Virtual Dakota County Planning Commission

VIRTUAL DAKOTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday, July 23, 2020 7:00 PM – 9:00 PM If you wish to speak at or view the July 23, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting, please notify Aaron Sather via email at [email protected] Emails must be received by 6:00pm Thursday July 23, 2020. Instructions on how to participate will be sent to anyone interested.

Agenda

I. Call to Order and Roll Call II. Pledge of Allegiance III. Public Comments: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission on an item not on the agenda may send comments to [email protected]

IV. Approval of the Agenda V. Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes VI. Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan and Natural Resources Management Plan Concepts Review – Review and Comment (Lil Leatham – Planning & Tom Lewanski - Parks)

VII. Land Conservation Plan – Action (Al Singer – Environmental Resources & Mary Jackson - Planning)

VIII. Planning Manager Update and County Board Actions • Discussed remote vs. in-person meetings for County Board and Citizen Committees • Released Whitetail Woods Natural Resource Management Plan (NRMP) for public review • Released River to River Greenway NRMP for public review • Authorized agreement with MNDOT to construct River to River tunnel under Robert Street

IX. Upcoming Public Meetings – Community Outreach CSAH 70 https://clients.bolton-menk.com/csah70/ Open House CSAH 28 in https://www.co.dakota.mn.us/Transportation/PlannedConstruction/CR28/Pages/default.aspx Inver Grove Heights Minnesota Virtual Open House- https://gis.bolton-menk.com/inputid/?app=greenway River Greenway Questionnaire- https://arcg.is/1KTP9O Fort Snelling Segment Whitetail Thursday August 6 Woods Whitetail Woods Regional Park NRMP from 6:00 to 6:30 P.M. Regional River to River Greenway NRMP from 6:30 to 7:00 P.M Park and River to River Zoom Link: Greenway https://dakotacountymn.zoom.us/j/98557330209?pwd=R3FZWWgwQXpUK0Q2WHJDV1Z5bTgwZz09 Natural Meeting ID: 985 5733 0209 Resource Password: 924348 Management Plan open houses

X. Planning Commissioner Announcements/Updates XI. Topics for Next Meeting Location To Be Determined, Thursday, August 27, 2020. • Groundwater Plan • Whitetail Woods Regional Park NRMP • River to River Greenway NRMP

XII. Adjourn DAKOTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Date: 7/23/2019

AGENDA ITEM: Spring Lake Park Reserve – Draft Preferred Concept and Phasing (information)

PURPOSE Provide Planning Commission: 1. A summary community feedback on the Spring Lake Park Reserve Concept Alternatives. 2. An opportunity to provide feedback on the recommended Long-term and Ten-year concepts. 3. An opportunity to identify the five-year priorities for implementation. 4. An opportunity to provide feedback on the draft Interpretive Framework.

BACKGROUND From April to July, the community had the opportunity to review and provide input on two concepts for Spring Lake Park Reserve. During that time, over 900 unique individuals engaged with the plan and provided over 200 comments, all on on-line platforms. Based on that input, Draft Long-term and Ten-year concepts have been prepared for the park. These concepts will be the foundation for development of the draft Master Plan and Natural Resource Management Plan documents in the next phase of the project. It is anticipated that the Planning Commission will review the draft plan documents in fall 2020.

ATTACHMENTS

A. Phase 2 Community Engagement Summary. Please focus your review on summary information on the first two pages. The full comments and meeting summaries are included for your reference. B. Draft Spring Lake Park Reserve Preferred Plan. The documents include: a. Natural Resources Management Plan Overview The diagrams show the long-term goals, vision, and strategies for park restoration. b. Long-term and Ten-year Concept Diagrams The Long-term concept provides a vision for the park and identifies projects that could be accomplished with external funding and partnerships, if opportunities become available. The Ten-year concept represents what can be expected to be accomplished over the life of the Master Plan and Natural Resources Management Plan, based on past County funding levels. c. Spring Lake Park Concepts Projects Prioritization The prioritization table and graphic are intended to assist with Planning Commission review of the draft concept plans and priorities. Information includes planning level capital cost estimates, preliminary operations and maintenance cost implications, how well each project meets the guiding principles, cost benefit, and community support. The five-year recommendations will assist the County Board in the preparation of the County’s five-year Capital Improvement Program. Please note if you feel any of the projects should change in priority, for discussion at the meeting. d. Interpretive Framework

QUESTIONS The following questions are intended to help assist in review of the packet materials.

1. Are the Draft Long-term and Ten-year plans responsive to community needs and preferences? 2. What is the most important improvement or set of improvements to accomplish in the next five years? 3. Do you have any comments or suggestions related to the Interpretive Framework? Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

SUMMARY • Desire for a continuous trail across the park • Consistent feedback that additional restrooms are Community engagement events for the Spring Lake Park important. Reserve Master Plan Update continued into 2020 with online • Mixed opinions on how much use existing infrastructure engagement opportunities. All scheduled in-person events gets used as it currently exists were moved online to digital platforms due to the COVID-19 Pandemic to comply with stay-at-home orders and social SOCIAL MEDIA PRIORITIES distancing best practices. The engagement strategies • Calls to preserve the qualities and features that the were intended to engage a cross section of Dakota County public values about SLPR today residents, park users, and stakeholders to collect feedback • Desire to retain emphasis on outdoor learning and bison on the two concepts for the Park: Concept 1: A Tale of Two proposals Parks, and Concept 2: Converging Courses. • Favorable feedback on the future installment of the bison herd Engagement methods utilized between April 2020 and June 2020 include: STAKEHOLDER OUTCOMES PRIORITIES • Social Pinpoint • Decision that an observatory will not be included in the • POLCO Survey master plan proposal (although it was popular in phase 1 • Online Open House and 2 of community engagement) • Social Media • Concern regarding blending users near the retreat • Email Responses center with those visiting the park to camp • Dakota County Staff and Stakeholder Meetings (including • Many comments prioritize minimizing new park YMCA, DNR, and Minnesota Astronomical Society) development/ensuring new development has minimal impact on the environment. There is some concern KEY THEMES about camping because of concern for protection of natural resources and soil quality Feedback on the two concepts for Spring Lake Park Reserve • Preference for a single loop in the center of the park shows that the majority of respondents support limited instead of three. New trails are needed at east end -but development to the Park. Respondents reacted positively require clarification to avoid unnecessary disturbance to the inclusion of the Bison, overlooks, and increased river • Limit new buildings and turf areas access in both concepts. Respondents expressed concern regarding increased trail mileage, event space for large native parking preserve wildlife groups, and over-programming the park. Below are samples nature night camping of natural features respondents frequently deemed highly environmenttrail valuable in Spring Lake Park Reserve: campsites pavedtrailsinterpretive • Native Prairie river habitat access bison reserve • Views people bluff natural mississippi Bluff Ecosystem bikes • Figure 2.0 Wordcloud of Key Words from Social Pinpoint A wide range of themes emerged during the engagement and HIGHLIGHTS comment period on the two concepts. Below are some of the 946 unique individuals engaged with the plan or most frequently occurring topics or concerns attended an engagement event between 22 Apr 2020 POLCO PRIORITIES and 6 July 2020 . Engagement opportunities took the • Protection of natural resource form of stakeholder meetings, open houses, and online feedback tools.* • Fears of over development • Desire for programming that helps people experience Amount of Feedback: the park in a new way that does not overcrowd or disturb • 48 Web Comments sensitive or critical habitat • 20 Open House Comments • Desire for bike-in campsites • 168 Online Survey Responses *Stakeholder meetings, Open House #2, and Staff meetings were moved online to digital platforms • Desire for narrow, soft surface trails due to the COVID-19 Pandemic to comply with stay-at-home orders and social distancing best practices

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 1 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SOCIAL PINPOINT

SOCIAL PINPOINT reinforces the overall goal of highlighting the unique features Social Pinpoint is an online interface that offers multiple of the Park in the master plan update. formats for users to share their thoughts and ideas about the Park . For this phase, the website used two interactive Concept 1: A Tale of Two Parks maps to enable visitors to comment on the two proposed • Concern about increasing hardscape trails, thereby concepts and directed visitors to the separate Polco survey creating more disruption to natural resources in the Park site, the results of which are discussed later in this summary. • Respondents felt that Concept 1 included too much new The link to the Social Pinpoint site was posted to the Dakota programming and development. Comments indicated County Parks’ Facebook page and advertised via email. specific concern about adding a new amphitheater and Between April 22, 2020 to May 31, 2020, 946 individuals increased parking visited the Social Pinpoint platform, spending an average • Concerns regarding the amount and type of proposed of 2:28 minutes on the site. Of those who visited the site, 22 camping locations interacted directly with the interactive maps, leaving a total of 48 comments between the two concepts. Concept 2: Converging Courses • Strong positive response to bringing bison to the park MAP-BASED COMMENTS and including an interpretive center to help educate Participants were prompted to provide feedback on the two visitors about this new feature. draft concepts for Spring Lake Park Reserve. Comments • Respondents identified this concept as more “nature- could be made in three categories: “I like this”, “This concerns based”, calling out amenities like nature-based play, soft me”, and “How about this new idea?”. Between the two trails and the water lab. concepts, nearly half of the comments posted were regarding • Concerns that there are too many proposed new soft potential concerns (48%), with a third of comments (33.3%) surface trails. addressing ideas that people liked. • Subset of respondents were highly concerned about adding parking at Hillary Path. KEY TAKE-AWAYS Analysis of the comments posted to the interactive maps of the two concepts indicate that respondents want to make sure that the new proposed programs align with the idea of a “park reserve.” Many comments addressed the quantity and concentration of new proposed programming or development, expressing a concern about potential disturbance of natural resources and quality habitats. Participants responded positively to the programs that are not currently present in other parks in Dakota County, which

10.4% 16.7%

8.3% 18.7%

48% 10.4%

33.3% 31.3% I Like This

This Concerns Me

22.9% How About This New Idea

How About This New Idea? I APPENDIXLike This DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 2 This Concerns Me Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SOCIAL PINPOINT - CONCEPT 1

(UP VOTES, I LIKE THIS DOWN VOTES) Love the idea of introducing bison and frankly love all the ideas I have seen Overall I like the idea of LIMITED additional un-paved trails to expand hiking options between the E and W (6,1) ends of the park. This would provide more diverse hiking routes (less out-and-back treks over the same habitat) and would reduce conflict between hikers and cyclists. The boat launch is needed. The one off Hillary path is only usable with a 4 X 4. In the meantime, open the gate and allow us to shore fish from the former Bud’s Landing. It is cleaned up nicely and ready to go. We used it in the past from shore and caught fish. It is too far too walk to it now for us seniors. What a great tenting idea! Programs including historical confirmation of Pine Bend Dakota band habituation (2,3) should be considered, here, as well as at the Interpretive Center

(UP VOTES, HOW ABOUT THIS NEW IDEA? DOWN VOTES) Let’s get the rest of the trail connected to the Pine Bend Bike Trail. What is needed to get this to happen? (5,1) There is hardly any green space left and it is WAY too busy with something jam packed literally everywhere. (3,0) The animals would be forced out with destruction of habitat and too much activity and disruption. What happened to “Forever Wild,” and preserving and protecting preserves? People come to this park to enjoy the solitude and the country feel. Why do you feel you have to over-urbanize it like every other Dakota County park? Please stop destroying critical habitat. Space for cross country mountain bike loops? (6,13) There is already more than enough ADA accessible trails in this park. Is there really a need to spend any (0,3) more money paving this section to the Mill site? Maybe if you received donations, but don’t use tax dollars. An observation tower at the top of the hill on top of the bluff here would offer amazing views of St. Paul (9,3) and the surrounding Mississippi River valley. Something like the attached photo would allow accessibility without the need for an elevator and would be aesthetically pleasing.

