenge to connectivity between these two core habitats; however, the existing greenway trail
provides an underpass beneath the highway. While this underpass was not designed to
accommodate terrestrial wildlife, it does provide a relatively safe corridor from Valley Park South to
Dodge Nature Preserve and may be used by some mammals, amphibians, reptiles and insects.
With carefully designed native plantings and fencing to help guide wildlife, the narrow strip for the
trail on the north side of Highway 62 and the underpass itself could be modified to encourage
wildlife to move through the connector and underpass.
Valley Park – Hidden Creek Connection. The Mendota Heights Par 3 golf course provides a publicly-
owned connection between Valley Park North and the Hidden Creek Trail Neighborhood. While
conventional golf courses have limited value as ecological connections, they can provide safe
passage for wildlife, and converting out of play areas to native plant communities can greatly
increase their function as connectors. Dodd Road presents a hazard to wildlife crossing. This
crossing (and other road hazards discussed below) could be mitigated by installing a wildlife
underpass (i.e., a properly designed culvert usable by terrestrial wildlife) and/or placing signage or
painting the road surface cautioning drivers to slow down and watch for wildlife crossing the road.
Valley Park - Wentworth Connection. A drainageway that flows from Wentworth Park to Valley
Park North passes through private residential parcels. Cooperation with or incentives for these
landowners could establish a more naturalized habitat connection between the cores. Wachtler
Ave. presents a hazard to wildlife crossing, which could be mitigated as described above.
Valley Park - Ivy Falls Connection. Valley Park North could be better connected to Ivy Falls Ravine
by enhancing the Xcel Energy powerline right-of-way and improving the adjacent forests. Wachtler
Ave. presents a hazard to wildlife crossing, which could be mitigated as described above.
Additional (secondary) connections (blue arrows in Figure J.1) are discussed below.
Valley Park North - South Connection. While Valley Park North and Valley Park South are nearly
connected, Marie Ave. W presents a hazard to wildlife crossing between these two cores. This
crossing could be mitigated as described above.
Ivy Falls – Wentworth & Hidden Creek Connection. Connectivity between Ivy Falls Ravine and
Wentworth Park and/or Hidden Creek Trail Neighborhood could be improved through Somerset
Country Club. As discussed above under the Valley Park – Hidden Creek Connection, there are
opportunities for making Somerset Country Club (predominantly a golf course) a more effective
connector. Dodd Road and Wentworth Ave. present hazards to wildlife crossing, which could be
mitigated as described above.
Dodge - Hidden Creek Connection. Dodge Nature Preserve somewhat connects to Hidden Creek
Trail Neighborhood along the Mendota-Lebanon Hills Greenway, under Highway 62, and along the
River to River Greenway (running along the west edge of Henry Sibley High School). However, the
Greenways are generally quite narrow, and Marie Ave. W presents a hazard to wildlife crossing,
which could be mitigated as described above.
Valley Park - Mississippi River Connection. Valley Park North connects to the Mississippi River
corridor via Lilydale Road, which goes under Highway 13 and crosses the railroad tracks that parallel
the river. These roads and railroad tracks present hazards to wildlife, which could be mitigated as
described above.
Ivy Falls - Mississippi River Valley Connection. Ivy Falls Ravine connects to the Mississippi River
Valley via the drainage ravine that flows beneath Highway 13 into Pickerel Lake. Fencing could be
used to help guide wildlife to this safe under-passage; however, the steep ravine slopes may present
challenges for some species.
Expand & Protect Cores
Protect private and other non-City land through voluntary acquisitions or conservation easements in the
following locations:
• East of Valley Park South would help widen this core habitat and improve the connection to
Dodge Nature Preserve.
• East of Valley Park North would widen this relatively narrow core.
• Land surrounding Ivy Falls Ravine would expand this higher quality natural area and improve
connectivity to other core areas.
• Land within the Hidden Creek Trail Neighborhood would expand this core.
Restore & Enhance Cores
Several ecological restoration and enhancement projects are ongoing in this district; namely,
forest/woodland and prairie restoration in Valley Park North. Additional restoration and enhancement
project opportunities include:
• Continue and expand ecological restoration and enhancement of all natural areas in City parks.
• Provide cost-share, technical support, and/or other incentives to promote restoration and
enhancement on private properties included in the Conservation Concept.
2. Minnesota River – Rogers Lake District
Connection opportunities in this district focus on providing improved connectivity between the
Minnesota River Valley on the west with Rogers Lake on the east. This includes Fort Snelling,
Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob Preserve, Lemay and Augusta Lakes, Resurrection Cemetery, and Rogers Lake.
Some of the best opportunities to improve the ecological health and resilience in this district are shown
in Figure J.2 and discussed below.
Figure J.2. Minnesota River – Rogers Lake District
Connect Cores
This district’s primary connector (yellow arrows in Figure J.2) is the most important and is discussed
below.
Minnesota River - Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob Preserve. Connecting the extensive Minnesota River
Valley and Fort Snelling Park with other core habitats to the east is an important conservation
opportunity in this district. This connection to Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob Preserve is perpendicular to
the bluffline, which also contains railroad tracks, Big Rivers Regional Trail, and Sibley Memorial
Highway. These transportation corridors present hazards to wildlife crossing, which could be
mitigated as described under the Valley Park – Hidden Creek Connection (above).