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 3 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SOCIAL PINPOINT - CONCEPT 1

(UP VOTES, THIS CONCERNS ME DOWN VOTES) The 3,200 seating seems excessive, especially given the amount of parking space. I think a smaller amphi- (1,0) theater/seating area would be sufficient - I'm envisioning something for smaller groups like School field trips An amphitheater for 3,200 people seems excessive to me. What type of events in a park preserve would (8,0) attract this many people? This is not the type of park that should be used for large crowds! I don’t think we need amphitheater seating here. The green space is versatile and beautiful. (2,3) An event venue that hosts 300 people and large picnic shelters that hold 350+ concerns me in regards to (1,0) park traffic (foot and car) and general feel of Spring Lake Park. We do not need more paved trails in the high quality natural areas of this park preserve! They are extreme- (9,3) ly disruptive to the natural environment and wildlife and will require extensive maintenance, especially along the Mississippi River which is subject to flooding. Mountain bike trails are the worst idea for a park preserve! They disturb the growth of native species, dis- (8,2) rupt wildlife and promote erosion of steep terrain. Don’t allow bikes in Spring Lake Park Reserve except on paved trails! Mountain bike trails in a park preserve are a terrible idea, for multiple reasons. They disrupt native vege- (6,1) tation, interrupt the movement of wildlife and promote erosion in steep terrain. No bikes should be allowed unless on paved trails. The access road to the boat ramp has to cross the paved bike trail at some point. This needs to be an underpass (probably for the bikes) or else there will be serious accidents at this intersection. A stop sign will not be sufficient. I believe there are too many paved roads and parking areas being proposed for this portion of the park. (11,2) Please limit the amount of pavement in this and in all County parks. I love the idea of having camping near our home, but my concern is the disregard many people have while camping. How would we make sure visitors aren’t leaving the campsites and park grounds dirtier than when they came? There is way to much going on at this end of the park to accommodate bison. Also, I don’t like the idea of camper cabins/RV camping in this park, it would take away from the atmosphere of this park. I do think some tent and group campsites are a good idea - as they could potentially be popular with bicyclists when the bike trail gets connected up with other bike trails in the area. Too much area designated for camping in this concept. (2,0) The Union Pacific railroad has multiple railways right next to this park that would make it a miserable place (4,3) to camp. They bang cars together, blare train horns, wheels squeal, and the engine noise and exhaust all through the day and night would make this a very poor location for camping. And also a very stressful environment for bison for that matter. Seriously, should we not have connecting the gap to the Mississippi River Trail from the West end of Re- (6,1) serve on this “long” plan, or is it to be crafted so soon as to be left out?

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 4 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SOCIAL PINPOINT - CONCEPT 2

(UP VOTES, I LIKE THIS DOWN VOTES) An interpretive center to inform the public about the role of bison and native cultures in Dakota County (0,1) would be of great value to future generations. Low cost canoe/hike/bike sites would be amazing additions to the park. There’s tons of areas down at the (8,4) bottom of the bluff on both ends of the park that are secluded enough to be used for scattered designated campsites. I would use them all the time year-round. Love camp sites here (2,6) I like the idea of bison in the park. Bison can help restore the prairie closer to it’s original design. They feed (0,1) on the grass, allowing forbs to flourish, hosting many native pollinators and birds. Love this! (Referencing water lab) (4,2) I love the idea of a bison range and doing something very different in this location. While it does separate (2,3) the two sides of the part, it could be planned to build a bridge between the two sides. Adding more soft surface (dirt/grass only no gravel) trails is a great idea. Minimal impact on nature. This (2,0) new area would help thin out the crowded trails in the other areas of the park. We’d be excited for river access, camping, and restoration and education opportunities. (1,0) I love that trails would remain soft. Adding Bison is awesome! The water lab for kids/adults also looks invit- (5,2) ing and fascinating. The rest stop has an unusual look, but the color would draw me in to explore it. I really like concept 2. Our natural parks are the best part of Minnesota. Love this. We need more nature-based play areas. (2,0)

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 5 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SOCIAL PINPOINT - CONCEPT 2

(UP VOTES, HOW ABOUT THIS NEW IDEA? DOWN VOTES) I want to encourage children to be active explorers with open ended means of exploring and moving their (2,0) bodies and hopefully getting dirty! I hope a plan will research great nature play spaces (Discovery Hollow at Tamarack Nature Center comes to mind) and not just put in brown colored climbers found at traditional playgrounds. Tetherball? Low cost simple addition to an otherwise park meant for children under 10. (3,1) Let’s ecoscape this park. Bison, yes! Bison interpretive facility: Yes! Soft scaping: Yes! No to trail bikes in (9,4) this particular park. Let’s show an example of how Dakota County minimizes human impact, engages people in the importance of wild spaces, educates, facilitates hands-on learning. Please consider if an off-street connection to the Pine Bend Bluffs Trailhead is possible. The traffic level (1,0) and condition of the road named “Pine Bend Trail” presents some challenges to cyclists near the CF site.

(UP VOTES, IDEAS AND SUGGESTIONS DOWN VOTES) Same comment as I made on Concept 1 about intersection of boat ramp road and the bike trail. This needs (1,0) to be an underpass, a simple stop sign will not work. Not at all a fan of having Bison. Paying for fencing and the continual cost of raising this herd is not money (2,2) well spent. Recently moved from our hobby farm in Scott County, north of Lonsdale, where we lived only a few miles away from multiple Bison ranches. Saw them daily from my car. Not really a big deal. Wait... You guys just finished ripping up the prairie to install this paved trail, and now you’re proposing to re- (3,1) route it so the bison can use this space? (I assume that’s the plan -- I can’t imagine allowing bikes & bison to co-mingle.) That seems like rather poor planning and use of tax dollars. I like soft surface tails in the park preserve, but I believe this concept is showing too many. All trails through (4,2) natural areas of the highest quality are disruptive to the natural vegetation and wildlife. Paved trails are especially disruptive, but even too many soft surface trails may be detrimental. Please involve the County’s Natural Resource Specialists in determining the right amount of trails and best locations.

ANOTHER TRAIL TO RUIN MORE BEAUTIFUL UNTOUCHED FOREST?!?! Really?! You guys have ruined enough (9,8) of this perfect park! Seems the local land/home owners are not on board with this idea, plus parking lots consume a lot of land. (2,1) I would serious rethink this idea. ABSOLUTELY NOT! We don’t need any kids sitting in our driveway! People don’t even stop for our driveway (6,2) as is! A parking lot so kids can hangout here at night without anyone knowing?!?! NO!!! This is the most horrible (6,4) idea ever!

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 6 Attachment A COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT POLCO SURVEY

POLCO • A continuous natural surface trail linking Schaar’s Bluff Dakota County conducted a survey to ask respondents about to the West Trailhead their Spring Lake Park Reserve visiting habits and thoughts • Natural surface hiking/walking trail loops near about what would be the most valuable program to bring trailheads to Spring Lake Park Reserve. The survey received 179 • Short (20-minute walk) paved trail loops near trail heads responses. that are plowed for winter use. • Themed interpretive trails with information about the KEY TAKE-AWAYS park’s cultural and natural assets. Participants generally use the Park a few times per year or rarely. Respondents were interested in camper cabins, VISITOR SERVICES |The master plan concepts include group camp sites, as well as bike and walk-in camp sites. options for increasing visitor services at Spring Lake Park. Respondents were most interested in narrow, natural surface When asked, “What types of visitor services and facilities that trails in remote parts of the Park. Survey respondents also support visitor services are most important to you?” the most expressed interest in smaller looped trails by trailheads frequent responses include: and paved trails that would be plowed in the winter. When • Indoor restrooms and comfort rooms asked to evaluate desired visitor services and amenities, • Equipment rental respondents expressed interest in public places to warm • Indoor public gathering and warming area for non- up that do not require rental, as well as restrooms and reservation use comfort spaces. Survey feedback also indicated a desire • Indoor visitor orientation and interpretive information for equipment rentals. Top improvement priorities included natural surface trails, wildlife viewing, Mississippi River IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES | When asked “What are your and Spring Lake access, and habitat enhancement. Many top improvement priorities that would increase your use and comments indicate that respondents value maintaining the enjoyment of Spring Lake Park Reserve?”respondents gave park as a “reserve” that will not be overdeveloped. the following top four responses: • Natural surface trails The Spring Lake Park Reserve Survey asked respondents • Wildlife Viewing about their park visit habits, as well as what features they • Mississippi River and Spring Lake Access deem most valuable in the park. Of the 168 respondents, • Natural Resource Restoration 40% said they visit Spring Lake Park Reserve “a few times per year”, and 29% said they visit “rarely”.

CAMPING | The two concepts both include camping, but different types and locations. When asked, “what type of camping would you be interested in?” the most frequent answer was “camper cabins” at 47% followed by walk-in/ bike-in camp sites” at 45%. 30% respondents indicated that POLCO SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS camping was not important to them. SURVEY RESPONSE PRIORITIES TRAIL-BASED RECREATION | Both park concepts include • Protection of Natural Resources options for increasing trail-based recreation within the • Avoid over-development of the park Favor programs that help people experience the park. The survey asked participants,“What types of trail • park in a new way but that do not overcrowd or additions are you most interested in?”. Results indicate that disturb habitat respondents favor: • Bike-in camping sites • Narrow, natural surface walking/hiking trails that • Narrow soft surface trails explore remote areas of the park with minimal impact to • Continuous trail across the park natural resources

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 7 Attachment A COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

7/15/2020POLCO SURVEY Polco

How oen do you visit the park?

A Rarely 28%

B A few times per year 40%

C Monthly 18%

D Weekly 14%

E Daily 1%

The master plan concepts include options for camping in the park. What type of camping would you be interested in?

A Camper cabins 47%

B Canoe-in camp sites 31%

C Walk-in/bike-in camp sites 46%

D Group camp sites 28%

E Camping is not important to me 30%

The master plan concepts include options for increasing trail-based recreation within the park. What types of trail additions are you most interested in?

A Short (20-minute walk) paved trail loops near trail heads that are plowed for winter use 35%

B A continuous natural surface trail linking Schaar’s Bluﬀ to the West Trailhead 56%

C Narrow, natural surface walking/hiking trails that explore remote areas of the park with minimal impact 61%

D Natural surface hiking/walking trails loops near trailheads 39%

E Increased cross country ski trail mileage 16%

F Increased snow shoe trail mileage 15%

G Themed interpretive trails with information about the park’s cultural and natural assets 24%

H Trail-based recreation is not important to me 3% APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 8

https://polco.us/n/admin/content/00a394ba-a449-4083-bf5a-947171c1e3b1/report 2/10 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Attachment A POLCO SURVEY 7/15/2020 Polco

The master plan concepts include options for increasing visitor services at Spring Lake Park. What types of visitor services and facilities that support visitor services are most important to you?

A Indoor public gathering and warming area for non-reservation use 38%

B Four-season spaces for private events and meetings 16%

C Indoor visitor orientation and interpretive information 28%

D Indoor restrooms and comfort rooms 66%

E Equipment rental (for example, bikes, kayaks, snowshoes, cross-country skis) 42%

F These visitor services are not important to me 17%

What are your top improvement priorities that would increase your use and enjoyment of Spring Lake Park Reserve?

A Natural surface trails 49%

B Paved biking trails 27%

C Snowshoe and cross-country ski trails 20%

D Natural resource restoration 33%

E Mississippi River/Spring Lake access (for example, boat launch or picnic area by the water) 34%

F Wildlife viewing 41%

G Play and nature play 20%

H Camping 27%

I Community events 6%

J Picnicking 16%

K Other 6% APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 9

If you selected "other" in the previous question, please tell us more about your improvement priorities for the park. I would like water access for canoes but limit the amount of motor boat traﬃc. The eagle viewing is great at this park when it's quiet/peaceful. Please try to limit disturbing the vegetation along the shoreline. Thanks!

https://polco.us/n/admin/content/00a394ba-a449-4083-bf5a-947171c1e3b1/report 3/10 Attachment A COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT POLCO SURVEY - WRITE IN RESPONSES

If you selected “other” in the previous question, please tell us more about your improvement priorities for the park. I would like water access for canoes but limit the amount of motor boat traffic. The eagle viewing is great at this park when it’s quiet/peaceful. Please try to limit disturbing the vegetation along the shoreline. Thanks! The park does not need improvement. It’s literally just been tore through all the native landscape to put in unnatural toxic blacktop at a ridiculous width, gaudy excessive signage, metal benches, bike corrals at random places, and a ton of huge garbage cans, and now you want to tear that all out and do other things? This “preserve” is already like a theme park, not a natural area. Leave it well enough alone. You’ve destroyed it enough already. And why go through all the cost of restoring the areas you left alone with native plants and prescribed burns, only to tear through it with more blacktop parking lots and buildings? You need to redefine what a PRESERVE and NATURAL AREA is. Forever Wild is a nonsensical statement to the County. It should be Limitless Urbaniza- tion Area. Don’t over build the park trying to please special interests

Natural surface biking trails

A few mountain biking loops would be amazing, but I understand that they can be maintenance-intensive and there may not be enough land area to accommodate them. But it could be possible! Adding mountain bike trail opportunities between Lebanon Hills, Carver Lake and Memorial Park in Red Wing would be an excellent addition to those existing systems. Right now I don’t really have any true cross country mountain biking trails within a 20-30 minute drive radius from Hastings. Hike in/Bike in/canoe in campsites are an excellent idea since I feel like those couldn’t be abused as much as a car camping/group/ RV campground campsite. I could definitely see myself doing canoe or bike or hike in camping pretty regularly at Spring Lake. Another thing that would be a huge asset to Spring Lake in my opinion would be an observation tower on the East end of the park, possibly a spiral type tower for accessibility (see this example in Denmark near Copenhagen: https://www.effekt.dk/camp) . Such a tower at the top of Schaar’s Bluff would offer an amazing view of the Missis- sippi valley, a view unlike many others in the region. You can already see St. Paul from certain spots on the east end of the park, but the view from 75-100+ feet up on a tower would be incredible. A look at Hastings/Prescott/the St.Croix confluence could also be possible on a good day. An observation tower would also offer birding/wildlife viewing opportunities unlike any other in the region. Add to that the already easy access to the park via paved trail or car, and an observation tower would put Spring Lake Park above some MN and WI State Parks on people’s visiting lists. Very poor communication about the existing park.

Carry in canoe/kayak launch area would be great improvement. A space for mountain bikes away from the hiking/walking/camping areas of the park might attract more use without disturbing the peace and quiet Picnicking & camping would be great too

Paved walking trails that are plowed in the winter

No more paved trails. Keep the park as natural as possible. No camping, No camper cabins. ABSOLUTELY NO TRAIL OR MOUNTAIN BIKES, THEY DESTROY THE PARKS. outdoor recreation community education classes with equipment rentals. Outdoor ice rink and skate rental would be popular too.

Restrooms along main trail

Mountain bike trail system in cooperation with MORC

More trails and river access ideally, without disrupting the naturalness of the area currently.

Changing station for older handicap children/adults.

Making it more accessible for everyone. This would include larger changing tables.

I enjoy bringing my children to Dakota county parks to explore and play in nature. I find myself returning to parks with 30 - 40 min kid friendly trails for exploring. Interpretive information on plants, rock formations, and history help enrich the outdoor experience. Mountain biking!

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 10 Attachment A COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT POLCO SURVEY - WRITE IN RESPONSES What natural features in Spring Lake Park Reserve do you feel are a high priority to be restored and preserved? Migratory bird habitat and integrity of the wilderness landscape of the park

native prairie

Water access, eagle viewing/habitat, preserve shoreline vegetation which is habitat for birds etc.

I love the park. Appreciate the paved biking trail although I walk it because I’m afraid of getting Lymes. Used to seek out natural trails but I now walk far more miles of paved trails since Lymes is so prevalent. But there are plenty of miles of paved trail at Spring Lake now. Don’t pave over the natural areas. It should be a high priority to remove the toxic blacktop path and all the unnatural additions you’ve already added, and restore it to a nature preserve. If needed, which it isn’t, a very narrow natural walking path can be included. You’ve destroyed this area enough. More destruction of this area is not needed. How can you even stomach tearing down more critically scarce oak savannahs and river bluffs for blacktop parking lots and even more blacktop paths? That’s the opposite of restoration and preservation. No more urbanization of this natural area. Viewscapes

Water access

Preserve the bluff ecosystem and the park as a whole. Managing the forest and controlling invasive species such as buckthorn and honeysuckle.

The uninterrupted views are critical.

River view, fields with flowers

Prairies and bluffs/geological features

River views

Forest and savannah areas preserved, returning bison to their natural habitat.

More river viewing and access

The river bluffs, clear invasive species and allow better access to the bluff edges . Overlook areas example is the one that exists now with the stone work- ings and fire pit by the visitor center . prairie

Native plant species

The hidden cliffside areas are some of my favorite parts of the park, as well as the prairie restoration areas. I heard rumblings about reintroducing bison into the western part of the park and I would really like to see that happen. I love the idea of adding Bison. I think that more than anything would make me want to visit, and bring my Children.

Not sure

Control and/or removal of invasive species

Clean, healthy and safe features--but also increased use.

I’d prefer to keep the water traffic down so there is more ability to view wildlife.

The water views are key to increasing popularity of park it use. Perhaps additional view points/overlook(s).

High quality natural prairie, oak savanna and woodlands. Also, high quality wetlands and the shoreline of the Mississippi.

The views, the wildlife, and the feeling of remoteness when using the biking trails.

The quiet of maintained trails in nature.

River access.

Natural areas conducive to birding and other wildlife viewing

Adding bison and an apiary would be pretty cool. Bison used to be found in most states so it would be nice to bring them back.

prairie

Never been there

The local ecosystem APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 11 Attachment A COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT POLCO SURVEY - WRITE IN RESPONSES

What natural features in Spring Lake Park Reserve do you feel are a high priority to be restored and preserved? The view of the river. The hill that approaches the stairs in the woods north of the parking lots could be more “user friendly.”

water quality of the Mississippi River! Reduction of the carp population around spring lake park. Access to some of the islands in the Mississippi with landing sites and some historical information and trails on the islands. Natural plant and animal communities that restore a balance to the ecosystem

Buffalo would be good idea, but management should be highest priority. Animals will need care all seasons and herd size would need to be controlled.

Bison grazing sounds amazing. I am unfamiliar if this was an area where bison once roamed freely, but if so, restoring it makes good sense.

Trails & shoreline

Bluffs, native oak savanahs, any native american historic elements

The views are amazing and need to stay natural

Prairie

Wildlife

Paths

Views of the river and lake. There is an old farm site, with no access, old stone foundation. Maybe a small narrow dead end trail and a simple post with a brief history. I hesitate to mention this because then people with be climbing all over it and destroying this site also. (West end of park off of existing dirt trail to river. Keep the wildflowers and natural grass areas please!!!

The bluffs and the pine grove on the cross country ski trails

Bison would be great

Low effort walking/hiking trails and signage with historical and POI content.

The bike and ski trails.

Wildness, limiting the human impact.

The view!

Anything near the water.

Access to more river views

Forest

Preserve the small snowshoe trail by the river and keep the park “wild.” Paved trails unnecessary.

The bluffs

Trees!! We need more trees.

The archery range

Indigenous native flowers everywhere and all varieties with signs for identification and why they are important to plant in our locale.

The current natural trails are amazing and ideally should not be disrupted, other to add more, and ideally access to water.

Wildlife

Prairie

Areas for wildlife.

The local ecosystem

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 12 Attachment A COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT POLCO SURVEY - WRITE IN RESPONSES What natural features in Spring Lake Park Reserve do you feel are a high priority to be restored and preserved? The view is simply one of the best views in Minnesota. Removing invasive plants and restoring the natural landscape so that we can continue to enjoy the outdoors in a low impact way should be the priority. The amazing views!

The natural habitat and beauty of the park should be preserved. Adding paved trails, additional buildings, and large event space encroaches on the natural aspect of the area and wildlife habitat/human interactions. Large events always end up with large littering issues, and the noise/business disrupts animal cycles and space. I have lived in places where they introduced biking trails and then seent the fall out of the parks having to close them for habitat restoration, or filling the deep ruts they create from from digging in. They also tend to lead to people going off those trails and further into wildlife habitats, causing disturbance in previously quiet areas. Connecting the two locations would encourage wear and tear on the grounds. It would seem that leaving the upper trailhead with it’s info stations and structures would give the urbanites their space, and then leaving the natural trails between and the southern space more open and natural for the true roughing-it campers/hikers to use. Forest and natural areas used by animals.

Natural walking paths

River banks and wetlands.

Bluffs, trees, prairie

Bluff-top/cliff environments, as these are rare in the twin cities metro.

Preserve the beautiful natural character of the park, and do not urbanize the park with too many man-made structures.

Native plants and animal habitat

I love the current picnic area, the dirt hiking trail with its Bluff views would be nice to see preserved.

We like the park as it is now.

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 13 Attachment A COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT POLCO SURVEY - WRITE IN RESPONSES Is there anything else you would like to tell us about Spring Lake Park Reserve?

The mixed use of the paved trails are problematic - there are many instances of ped and bike conflict, mostly because bikers go incredibly fast in the shared use path. It would be great to address these conflict in a way that continues access to bikers in the park. Perhaps separate trails? A speed limit and enforcement? I love the groomed cross country ski trails - thank you! Canoe/kayak rentals would be great.

It has one of best views of river. Have only hiked bluff and paved bike trail there - maybe 10 times a year. Are there any trails that lead down to river?

This park preserve is not a theme park. Camp sites, boat landings, RV camping, trampling the shoreline for walking paths, and other people intensive and disruptive activities are not appropriate in this nature preserve. It’s not a road side attraction. The proposed additions are so out of scope, and your “vision” of urbanizing this area is inappropriate. It is a great park in its current configuration. Spending more money seems to be wasteful.

It is already an amazing space. Thanks for taking care of it.

I like the first concept with the playground, the farm area, and especially like the idea of multiple campsite opportunities. I think camping would significantly increase the number of people in the park. Natural trails before paved trails

The park is a preserve after all, so any additional trails should be narrow singletrack to minimize impact. There are enough paved trails within the park already, given the MNRT that runs through it. It is also important that the remnants of the past are preserved and protected for generations to come, while interpretive signs and other information us good and ok, it’s best to leave as much as possible intact to get an idea of what life really was like. I enjoy that there it isn’t overly supplied with man made features.

The beauty of this area lies in its view of spring lake and the bluffs. It is rich in history and has been inhabited for over a thousand years. Example would be the sorg pot . In more recent history Nininger I like to bike on the paved trail but that is all I come there for. If there is hiking there I don’t think there is much and it would be nice to have more.

Spring Lake is a gem - its natural beauty and access to scenic vistas is the most important feature from my perspective. I like that it is a quiet place for reflection and enjoy being able to get away from crowds easily. The trail connection to Hastings is pretty heavily used and huge asset to the community; finishing that link all the way through to the north to link to St. Paul would be even better. The thought of hike in/bike in sites never occurred to me but would be an amazing addition to what Spring Lake could offer. Couldn’t find the link to the interactive map

Love the archery range

My daughter and I very much enjoy the archery trail.

Hardly anyone knows it exists!

Our family enjoys walking the trails while looking at the natural surroundings and wildlife.

Spring Lake Park is an amazing place to see wildlife and to explore off trail. If you further develop the park with more trails, do so in the Schar Bluff area so part of the park is developed and some isn’t. we really enjoy the trail system offered at Spring Lake Park Reserve and the connected trails. We recently discovered them and have been taking advantage ever since. The County should focus primarily on natural resource restoration and preservation and, secondarily, on nature-based recreation. Both concepts are promoting more built development than is desirable. I see Spring Lake Park Reserve as a place to escape into nature. The more not nature you add to it (additional community centers, large visitor centers etc), you will be taking away the escape. There is different feels to Schulze Beach and Spring Lake Park. I like both but for different reasons. I hope the intent is not to make Spring Lake Park like Schulze Beach.

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 14 Attachment A COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT POLCO SURVEY - WRITE IN RESPONSES Is there anything else you would like to tell us about Spring Lake Park Reserve?

We garden in the community garden plots, and this is a great community amenity. We’d like to be able to more easily water our plot, with expanded availability of water tap access (or a water collection system to use rain water?) There is some sort of issue with use of hoses, which has been settled with an arbitrary “no hoses” rule -- this points to a need that could be resolved with smart planning. But thank you for the garden space! Strongly emphasize the park reserve aspects

I feel that most people don’t really utilize the park facilities, so I think it’d be good to keep development (as in buildings and picnic areas) to a minimum.

I prefer the concept 2 master plan.

The biking and hiking trails are most important to me.

I really like what has been done so far. It is a really great place to go to to get away.