Core habitats can be connected at one primary location (yellow arrows), with secondary connections elsewhere
(blue arrows).
Additional (secondary) connections (blue arrows in Figure J.2) are discussed below.
Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob Preserve – Lemay-Augusta Lakes Connection. It would also be
advantageous to connect the core habitats of Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob Preserve and Lemay-Augusta
Lakes; however, Highway 55 and Highway 13/Sioux Trail present a formidable challenge to
connectivity. Short of a wildlife-crossing (e.g., associated with the Acacia Boulevard bridge), these
obstacles may be infeasible to surmount for terrestrial wildlife, limiting this to an aerial connection
used primarily by birds, flying insects, and wind-disseminated seeds.
Lemay-Augusta Lakes – Rogers Lake Connection. Most of the connection between Lemay-Augusta
Lakes and Rogers Lake could be achieved through Resurrection Cemetery. However, I-35E presents
a formidable challenge to connectivity across to Rogers Lake, limiting this eastern end to a primarily
aerial connection.
Expand & Protect Cores
Conservation easement agreements exist between the City and two Homeowners’ Associations (HOAs)
adjacent to Augusta and Lemay Lakes. This offers an opportunity for a partnership to improve habitat
and reduce edge effects. Protect additional private and other non-City land through voluntary
acquisitions or conservation easements in the following locations:
• A parcel along Vallencourt Road was recently purchased by the City; this could contribute to
slightly enlarging the Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob Preserve Core.
• Acacia Cemetery contains an approximately 10-acre stand of forest/woodland that abuts
Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob Preserve. Protecting this wooded area from being cleared (and
protecting other adjacent, unutilized portions of the cemetery) would ensure the persistence of
this area as moderate-sized core habitat.
• Land around Lemay-Augusta Lakes, especially where this core habitat could be expanded into
Resurrection Cemetery on the east.
Restore & Enhance Cores
Ecological restoration and enhancement projects are ongoing in this district; namely, prairie and
savanna management in Oȟéyawahe/Pilot Knob Preserve and savanna and forest restoration west of
Rogers Lake. Additional restoration and enhancement project opportunities include:
• Provide cost-share, technical support, and/or other incentives to promote restoration and
enhancement on private properties included in the Conservation Concept (including Acacia and
Resurrection Cemeteries, and the Lemay and Augusta Lakes HOAs).
3. River to River Greenway – Rogers Lake District
The primary connection opportunity in this district focuses on providing improved connectivity from the
River to River Greenway (originating in Valley Park and near the northwest corner of Dodge Nature
Preserve) to Rogers Lake to the southwest. Most of this connectivity would be achieved through
Mendakota Country Club. Some of the best opportunities to improve the ecological health and
resilience in this district are shown in Figure J.3 and discussed below.
Figure J.3. River to River Greenway – Rogers Lake District
Connect Cores
The potential connections identified for this district present significant challenges; therefore they are
shown as secondary connections (blue arrows in Figure J.3) and discussed below.
Valley Park – Rogers Lake Connection. This connection runs along semi-natural vegetation just east
of I-35E and along the west edge of Mendakota Country Club. Noise from the freeway may limit the
use of this connection by more sensitive wildlife species. Highway 62 presents a formidable obstacle
to wildlife, limiting this to a primarily aerial connection. Wagon Wheel Trail at the south end of this
connector represents another obstacle; however, this could be mitigated as described under the
Valley Park – Hidden Creek Connection (above).
Dodge – Rogers Lake Connection. This connection extends from the River to River Greenway,
beneath Highway 62 (via the Mendota – Lebanon Hills Greenway underpass), touches the northwest
Core habitats (numbered) can be connected via secondary connections (blue arrows).
corner of Dodge Nature Preserve, then proceeds west along the south side of Highway 62, through
the Mendakota Country Club, to Rogers Lake. Dodd Road and Wagon Wheel Trail at the south end
of this connector represent obstacles to terrestrial wildlife; however, these crossings could be
mitigated as described under the Valley Park – Hidden Creek Connection (above).
Expand & Protect Cores
Protect private and other non-City land through voluntary acquisitions or conservation easements in the
following locations:
• Strip of forest just south of Valley Park South (at the northern end of the Valley Park – Rogers
Lake Connection).
• Land surrounding Lake Mendakota, especially adjacent to Rogers Lake, could expand the Rogers
Lake Core.
• St. Thomas Academy and Patterson Companies, Inc. properties adjacent to Rogers Lake could
expand this core.
• County-owned land west of Dodge Nature Preserve and Friendly Marsh Park could expand this
core.
Restore & Enhance Cores
Dodge Nature Preserve undergoes regular land management, especially the prairie restoration areas. As
mentioned above, savanna and forest restoration is ongoing just west of Rogers Lake. Additional
restoration and enhancement project opportunities include:
• Provide cost-share, technical support, and/or other incentives to promote restoration and
enhancement on private properties included in the Conservation Concept (including the west
and east edges of Mendakota Country Club, the south frontage along Highway 62, St. Thomas
Academy, Patterson Companies, Inc., and private landowners around Lake Mendakota and
Rogers Lake).