I like the idea of a bison herd. I also would like some historical information on how people lived on the river at this location, not just the Dakota. And anytime there is information on sustainability in this area is so important for children. I really enjoy the natural surface trails and would enjoy more of them. It helps me to feel that I have gotten away from normal life and into nature. I enjoy walking in the summer and wish there were more cross country ski trails for winter. I don’t want Spring Lake Park to become overly built-up with the potential for many hundreds of people visiting a day. There are already so many human centered spaces in our state, lets provide nature for nature’s sake that humans can also visit and respectfully enjoy. The archery area is excellent. I buy season passes for my wife and myself every year. We mainly use the wooded animal walk through, targets 14 thru 28. I also bring other shooters there. We all shoot traditional bows, no compounds so animal faces are perfect and stands/targets are excellently maintained. It is beautiful and other than a few enhancements, I would leave it as is.

More group play options horse shoes, bocce ball etc

The natural play place like Discovery Hollow in Ramsey county would be an awesome addition. Great for big and little kids!

Campsites for trailers with electric hookups

Love it

As stated above. Keep this park as natural as possible. Example: White Tail woods: the basic plus access was good but they keep destroying more natural resources and areas. There will be no wildlife left in a few years. It is my favorite park in Dakota County!

Would like to see the banquet space expanded. My brother got married there last fall and it was lovely. With everything being postponed, more banquet space for a larger group would be beneficial. As a lifelong resident of Dakota County, I’ve visited Schaars Bluff/Spring Lake Park innumerable times. It’s panoramic views and open spaces rival many state parks and it’s literally within minutes by car for a majority of Dakota County residents. It’s a hidden gem and any further development deserves special care. We regularly bring out of town guests to bike the beautifully maintained trail. The river views are spectacular. We often bike to Hastings for lunch. It would be nice to have winter equipment rentals( snowshoes. CC skis, kick sleds) and water bottle refill stations. Really need restrooms along main trail

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 15 Attachment A COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT POLCO SURVEY - WRITE IN RESPONSES Is there anything else you would like to tell us about Spring Lake Park Reserve?

I absolutely love the park and do not necessarily relish it being more popular. I enjoy being able to go without crowds.

I visit the park primarily to ski, walk and occasionally bike. I enjoy it as is but also believe that it could become a great educational and interpretive resource center for the county. Habitat restoration and management, interpretation about cultural and natural history, and accessibility with minimal impact are vital to engaging future generations in environmental preservation and learning from past mistakes. take my grandkids out there for walking and talking. Not much else to do there. I have tried several times to rent a camper cabin. Never have been successful because they are always booked. Thank you for this beautiful area and the ideas for the future. I like the natural feel to it but with the comfort of a warming house and use of rest rooms.

Under question 1, there was not an option for pop-up/rv camping. We went there for the first time today and I thought it would be a great place to camp.

We love the playground

It is lovely but adding more accessible features would are help it to be enjoyed by more people.

Making things family friendly, for kids of all ages, is always a great investment.

Spring Lake Park Reserve is a diamond in the rough. It has the potential to be a model for low impact engagement in the natural world.

Big draw for local Boy Scout troops to utilize group camping (30+ people per camp site) with access to trails, water, outdoor activities.

Would love to see camping with electric and water

Focus on keeping it reserved... for the wildlife.

My family and neighbors would use the place even more if it was kept clean and maintained regularly after the changes.

Camping would be a bad idea. The place is too small and the campers would be intrusive.

Developed camping for rv with water and electric

Most of the suggestion here will only damage the park. Itisone of the most beautiful pars in the metro. DO NOT DESTROY IT.

Hey Fake News Coronavirus freaks, it’s time to open the bathrooms and the playground at Spring Lake Park reserve. Coronavirus is fake news and you know it. You public sector mooches are just using it as an opportunity to sit on your tuckus and collect a paycheck. Some of us actually work for a living and would like to have access to the things our taxes pay for. This master planning process presents a rare opportunity to create a truly destination-level hiking experience here. The ruggedness and high-quality natural communities would draw people at a regional level if a large new trail system is developed. I would urge you to be ambitious and go big on the trails! Those of us that enjoy hiking and solitide in a non-urbanized environment would appreciate a natural rustic surface hiking trail across the park from end-to-end away from crowds and nearest to the river as much as possible. Include ample steep sections of trail, since we do not have enough trails in the county with a steep trail experience. Backpack campsites off the trail in places isolated from the sounds of civilization would be greatly appreciated. Beautiful Park

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 16 7/15/2020 Polco

Most of the suggestion here will only damage the park. Itisone of the most beautiful pars in the metro. DO NOT DESTROY IT. Hey Fake News Coronavirus freaks, it's time to open the bathrooms and the playground at Spring Lake Park reserve. Coronavirus is fake news and you know it. You public sector mooches are just using it as an opportunity to sit on your tuckus and collect a paycheck. Some of us actually work for a living and would like to have access to the things our taxes pay for. This master planning process presents a rare opportunity to create a truly destination-level hiking experience here. The ruggedness and high-quality natural communities would draw people at a regional level if a large new trail system is developed. I would urge you to be ambitious and go big on the trails!

Those of us that enjoy hiking and solitide in a non-urbanized environment would appreciate a natural rustic surface hiking trail across the park from end-to-end away from crowds and nearest to the river as much as possible. Include ample steep sections of trail, since we do not have enough trails in the county with a steep trail experience. Backpack campsites oﬀ the trail in places isolated from the sounds of civilization would be greatly appreciated.

Beautiful Park Attachment A COMMUNITYI love this park. ENGAGEMENT POLCOLove spending SURVEY time there as is.- RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS

Which category contains your age?

A Under 18 0%

B 18-24 3%

C 25-44 38%

D 45-64 42%

E 65+ 17%

Do you consider yourself to be Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino?

A Yes 3%

B No 97%

What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race you consider yourself to be.)

A American Indian or Alaskan Native 1%

B Asian, Asian Indian or Paciﬁc Islander 1%

C Black or African American 1%

D White 95%

E Other 5%

https://polco.us/n/admin/content/00a394ba-a449-4083-bf5a-947171c1e3b1/report 9/10

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 17 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SOCIAL MEDIA COMMENTS

Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan and Natural Resources Management Plan Social Media Comments May 1 – May 31, 2020

• Spectacular, both [concepts] are great, leaning towards #1. • Leave it alone • Bison range would be nice. Don’t pave over any of the existing trails! • Leave it alone! You screw up everything you touch! • How do we get involved? I love so much of this, especially the shifting focus to outdoor learning and bison.

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 18 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SOCIAL MEDIA & POLCO MINI POLLS

June 24- July 6 7/8/2020 Polco Three mini polls along with a short informational video were posted on the Parks Facebook Page and POLCO over a week and a half to offer a quick way to provide input. Do you like the idea of improving the boat launch at Bud’s Landing and adding new river use areas to the park? ¿Le gusta la idea de mejorar la rampa para desembarcar las lanchas en Bud's Landing y agregar nuevas áreas de uso del río en el parque?

A Yes / Sí 87%

B No / No 9%

C Not sure / No estoy seguro 4%

23 Responses. Comment: • No blacktop. No expansion. Please stop destroying natural habitat. 23 REsponses

Do you like the idea of reintroducing Bison to Spring Lake Park Reserve? ¿Le gusta la idea de reintroducir bisontes en el Parque Reserva Spring Lake?

A Yes/Sí 80%

B Yes, but I have some concerns/Sí, pero tengo algunas preocupaciones 14%

C No opinion/No tengo ninguna opinión al respecto 2%

D No/No 5%

59 Responses. Comments: • Bison are native to this area. They would be very helpful to restoring the ecosystem. I would much prefer them to be here instead of cows and pigs. • Please include the cost of the existing recent additions, bike path, native planting, rest areas. Then add the cost of removing all that to make room for the bison. Then add the cost of the bison and enclosure. Then add the cost of redoing the bike path, native planting, rest areas. I think that's your answer. Waste of taxpayer money. • I love the idea of seeing bison at Spring Lake Park. I just don't understand the ramifications or have enough details on the plan. Would it be like minneopa where the bison are kept in a large enclosed area?

Dakota County Parks Department is exploring the idea of camping in the west side of the park. What types of camping would you be interested in? Please check all that apply. El Departamento de Parques del Condado de Dakota está considerando la idea de poner lugares para acampar en el lado oeste del parque. ¿Qué tipo de campamento le interesaría? Por favor marque todas los que correspondan.

A Cabins / Cabinas 41%

B Canoe-in campsites / Sitios de acampar que solo son accesibles por canoa 59%

C Walk-in/bike-in campsites / Sitios de acampar que solo son accesibles en bicicleta o caminando 59%

D Group campsites / Sitios de acampar para grupos 47%

E Camping in this park is not important to me / Acampar en este parque no es importante para mí 24%

17 Responses. Comments: • Camping is not appropriate for this area. It's next to a rail yard and next to an industrial park. • I didn't see a choice for RV camping. We'd love to be be able to use our Travel trailer with electric hook ups

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 19

https://polco.us/n/admin/content/8985a0b8-e8a2-4b06-9bd9-6d718059dd6f/report 2/3 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT BISON STORY MAP COMMENTS A link to the Bison Project Story Map was posted on the Spring Lake Park Project Page and on the social pinpoint site. After learning about the Bison Project, participants were asked “Tell us what you think about bison returning to Dakota County at Spring Lake Park Reserve?”. Below are the responses.

• I think we should return bison to Dakota County. It would be wonderful to see and learn how the environment worked when all the elements were in place. • I am in favor! • Great Idea! • Please do make this happen. It is important to reintroduce the native aspects in large tracts whenever possible. • I think it is a fabulous proposal. Please do it at the soonest opportunity. • I initially like the idea. What are projected costs? • I think it would be a great learning opportunity • Sounds awesome! What a great way to teach us about the history in the area and to show how life was. I’m fully in support of this initiative! • I’d love to see it. • I love the idea of returning bison to Spring Lake Park Reserve. You put a lot of thought into returning and preserving the way the area was. The bison grazing is an important component of that. I’m confident you’ll do it right. • Sounds exciting to me. Would love being able to see & watch bison while enjoying the park. • I trhink it’s an excellent idea. Go for it. Looking forward to such “natural” improvements. Don’t need anymore concrete, metal and blacktop. Kudos to the people responsible for such a great idea. • Worried about park visitors using the bike trails since bison can be extremely dangerously aggressive. They would need to be well contained. • We agree that it would be a great idea if you brought bison back to the park. • i like it • Great idea! Would be wonderful to restore the grazing component to the prairie. • Yes-beneficial for the land • great idea! • It should be done. Anything we can do to restore the original ecosystem should be explored. • Yes yes yes as long as no shooting them ever • I think it’s a great idea - they were a vital part of the prairie ecosystem. • I think this is a wonderful Idea! I fully support the concept. • Please do return the bison to some of their native home. I have not seen anything more beautiful than a creature thriving in it’s native habitat. It could also lead to many learning opportunities as well. Please do bring them back. • I’m proud to call MN home with its beautiful Dakota County prairie, and think it would be a rare opportunity to restore one of the countless things that nature has lost. Bring back the Bison! • I like it. I’d also like to see some walk in canoe access at the north end where the trail ends down by the water near the WMA. • I completely support reintroducing bison into Dakota Cty parks to restore prairies! I would visit often to observe the bison and watch the process. I have gone to Belwin Prairie near Afton to hike and watch the bison. • I support bison introduction. However, I do not like some of the other ideas I’ve heard such as putting a campground on site. The nat. resources here need to be protected. A campground would destroy wildlife habitat and degrade the visitor experience. • Yes! It would be fantastic

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 20 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT DRAFT MEETING SUMMARY: SLPR OBSERVATORY

Dakota County Parks Spring Lake Park Master Plan Update Draft Meeting Summary: SLPR Observatory Friday May 15, 2:30-3:30 pm

Attendees: Autumn Hubbell, Outdoor Education Supervisor Lil Leatham, Dakota County Senior Planner Conrad Sanders, Minnesota Astronomical Society Matt Dunham, Minnesota Astronomical Society

Purpose: Discuss opportunities for stargazing, an observatory in Spring Lake Park Reserve, and future partnerships.

Discussion: • The Minnesota Astronomical Society does not want to own property for stargazing facilities but can train staff, advise and assist in planning for observation facilities. • There is a lack of observatories in the southeast metro area. There are observatories at Belwin Conservancy (Afton) , Macalester College (St. Paul), Cherry Grove Observatory (Kenyon) • Spring Lake Park Reserve is not an ideal place for stargazing because of light pollution from the refinery. Within the Dakota County Park System, Whitetail Woods Regional Park is a better location. Lake Byllesby Regional Park may be a good location as well. • A location in Dakota County would be great to foster the relationship with Dakota County School Districts, in particular, School District 196, is a big district and includes the School of Environmental Studies. • Facilities needed for star observation can range from very simple to a retractable roof observatory. • Minimum needs: o Designated spot with trail access o Preferably close to parking, as the equipment can be large o Ability to shut off area and parking lighting o Electricity o Ability to shut sprinklers off while area is in use or park is closed, ability to open the gates • Desired facilities o Dual color lights o Storage building to leave equipment (similar in size to the boat house at Lebanon Hills Regional Park) o Permanent building with roll off roof • Star Parties tend to have better attendance in the Spring and Fall, when it gets dark earlier and the start time is earlier. • Dakota County Park’s Staff can continue to work with the group to allow access to Whitetail Woods Park. • Facility desires such as a storage building, or observatory would likely need strong partnership from the Minnesota Astronomical Society, including funding/operating partnership. When the Whitetail Woods Master Plan is updated, facilities can be considered for integration into the long range vision for the park. Master Plans are updated every 10-15 years. The Whitetail Woods Master Plan was last updated in 2012.

Action/follow-up: • When in person programming resumes, rescheduling a Star Party in one of Dakota County’s Parks is desired. • The group will continue to work with Dakota County Staff for access and operational improvements to Whitetail Woods Regional Park and other parks as desired. • An Observatory will not be recommended in the Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan.

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 21 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT DRAFT MEETING SUMMARY: YMCA RETREAT CENTER/CAMP SPRING LAKE

Dakota County Parks Spring Lake Park Master Plan Update Draft Meeting Summary: YMCA Retreat Center/Camp Spring Lake Monday May 18, 2020 2:00 to 3:00 pm

Attendees: Steve Sullivan, Dakota County Parks Director Beth Landahl, Visitor Services Manager Lil Leatham, Dakota County Senior Planner

Overview: Dakota County Staff went over new ideas for the park with focus on the west end of the park and Camp Spring Lake Retreat Center. Discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of the ideas explored and using the master plan as a catalyst for discussion about the future of the Y and County partnership were discussed.

Discussion: • Concept 1 separates permitted (Fahey Ave.) and general uses (Fischer Ave.). Public camping is located NW of the Retreat Center. • Concept 2 includes camper cabins and public walk in and group sites from the Retreat Center Drive. • Both concept assume use of the shower and restroom facilities at the Retreat Center. • If camping facilities are built, Dakota County would want to operate them at high occupancy and would need to have the sites occupied enough to cover operating costs. • From the Y perspective, sharing use of the restrooms would be very hard, but not impossible. Indoor restrooms are preferred, but the camp could potentially only use port-a-potties. This is done at some other sites. • The door between the shower/restroom building does lock, which would allow for separation. • In the summer, the Y uses the buildings for campers until 3:30 pm, staff 4:30 pm daily except Thursdays when the building is in use until 9:00 pm. • Blending of audiences, youth and general public increases the potential for conflicts. • From the Y perspective, Concept 1, with greater separation of uses is preferable. That said, if camper cabins were built, the Y would be interested in integrating these facilities into their programming. • From both the Y and Dakota County perspectives, it is hard to think about the Retreat Center as anything but a Y space during the summer. Mixing of camp and general use would be difficult and it would be easy for people to get confused about the uses and access to spaces. • Since, Dakota County and the Y do not have a long-term plan together, the Master Plan needs to position the Retreat Center as an asset with or without the Y partnership. The Master Plan will set a vision for the Retreat Center -how it can be improved and will have some discussion about future partnership with the Y. • There are several ideas proposed that, if implemented, could be game changers for the park. For example, the introduction of bison and how the park is optimized for the interface of the public and bison. • New ideas for the west end of park bring many new outdoor education opportunities: bison, river use, cultural landscape, the Mississippi River Greenway Trail. From the Y perspective, all of the these improvements would be amazing. • Further discussion between Dakota County and the Y are needed about long term partnership opportunities. The hope is that the Master Plan can set the overall direction for the future and recommend further discussion between the two organizations.

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 22 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT DRAFT MEETING SUMMARY: YMCA RETREAT CENTER/CAMP SPRING LAKE

Follow-up/Next Steps • In the preferred plan, separating uses as shown in Concept 1 is important. General camping use should not share a restroom/shower building with the Y. The Master Plan should recommend a new camping-oriented restroom/shower building or provide a lesser level of service with pit toilets and water pumps. If there isn’t a long-term relationship with the Y, the existing building could be used. The Maser Plan needs to allow both scenarios to happen. • The Y will have internal discussion about what their essentials for a high-quality program: place to use for inclement weather, office, and restrooms. A letter to Dakota County providing feedback on two things would be helpful: 1) what the Y sees as essential for them to continue Camp Spring Lake as a high quality program and 2) if there is interest from the Y in long term commitment to Camp Spring Lake. • Dakota County and the Y should schedule a follow-up meeting for June /July to further clarify the vision for the Retreat Center and Camp Spring Lake.

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 23 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT DRAFT MEETING SUMMARY: HASTING ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTORS

Dakota County Parks Spring Lake Park Master Plan Update and Natural Resources Management Plan Draft Meeting Summary: Hastings Environmental Protectors 6/11/2020, 7:00 pm, Zoom

Attendees: Tom Lewanski, Dakota County Natural Resources Manager Joe Walton, Dakota County Senior Ecologist Lil Leatham, Dakota County Senior Planner Approximately ten Hastings Environmental Protectors (HEP) members

Overview: Dakota County Staff provided an overview the Spring Lake Park planning for the master plan update, the new natural resources management plan and the bison study. HEP members asked questions and made comments.

Summary of discussion and comments:

• HEP members are familiar with SLPR and enjoy the cross-country ski trails, the Mississippi River Greenway trail, and socializing with friends in the picnic area. » Comment made was: “the fewer people I run into, the better!” » Comment: “I love to have breakfast at this very spot when biking.” » Comment: “Will the introduction necessitate the altering of any ecosystems in the park?” “Would savanna get changed to prairie?” » The ski trails are about the right distance, there is no need to add mileage » There was support for removing non-native plant species from the park and keeping the park in a more natural state. » Dakota County Staff asked the question: “Ecological restoration can look messy. How do you feel about that?” Answers and comments were: » “Let fire take invasives out later”. [Use fire as a restoration tool.] » “Removing non-natural trees is OK. Restoring balance of original mix of vegetation should be the goal.” • There were mixed opinions about the pine plantations in the park. Some like the pines and feel they should only be removed at the end of life, others were more open to removal of the pine plantations for more appropriate native species. There was a lively discussion about if pines would have been present in the park pre Euro American settlement. Comments were the following: » “Yes, I agree with removing pines and replacing with other native vegetation, but over the long haul.” » “Buckthorn is growing under the pines currently.” » “Leave white pines—a native trees in MN” » “But white pines are not native to the park. Why not get rid of them like has been done elsewhere for example the Hastings Sand Coulee SNA?” » “Would be more prudent to let dissipate over time then abruptly removing them.” • There was excitement around and support for introduction of Bison to the park. A member made the comment that introducing large grazing animals will positively impact and bring stability to insect communities and bring back certain butterflies. There were several questions about how large the herd would be, how it would grow, and if it would be culled. Comments were the following: » “Yes, yes, and yes! I work at Prairie Island and it’s the best part of my day when I get to see the bison! I would love APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 24 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT DRAFT MEETING SUMMARY: HASTING ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTORS

to have them at Spring Lake Park.” » “and bison bring back the butterfly and insect population, too. Yes!” » “I love it!” » “How many? Size of the herd?” » “How would we control the population size of the herd?” » “Then this would not be a herd of part time residents, but long term, all year round?” » “Makes me happy!” » “Do other herds utilize native Americans to deal with the excess animals?” » “This is so cool!” » “And to what you said, insect communities in general are on the decline. Perhaps bison could add some stability.” » “How could we have bison at other parks, such as Miesville Ravine?” » “I’m so excited about the bison!” » “I am too. And hearing more about honoring the connection the Dakota people had to bison and the land makes my heart happy!” » “Me too!”

• Interpretive Theme

» We asked the question: “Should we share stories about the park?” No one offered any response.

• Concept 2. Comments:

» “Is there to be mountain biking or just hiking?” [intent was not to have mountain biking at Spring Lake Park.] » “Does Dakota County have an alternate site for mountain biking?” » “I use it the park for skiing. I don’t foresee a need for more ski trails.” » “I love the trails in the park.” » “St. Croix Ski Club is close, too.”

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 25 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT DRAFT MEETING SUMMARY: ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Dakota County Parks Spring Lake Park Master Plan Update and Natural Resources Management Plan Draft Meeting Summary: Army Corps of Engineers 6/10/2020, 10:00 am – 11:00 am

Attendees:

Joe Walton, Dakota County Senior Ecologist Lil Leatham, Dakota County Senior Planner Angela Deen, Amy Corps of Engineers Nathan Wallerstedt, Amy Corps of Engineers Nathan Campbell, Amy Corps of Engineers David Studenski, Amy Corps of Engineers

Overview:

Joe Walton provided an overview of the Spring Lake Park Reserve planning process and the desire to improve the water quality of and vegetation around Spring Lake. The group discussed the feasibility of and possible process for dredging and island building as well as the possibility of drawing down Pool 3 to see if there is native seed bank in Spring Lake

Summary of discussion and comments:

• Army Corps of Engineers is focused on maintain the 9’ channel. The only authorization has to do with navigation. • There is a Dredge Material Management Plan for Grey Cloud island. They filled a pit with sand on the island. There was significant cost involved and temporary island were created. • Ramsey County is building island habitat at Pig’s Eye - they received a LSHOC grant to help cover the cost share. • The goal, from the County’s perspective, should be to stop or divert the sedimentation in Spring Lake, not simply to sequester sediment. From the Corps’ perspective, they don’t want to increase the cost of dredging. • USACE has a Dredge Management Plan. Mentions holding sediment n temporary islands. • Island building has been done successfully elsewhere in the Mississippi, and is considered an ecosytem restoration project that is funded to partner via cost share. • CAP Tool 4 is a beneficial use of dredge material. • Feasibility study = paid 100% by USACE. • Island building reduces scour of lake shore and increases habitat acres. • It is an issue at Spring Lake because of loss of capacity/upstream flooding. Important to flood stage at Spring Lake. • What can we actually do in Spring Lake? Raising the flood profile upstream of the Project área—the state says there shall be “zero rise”. This could kill any potential project. • Hydrology engineer modeling—offset by backwater dredging? • Pool 2 – 1990’s was causing a rise. Upstream towards downstream. We need to get the historical perspective—talk to people that know the history like Tom Novak and John Hendrickson. • Maybe other things can be done besides island building • Conduct a drawdown? Possibly. They said they will look into it. • The Army Corps of Engineers should have to issue a permit for any new boat launch. This would need to be done through the regulatory branch. David Studenski would be the correct contact for this. • David would be considered the “recreation contact”.

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 26 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT DRAFT MEETING SUMMARY: ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS • Nate Campbell is the “ecological contact”. • Army Corps of Engineers would not likely be a good fit for partnership on an interpretive center. Recreation and education is not their primary mission, unless it occurs in facilities where they own the land. They mentioned that recreation is ancillary to ecosystem benefits, concerning the cost share projects, and so would not be considered as a cost share project. Follow-up

• Dakota County staff will update Army Corps Staff when the draft master plan/natural resources managment plan is available for review. • Nathan Campbell, PMP, suggested that Dakota County submit a request letter for their Continuing Authorities Program, “CAP”, which authorizes the Corps of Engineers to plan, design, and implement certain water resources projects without additional project specific congressional authorization. A requirement for application is sponsorship and cost sharing. The sponsoring agency may be a state, county, city, tribes or other group (see attached pdf regarding the program). Cost share is 65% federal and 35% sponsor (County), and maximum federal costs can be $10,000,000. We have talked about possible restoration of vegetation in Spring Lake, draw down of Pool 2, and mitigation/use of sediment to perhaps build islands for habitat. • Meet again after Tom Novak and Jim Hendrickson get back at the end of June.

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 27 Attachment A

PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT DRAFTMEETING M MEETINGINUTES SUMMARY: THPO LISTENING SESSION 2

SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN UPDATE THPO LISTENING SESSION 2 06.12.2020 Attendees: Maura Rockcastle, TxT Rachel Salmela, TxT Aubrey Tyler, TxT Emma Froh, TxT Lil Leatham, DC Planning Kurt Chatfield, DC Planning Autumn Hubble, DC Natural Resources Anna Ferris, Dakota County Steve Sullivan, Dakota County Joe Walton, Dakota County Samantha Odegard, Upper Sioux THPO Leonard Wabasha, SMSC Drew Brockman, Upper Sioux Community Cheyanne St. John, Lower Sioux THPO

OVERVIEW

The purpose of this meeting with the THPO’s is to review the two final concepts, building on their feedback from the last listening session, share community and stakeholder engagement outcomes, and discuss the direction for the preferred concept. NATURAL RESOURCES OVERVIEW

1. Rachel shared the first draft of the target plant communities, which shows delineated plant communities and forests. It is what is being used to help develop the natural resource management plant. This map will help identify how to restore or move these plant communities or how to bring them up to Schaar's Bluff.

a. Joe explained that this map has is the result of extensive analysis of existing conditions (topography, soils, geology, etc.) and “boots on the ground” surveying. For all NRMPs, his team uses this method to determine the communities that fit best with the existing areas. The irregular shapes indicate that these assigned communities respond to the landscape. The intent is to blur strong boundaries to give the communities a naturalistic feel.

b. Steve noted that because Spring Lake is a park reserve, no less than 80% is to be naturalized while providing opportunities for recreation. DC has a two-fold mission: to provide nature- based recreations but also to be stewards of the land, meaning it is their responsibility to enhance the landscape to the state that the land is telling them it wants to be.

2. Rachel reiterated that the planning team is always referencing this target plant community map when refining the master plan concepts so that we may test the experiential qualities know that these plant communities are defining features of the park.

06/12/2020 APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 28 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT DRAFT MEETING SUMMARY: THPO LISTENING SESSION 2

3. Rachel reviewed the plant species list generated by field surveys and transects. She zoomed in to the map to show the areas where samples have been taken to create the list. The colors correspond to the yellow and pink color codes which species were found where and whether the species were found in situ or introduced as part of the restoration efforts. Rachel asked if this is the right type of information for THPOs to be reviewing to give us feedback about which species to highlight in interpretation or which species should be included in new restoration efforts.

a. Cheyanne confirms that this list is very detailed and very thoughtful response to the request from the listening session in February (the right level of information that was desired).

CONCEPT OVERVIEW

1. Rachel presented a summary of concepts to date.

2. CONCEPT 1

a. A Tale of Two Parks: Concept 1 emphasizes the two ends of the park that have a strong identity. Schaar's Bluff is defined by trails and the West end by the retreat center and archery. The overarching goal was to connect the park to its river identity and redefine the western portion to be about Mississippi river discovery while avoiding the center of the park because it is where some of the significant sites are. A single trail would help protect the center of the park.

3. CONCEPT 2

a. Concept two has a different approach than concept one in that it focuses on the secondary soft surface trail. Ensuring a continuous route from one end of the park to another. This concept works on building identity into the park though a series of nodes.

b. Concept two includes the bison range idea, which occupies a significant amount of space on the west end of the park and aligns with the existing prairie restoration. This concept is considering other locations DC might be able to showcase experimental restoration techniques on the east end of the park.

4. Comments

a. Given the large amount of content provided here, Cheyanne asked that the presentation be submitted to the THPO’s so that they can review in more detail and provided more detailed feedback.

i. ACTION ITEM: TxT to send this presentation for comment. INTERPRETATION 5. Rachel presented high level interpretation approach for both concepts and asked whether there were any comments on the different layout implied in the concepts or thoughts on the interpretive themes and stories that would be helpful to incorporate.

6. Overarching theme: The Changing River

a. Importance of Place

b. Gifts of the Land

c. Kinship and Connection

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 29 06/12/2020 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT DRAFT MEETING SUMMARY: THPO LISTENING SESSION 2

i. All themes are still in development and will be expanded more on in the text of the masterplan. Rachel asked the group if there are other stories that they would like to see incorporated into the subthemes.

ii. Option 1: Concentrated nodes there could be themed trails that could be named in a clear and intuitive way. Each end of the park would have one or two loops in one theme category. Everything would always connect back to the river.

iii. Option 2 is testing if it makes sense to have the stories or themes as one continuous story. Determining where there could be smaller segments of ‘trailheads’ (not necessarily structures). Option two is exploring key intersections having rest stops that helps a visitor understand the stories of the park. Either of these ideas (loops or one longer story) could be worked into either trail configuration.

iv. Rachel asked the group - from an experiential standpoint, does anyone have a strong preference to ensure that a visitor has a probably to encounter a sampling of each theme in the high-use areas or whether it is ok to have the stories play out across the site along the continuous trail.

7. Comments

a. Cheyanne noted that partnerships with urban indigenous youth or other organizations was an important thing to consider and incorporate. She noted that she thought that Medicine Bottle had a location in the southeast corner – this would be a great opportunity to incorporate that into the historical information, work with the THPO offices on a project like that, and also with the urban Dakota community.

b. The THPO’s did not provide guidance specific to the questions asked.

i. ACTION ITEM: TxT to provide a list of questions for specific guidance in the PDF to help the THPO’s focus their time. Perhaps we intersperse

PROGRAMMING 8. Rachel presented a programming summary, outlining the current direction for a program list. They key takeaways across all platforms indicated that respondents desired to limit development in the park, protect the natural features, retain an emphasis on outdoor learning and nature-based recreation, and increase river access. Key concerns included the quantity of increased trail mileage (paved especially), event space for larger groups, and over-programming of the park. The engagement indicated positive feedback on both concepts but generally more positive feedback on Concept 2 – most likely because it read as having a lighter touch regarding development and because of the popularity of the continuous soft surface trail.

9. Rachel then presented the program rundown list that will likely be included in the final version of the conceptual master plan. She asked for specific feedback on the list,

a. Sam - I like the direction and the Bison Range. Only question I have so far is middle section of the park and the trails moving through there. Lil reached out to discuss with Sam and Drew and next steps for a cultural survey in this area. Sam noted that they might find that some existing resources that conflict both with elements being proposed as well as existing elements that might need to be rerouted at a later date.

10. Maura also clarified that the idea of a “Water Lab” would be very light touch. This would be the new water “node.” She thought that the name “Water Lab” does not feel quite right as the final name. Because we’ve talked a lot as a group about the park’s relationship with the river, she would like to

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 30 06/12/2020 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT DRAFT MEETING SUMMARY: THPO LISTENING SESSION 2

find a better name that connects more strongly to natural / cultural resources of SLPR. She noted that direct feedback from the community potential names would be helpful.

11. Rachel presented a site-wide diagram that overlaid culturally significant sites with high-quality plant communities. She asked for direct feedback about the level of sensitivity regarding bringing trails down to significant sites. She brought up the Ranelius site as an example of a place that people are already drawn to and that DC is interested in highlighting with trails and interpretive content.

a. Sam: Village sites are a little different, but more sensitive sites such as burial grounds or prayer sites should not be places that are advertised or highlighted. We understand that there might be people wandering to these sites because they can a good river view, but there are things we can do to discourage the majority of folks from getting close to those sites such as letting the vegetation grow thick or downing trees. At the very least, we don’t want to advertise sensitive areas.

b. Rachel: We’ve updated the plan to show the discussion during our site walk the fact that the habitation zone likely spanned the entire lower terrace. Does that feel appropriate? Should we extend it?

i. Steve noted that while it is important to acknowledge cultural significance along the river, we do want to bring people to the river.

ii. Sam: This whole area of significance is the entire Mississippi, which extends well beyond the bounds of the park. She does not have concerns about boat access at the river in a village site, but burial sites or prayer sites need to be avoided. She wants to ensure that access is developed in a way that does not adversely impact significant areas. Of course, previously disturbed sites like Bud’s Landing would be a good place to locate access points. She supports kayaking, canoeing, trails and providing public access to the river and through the park.

iii. TxT noted that our intent would be to design these amenities in a way that respects the cultural significance of this site. If anything is proposed within the culturally significant “hatched” zone, it should be responsive to that context compared to other Parks in the DC system – the cultural significance of this place should be felt.

c. Upper Sioux has been asked to prepare a cultural survey (TCP). May not be completed before the MP is finished, preliminary conversations.

d. Lil confirmed that end of this year is goal for finishing the MP, we can talk more about this, but Sam noted that we have a gap in work right now and we could be out there quickly. TxT confirmed it would be very valuable to have the results of the cultural survey embedded in the planning work.

ENLARGEMENTS 12. East, Schaar’s Bluff Plan

a. Rachel presented the update for this area and asked for specific feedback on the proposed trail extending beyond the Mill site along the river, given the proximity to the caves and known cultural significance of that area.

i. Schaar's Bluff:

1. Picnic layout will shift more towards what is shown in concept one

2. Negotiating parking and play issues and access

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 31 06/12/2020 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT DRAFT MEETING SUMMARY: THPO LISTENING SESSION 2

3. All trails shown are very much so under review and will be refined using the feedback received during engagement.

b. Sam suggested we stop the trail at the Mill site and not encourage people to walk further north along the river, closer to the cave sites.

i. ACTION ITEM: TxT team heard conflicting information about this comment, they will ask again to confirm.

13. West Enlargement Plan

a. Interpretive center will reflect concept 1 at Fischer Ave

b. DC is still internally reviewing camping

c. Drew asked what utility work would be required to support these new programs?

i. DC confirmed they have hired another consultant to do schematic design for Bison and will continue to share plans as they develop.

ii. DC noted that a self-composting or vault toilet, fencing, electrical and water will all be necessary to support the Bison Interpretive Center

iii. DC offered to include Drew as a stakeholder involved in that process, especially as it might affect their survey work. Drew and Sam confirmed their interest in both guiding the MP as well as being involved as a long-term stakeholder engaged in the park.

iv. Steve confirmed that they would fold Upper Sioux in the planning process for the Bison interpretation and planning. Sam noted that Prairie Island being closer and working with Bison on their own property would be the best primary contact for this work and they will defer to them and provide their support.

14. NEST STEPS

a. Rachel presented outstanding action items for DC and THPO’s.

i. Are there alternative steps that should be taken to get comments and feedback from this group and Prairie Island in particular?

ii. Sam noted that Prairie Island is still shut down and closed, and likely will not be accessible in the near future for consultation on this project.

iii. Sam suggested that Minneopa in Mankato for Bison herd consultation if Prairie Island is not available during this process. Lil confirmed that the DC Staff member who is leading the Schematic Design process for the Bison has visited both Prairie Island and Minneopa as part of that effort.

iv. Next meeting in end of August. TxT will select date and time and send invite to block time.

v. Draft Cultural Significance Chapter – comments. Sent in January for February meeting, as well as one month ago.

1. ACTION ITEMS:

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 32 06/12/2020 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

DRAFT MEETING SUMMARY: THPO LISTENING SESSION 2

a. TxT to put Cultural Significance Chapters back in top of inbox for THPO’s as well as this presentation for comment.

b. THPO’s to provide review on this presentation within a two-week period.

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 33

06/12/2020 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT OPEN HOUSE #2

• • •

• •

• • • 😊😊 •

•

• •

•

• • •

• 😊😊

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 34 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT OPEN HOUSE #2

•

• • •

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 35 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT OPEN HOUSE #2

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 36 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FEEDBACK FROM THE ARTS COMMITTEE

Dakota County Parks Spring Lake Park Master Plan Update Draft Meeting Summary: Dakota County Public Art Citizen Advisory Committee 5/12/2020

Overview: Lil Leatham presented the Master Plan concepts to the Dakota County Public Art Citizen Advisory Committee. The committee liked the ideas in the Master Plan concepts and looks forward to continued partnership with the Parks Department to bring Arts to the Park. They are interested in staying involved as projects in the park continue.

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 37 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MEETING SUMMARY DNR MEETING ON CAMPING + BOAT LAUNCH Dakota County Parks Spring Lake Park Master Plan Update Draft Meeting Summary: MnDNR Staff 5/13/2020

Attendees: Steve Sullivan, Dakota County Parks Director Lil Leatham, Dakota County Senior Planner Rachel Henzen, MnDNRMetro Area Supervisor Bob Fashingbauer, MnDNR Wildlife Manager Tim Pharis, MnDNR Assistant Wildlife Manager

Overview: Staff and organizational introductions. Lil Leatham provided and overview of the concepts to the group. Discussion focused on the boat launch locations and camping. Overall, MnDNR staff present are supportive of a new boat launch at Bud’s landing and camping in the park.

Discussion: • The existing boat launch at Hilary Path is dangerous, shallow, and far from the WMA/waterfowl hunting area • Spring Lake Park is best known for late season Mallard hunting, the best hunting location is close to the islands, so Bud’s landing makes an ideal site for a boat launch. • For the hunting, a very basic launch is needed: 10 pull in/pull out 14’ parking spaces for boat trailers. The launch would need to meet AIS stormwater standards and there is a preference for the launch to be paved (asphalt) • If space is limited, there could be a boat launch and then additional parking up to ¼ mile away. • A restroom or port-a-potty is needed. About 60% of MnDNR launches have toilets and it cuts down on trash • If Dakota County is interested in a river use area for the general public, additional parking will be needed. Some of this parking could be further away as well. • There are serval locations in the State with boat drop off areas and the main parking lot before the boat launch – Chub Lake • DNR boat launches are open 24 hours, but there is no overnight parking. • If people are going to access island camping from Bud’s landing, designated parking spaces will be needed for overnight use. • Island camping should be reservable and through paddlers who access from the river or from the park. • Closing the existing boat launch on Hilary Path may not be completely straight forward. More research is needed as to how that land was purchased/the launch is established. If a new launch is created at Bud’s landing, it may be possible to make the existing launch carry-in only and close the road. • The DNR is interested in a partnership with Dakota County for a new boat launch but timing of any funding is uncertain. Funding usually comes from gas tax revenue which will be very limited due to COVID 19. DNR does not typically reimburse project partners if the County wants build the launch before DNR funding is available. Kent Skaar would need to be involved in any discussion • Master Plan should establish the vision for a future MnDNR partnership. • County and DNR can work together on the master plan language • To honor Bud, it would be nice if the launch could be named Bud’s Landing • There are several new waterfowl groups, and the Delta waterfowl group outside of Hastings • It is anticipated that the Master Plan will be adopted by the County Board in January 2021 Action/follow-up: • Lil will follow up with Bob on contact information for the Delta waterfowl group • By August - Lil/Rachel will research if the current boat launch can be closed or not • This summer, when Dakota County is writing the Master Plan Document, Lil will coordinate with DNR Staff on mutually acceptable language regarding the possibility to close the old launch and DNR/Dakota County partnership for a new boat launch at Bud’s Landing APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 38 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MEETING WITH DNR CRITIACAL AREA STAFF

Dakota County Parks Spring Lake Park Master Plan Update Draft Meeting Summary: Critical Area Rules Friday May 15, 2020 3:30-4:30 pm

Attendees: Steve Sullivan, Dakota County Parks Director Kurt Chatfield, Dakota County Planning Manager Lil Leatham, Dakota County Senior Planner Dan Petrik, Land Use Specialist MnDNR

Overview: Dakota County Staff went over new ideas for the park with focus on elements that might be impacted by the Critical Area Rules: overlooks, camping, trails, river use areas at Bud’s Landing and the mill site.

Discussion: • There is nothing in the Master Plan concepts that is of concern regarding the Critical Area Rules. Some of the elements suggested will require a variance, for example, restrooms. • Nininger Township would have to make the decision about granting a variance. • The MnDNR does not always comment on variances. • Generally, it is best to minimize impact to the shoreline and bluff, minimize grading and restore as much as possible.

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 39 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT EMAIL + LETTER COMMENTS

From: [redacted] Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 11:12:00 AM To: Leatham, Lil Subject: RE: Trails in Spring Lake Park Reserve

Hello,

My name is [redacted] I am a resident of the Hastings area. Myself and some other Hastings residents who also enjoying mountain biking would like you to consider including some singletrack style trails in the new master plan for SLPR. We believe that the area of the park near Pine Bend Trail has some areas that would be excellent for this type of trail. It is an area of the park that appears to generally have minimal use by other park users. There is already an existing parking area, and with the paved bike trail nearby it would make a great connector to other parts of the park, Hastings, and further up river once the paved trail is completed. With the steadily increasing popularly of mountain biking I believe it would be a mistake to not at least consider this as on option for the park. I know that there are a group of Hastings residents, and I am sure many Dakota County residents that would agree with me and be willing to support this idea. Please let me know your thoughts on this, and what I/we can do to help insure that we don’t miss this opportunity.

Thank you,

From: Leatham, Lil Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 11:12:00 AM To: [redacted] Subject: RE: Trails in Spring Lake Park Reserve

Thank you for your interest in mountain biking trails in Spring Lake Park Reserve and the master planning process. The project team is currently in the process of preparing 2 alternative concepts for the park. It is anticipated that the concepts will be available for community review and comment this spring – in April and May. Community input will inform creation of a preferred concept and phasing, which should be available for public review this Fall. Though the concepts are still being developed, at this point, staff is not recommending mountain biking trails in Spring Lake Park Reserve due to the park’s regional designation as a Park Reserve, high quality natural resources, numerous sensitive cultural sites, and erodible soils. The County Board will ultimately make decisions regarding what activities are included in the master plan.

Kind regards, Lil Leatham, PLA, ASLA Senior Planner

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 40 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT EMAIL + LETTER COMMENTS

From: [redacted] Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 1:28 PM To: Leatham, Lil Subject: Park changes

Hello, I only have two questions? Are the cross country ski trails going to remain in the park? Does the plan protect for overcrowding? Thanks. Sent from my iPad

From: Leatham, Lil Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 3:13:00 PM To: [redacted] Subject:RE: Park changes

Yes, the cross country ski trails will remain and additional mileage is being considered, please comment on the online app if you have suggestions for the trails or would like to see more mileage. Thank you for brining up overcrowding. At this time, the plan does not specifically address this, but it will be a consideration as we move from concepts to a preferred plan. Thank you for your comments and interest in the park.

Kind regards, Lil Leatham, PLA, ASLA Senior Planner Physical Development Administration P 952-891-7159 W www.dakotacounty.us A 14955 Galaxie Avenue, Apple Valley, MN 55124

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 41 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT EMAIL + LETTER COMMENTS

From: Leatham, Lil Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 10:37:34 AM To: [redacted] Subject: Dakota County Is Seeking Input on Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan and Natural Resources Management Plan

Dakota County is developing a Master Plan and Natural Resources Management Plan for Spring Lake Park Reserve, a 1,200- acre park along the banks of the Mississippi River near Hastings. The plan will define a long-range vision for the park and be a guide for County investment over the next 10 years. The planning process will include natural resources management, recreation development, visitor services and interpretation. After collecting initial input last fall, two concepts with ideas for potential improvements have been developed for consideration. We are now seeking feedback that will be used to develop a preferred concept for the park. You can participate in the following ways: Go to the Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Concepts webpage to view and provide input on the concepts through May 25. Attend the online open house to learn about the concepts and ask questions. Thursday, May 21, from 5:30–6:30 p.m. Join with this link. For additional information about the project, visit the Master Plan webpage. Please share this information with others who may be interested. If you have questions or would like to discuss other ways to participate in the planning process, please contact me at lil.leatham@ co.dakota.mn.us.

Kind regards, Lil Leatham, PLA, ASLA Senior Planner Physical Development Administration W www.dakotacounty.us A 14955 Galaxie Avenue, Apple Valley, MN 55124

From: [redacted] Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 10:37:34 AM To: Leatham, Lil Subject: Re: Dakota County Is Seeking Input on Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan and Natural Resources Management Plan

Lil,

Thank you for sharing this with me. As you know, I have been advocating for any future development of Spring Lake Park to include additional natural surface hiking trails for a long time. When compared to other types of development... low impact, low initial cost, low cost of ongoing maintenance, highly desirable with so many demographics - you can’t go wrong. I really like where the Concept 2 plan is headed. Please know that I am always available to discuss and consult as needed. I am a lifelong resident of Hastings, have been going to Spring Lake Park since I was a child, brought my daughter there when she was a child, am actively involved in trail building and maintenance with the Superior Hiking Trail Association as a volunteer crew leader, am the race director of the states most popular trail running events and am a designer and field technician for Critical Connections Ecological Services based out of Stillwater Minnesota.

Thank You, Rocksteady Running Endless Summer Trail Run Series https://www.estrs.com/

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 42 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT EMAIL + LETTER COMMENTS

May 15, 2020 Dear Ms. Leatham: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Spring Lake Park Reserve master plan concepts. Friends of the Mississippi River (FMR) is a non-profit organization with a mission to engage community members and other stakeholders to protect, restore and enhance the Mississippi River and its watershed in the Twin Cities Region. We represent thousands of people in the metropolitan area who care deeply about the river, including a growing membership of over 2,700 people and more than 3,200 volunteers and 2,000 advocates engaged each year. Uniquely valuable park Spring Lake Park is a particularly special riverfront site. Among the things that make it unique: • It is the only Dakota County park located along the Mississippi River. • It has a variety of native plant communities, most of which were classified by the DNR as high biodiversity significance. • It has unique plant species found at few, if any, other sites in Dakota County. • It is connected to hundreds of acres of largely undeveloped land, creating a rare corridor of natural land along the Mississippi River that is important pathway for wildlife movement. • The river is a migration corridor for hundreds of migratory bird species. Sites along the river such as Spring Lake Park are vital resting and nesting sites for birds. Because of these features and the fact that this is designated as a park reserve, FMR supports prioritizing the protection of the native plant communities and their inhabitants, and keeping this park as wild as possible. Preferred concepts Overall we prefer Concept 2, which includes bison and a somewhat lesser level of development. We support the addition of bison to the park; they are a very important, and generally absent, component of native prairies. A herd will draw new visitors to the park, and we encourage careful planning about how to accommodate increased traffic without causing ecological damage. In concept 2, we are opposed to adding bike/cart campsites, and the associated trails, along the river at the west end. The area depicted is a largely intact oak forest on a slope next to the river with highly erodible soils; it should not be developed. The campsites could also create more impediments for wildlife that are likely to use the area by the river as a transit corridor. Trail network We are concerned about the wildlife and provide corridors for invasive species, potential erosion and other issues. We suggest fewer new trails in the middle section of the park than are shown in Concept 2 -- one loop would be adequate. We also strongly oppose the expansion of trails and overlooks in fragile bluff areas. Such trails appear to be proposed, most notably at the east end of the park which shows a new trail right on the bluff’s edge. The existing trail network in that area is more than adequate and does not merit expansion. We suggest that any new trails should be soft-surface. Paved walkways and parking areas should be porous. Buildings and structures Given Spring Lake Park’s uniquely pristine natural state, we feel that additional development should be kept to a minimum to retain the wild feel of the park. We would not support adding large interpretive centers or other large structures. Additional buildings should be scaled back and located in areas that are already disturbed. Many of the visitor features, such as picnic shelters and trail rest areas, appear overbuilt in the examples shown. We encourage reducing new structures to only what is truly necessary, and emphasizing low rooflines, natural building materials and colors, etc. The parking area and picnic shelter on Hilary Path seem like examples of unnecessary building. Is there evidence to support this area as a desired, popular destination within the park? We suggest avoiding new turfgrass lawn area, but instead demonstrate to the public how to have pollinator-friendly plants and lawns. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on these concept plans. We look forward to participating in the rest of the planning process. If you’d like to discuss anything, please don’t hesitate to contact Karen Schik at 651-222-2193 x15 or [email protected]. In partnership, Karen Schick Colleen O’Connor Toberman Senior Ecologist River Corridor Director

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 43 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT EMAIL + LETTER COMMENTS

From: [redacted] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 8:58 AM To: Planning Subject: I support the Land Conservation Plan

Dear Office of Planning,

I am especially fond of Spring Lake Park for the amazing vistas over the river, the diversity of habitat, and the abundance of migratory birds. I also love that the park is large enough, and long enough, that it’s not hard to get away from the more heavily visited areas and have a quiet nature experience. The connection of Spring Lake Park to other natural areas is one of the reasons why it is so important. Greenway corridors are vital for the movement of plants and animals across the landscape. The ever increasing pressures that humans put on the landscape make it more important than ever to protect remaining natural areas and expand on them. One of the most important ways to help reduce carbon in the atmosphere and offset the effects of the warming climate is by increasing the amount of plant cover. And native vegetation is especially vital for protecting the pollinators that help to supply us with food. Thank you for the leadership that Dakota County has shown in natural resource protection. Please continue by supporting the Dakota County Parks Plan.

Sincerely, [redacted]

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 44 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT EMAIL + LETTER COMMENTS

From: [redacted] Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 12:27:58 PM To: Ferris, Anna Subject: RE: Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan Update

Hi Anna - Hopefully Dakota County received my email on May 11. - I pasted my May 11 message below that I sent to “[email protected]” and Mike Slavik. - Are you any relation to Terry Ferris, former horticulture prof at UW-River Falls? I would like to thank you for all of your good and diligent work in protecting land throughout Dakota County. My students have been reading The Sixth Extinction by Elizabeth Kolbert during this school year. They are coming to understand the plight of life on planet Earth and the need to put protections in place. I would like to encourage you to continue to protect special places in Dakota County and even expand the amount of land under protection. Reason no. 1 My field biology students have the opportunity to study special places in the Hastings vicinity. They visit the white pine forest and black ash seepage swamp at Pine Bend Scientific and Natural Area, the alder thicket at Lebanon Hills Regional Park, the maple-basswood forest at Hastings SNA, and the floodplain forest at the Vermillion River bottoms. They survey fish and benthic macroinvertebrates in the Vermillion River. They monitor wetland quality at Lake Rebecca. I would offer that the chance for students to immerse themselves in the study of unique and special places is invaluable. Reason no. 2 My wife and I need time to disconnect from our chaotic and frenetic world. The Dakota County park and trail system offers opportunities to relax, decompress, and find precious solitude. We look forward to the completion of the Mississippi River Trail and the expansion of protected corridors throughout the County. Reason no. 3 My wife and I have a grandson. In a time of climate change and loss of critical habitat, we worry about what type of Earth our grandson will inherit. It is perhaps more important than ever to protect and manage the special places that remain in our degraded and mistreated Earth. It is my opinion that we need to act now.

Leatham, Lil Subject: Re: Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan Update Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 10:02:22 AM

Good morning [redacted], Thank you for your email and your interest in protecting these special places in Dakota County. I appreciate you sharing the multifaceted ways that these places are important and connected to your life and work. Your comments will be considered as the project team develops the preferred long term plan and natural resource recommendations for Spring Lake Park Reserve. In addition, your input will be shared with the Dakota County Commissioners. I have looped in Lil Leatham, the Project Manager for this effort. Please feel free to reach out to her if you have any questions or further suggestions. To the best of my knowledge, I am of no relation to Terry Ferris. My Ferris side is originally from the Boston area (though I grew-up in Minnesota), so the majority of my relatives live out there. Wish you wellness, Anna Anna Ferris Outreach Coordinator

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 45 PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Attachment A EMAIL + LETTER COMMENTS

From: Thomas E. Casey, Attourney at Law Sent: May 31, 2020 To: Dakota County Planning Office VIA E-MAILY ONLY [email protected] Subject: RE: Spring Lake Park Reserve – Comments to “Concept Frameworks” Dear Planning Office, I represent Sustainable Earth Advocates (SEA), a Minnesota non-profit corporation organized in 2008 for the purposes, in part, of ensuring that our natural resources are protected from unnecessary and ecologically damaging development. It has come to SEA’s attention that Dakota County is planning more development on Spring Lake Park Reserve. In this effort, Dakota County has offered, for public comment, a 21- page document containing “Concept Frameworks #1 and #2.” Please consider SEA’s comments to the “Concept Frameworks” as preliminary, subject to revision as more information is provided. Park Natural Resources Must Be Preserved During the May 21, 2020 planning meeting, Dakota County staff stated that metropolitan “park reserves” are subject to an 80% - 20% formula. That is, 80% of the land is preserved for natural resource purposes; 20% is allocated for recreational uses. Staff stated, at present, 12% of the land is managed for recreational uses. The Metropolitan Council’s 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan (updated November, 2018) states: “… regional park implementing agencies are required to manage at least 80% of the park reserve as natural lands that protect the ecological functions of the native landscape. [Page 18; emphasis added.] “… at least 80% of each park reserve should be managed as wild lands that protect the ecological functions of the native landscape. [Page 43; emphasis added.] It appears that Dakota County is determined to reach 20% for recreational uses, even though the 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan does not require 20%. Dakota County Planning Office Unfortunately, in many metropolitan “park reserves”, the “ecological functions” of the 80% natural areas are diminished when they are sliced into smaller ecological units by incompatible horse trails, paved bike trails, cross-country ski trails, hiking trails, etc. Often times, these trails are constructed in close proximity to each other, diminishing the quietude of each recreational user. Moreover, “park reserves” are very susceptible to political pressure by organized recreation groups, who demand that their hobby be allowed in the park. For example, “single track” mountain bike trails slice up natural habitat, damaging its “ecological function. Furthermore, these “single track” trails are not compatible with people on foot, who would be distracted from enjoying nature by having to be constantly on the lookout for fast-moving cyclists. SEA appreciates that there is no intent, at least at this time, to build mountain bike trails in this park reserve. ‘ However, the pressures on Spring Lake Park Reserve are similar. There is demand for overnight camping, watercraft rentals, and access to the park islands. An interpretative center (with bison and/or the Mississippi River, as possible themes) is being considered – more dollars unnecessarily taken away from conservation and restoration of natural resources. SEA Tentatively Supports Concept #2 – With Modifications. If SEA had to choose between the two “Concepts”, SEA would support “Concept #2” because this Concept appears to have less adverse impacts to the “ecological functions” of the park reserve. However, SEA recommends reducing the adverse impacts more by deleting the following development from “Concept #2”:

The Mill Site (river use area and interpretive site) - Custom picnic shelter (20ppl) - Interpretation - ADA accessible trail loop Expanded Trail Loops - Overlooks

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 46 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT EMAIL + LETTER COMMENTS

- Rest-stop - Small Trailheads with Parking at Fisher Ave and Hilary Path -Boat access camping on Spring Lake Islands Bud’s Landing River Use Area with Water Lab - Small watercraft boat launch - Access road with boat trailer parking - Small picnic shelter (20ppl) Improved Existing Archery Range. Instead remove the existing stands and allow archery from the ground only. Bison Interpretive Center (Fahey Ave) - Park information - Indoor interpretive exhibit space Dakota County Planning Office - Indoor and Outdoor classrooms - Restrooms - Equipment rental - Parking Camp Spring Lake Retreat Center (modified existing) - Outdoor classroom - 8 group campsites New Public Camping Boat access camping on Spring Lake Islands - 4 river walk-in / cart-in sites - 4 prairie walk-in / cart-in sites - 3 group sites - 4 camper cabins - Shower building Water Lab (at Bud’s Landing) - Small indoor classroom - Equipment storage - Restrooms Mississippi River Critical Area Requirements The Metropolitan Council’s 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan (November, 2018) states on page 78: “For regional parks, park reserves, and special recreation features located in part or wholly within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA), master plans must also address the following: Acknowledge the purposes of the MRCCA designation as detailed in Minnesota Statutes, section 116G.15, subd. 1: * Acknowledge the standards and criteria for the preservation, protection, and management of lands within the MRCCA in Minn. Rule Chapters 6106.0010 – 6106.0180 *Map the location of the parkland and its relationship with the MRCCA boundary *Recognize that the design and construction of park facilities must comply with the standards contained in Minn. Rules 6106.0130 *Plan, design, and construct facilities and projects in a manner that protects primary conservation areas and public river corridor views identified by local units of government in their comprehensive plans

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 47 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT EMAIL + LETTER COMMENTS

SEA would appreciate the opportunity to comment on Spring Lake Park Reserve’s proposed compliance with MRCCA, prior to when the plan is submitted for review by other agencies.

SEA is Not Against Park Development

It is important to note that SEA is not against park development. SEA supports development of a bison range in the park, as part of the Minnesota Bison Conservation Herd, assuming there are no genetically detectable cattle genes in the herd. SEA also supports one range, to allow more natural conditions, as opposed to 3 separate paddocks. It is laudable that 150 acres of native prairie will be restored. SEA encourages that this acreage is contiguous.

SEA is also pleased that the proposed trail will be a “natural surface” (i.e. not be paved) and that no bikes will be allowed. Thus, hikers will not be distracted in their efforts to enjoy and study the natural world around them.

In summary, there is no requirement that 20% of the park reserve be developed forrecreation. Please protect the natural resources of Spring Lake Park Reserve as much as possible.

On behalf of SEA, I thank you in advance for your reply.

Sincerely yours, Thomas E. Casey

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 48 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT EMAIL + LETTER COMMENTS

From: [redacted] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 2:23 PM To: Leatham, Lil Subject: Spring Lake Park Reserve

Hi, I’m [redacted], and am the Chairman of Pine Bend Cemetery Assn. My input into the Master Plan of Spring Lake Reserve would be, not to forget the Historical Marker which was setting on 52 and 117th Street, Inver Grove Heights. I have all the history of the area. Thank you,

From: Leatham, Lil Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 4:33:00 PM To: [redacted] Subject: RE: Spring Lake Park Reserve

Thank you for your interest in Spring Lake Park Reserve. I believe the marker you are referring to has been reconstructed near the Pine Bend Trailhead along the Mississippi River Greenway. I’ve attached a photo.

Kind regards, Lil Leatham, PLA, ASLA Senior Planner Physical Development Administration P 952-891-7159 W www.dakotacounty.us A 14955 Galaxie Avenue, Apple Valley, MN 55124

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 49 PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Attachment A EMAIL + LETTER COMMENTS

From: Dakota County Webmaster Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2020 5:20 PM To: [redacted] Subject: New Comments from the External Parks Website: Suggestion

Reason for Contact: Suggestion Comment: I love all of the habitat restoration work and bike path that now goes through Spring Lake Park Reserve. Are there any plans to create additional hiking/trail running trails? I am wondering whether this might be a possibility for the area between the West Trailhead and the Schaar’s Bluff trailhead. It would be great to have low impact trails (dirt paths in woods, mowed paths through prairie) that add up to around 10 miles at the park.

From: Leatham, Lil Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 9:53:00 AM To: [redacted] Subject: RE: New Comments from the External Parks Website: Suggestion

Ms. [redacted], Thank you for your suggestion. The Dakota County Parks Department is currently working on a Master Plan and Natural Resources Management Plan for spring Lake Park Reserve. The master plan will include a long-range vision for the park and a 10-year plan to guide future decisions about park activities, capital investment and natural resource restoration. The Natural Resources Management Plan will address restoration priorities and provide near-term management recommendations for the natural areas in the park. We are currently evaluating ideas for future improvements to the park, and yes, one of these ideas is to expand the natural surface trail network within the park. Your suggestion will be considered as the project team develops the Draft Master Plan and Draft Natural Resources Management Plan. In addition, your suggestion, along with comments submitted from others, will be distributed to the Dakota County Board. There will be another opportunity for community review and comment on the draft Master Plan and Natural Resources Management Plan this fall. Please visit the project webpage if you would like to review the concepts. There you will find a link to an interactive website that will allow you to review and comment on the concepts. Don’t delay, the official comment period ended yesterday, May 31, but it is still active as of this morning. There is also a survey (this will be open through June 10). If you have any other questions about the project, suggestions for future improvements, or would like to discuss other ways to participate in the planning process, don’t hesitate to contact me. Kind regards,

Lil Leatham, PLA, ASLA Senior Planner Physical Development Administration P 952-891-7159 W www.dakotacounty.us A 14955 Galaxie Avenue, Apple Valley, MN 55124

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 50 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT EMAIL + LETTER COMMENTS

From: [redacted] Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 7:43 PM To: Leatham, Lil Subject: Re: Input on Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan and Natural Resources Management Plan

Hello Lil, Here we are into June already, and there’s no slowing down of our summers here in Minnesota! Lil, I just wanted to give you a little feedback, just my own thoughts regarding Spring Lake Park and the experiences we’ve had over the past month. I was very happy to see the signage all over the park asking questions of patrons asking for their feedback, and that the signage was engaging and specific, for example, would you like to see more trail surface, etc., instead of something like a generic “what would you like to see in Spring Lake Park”? I also noticed that patrons were interested in the signage with pictures of points of interest, and signage that discussed the history of the place and the area. Another point of engagement was anything that had to do with Native culture,history, language. As the park programing planning moves forward, I think guided history tours, guided nature tours, or guided fitness tours may be something to consider? When the corona virus permits us to be back to “normal” again, perhaps classes creating native foods using inground ovens, of campfire or grill cooking, or creating native crafts, or clothing, or tools, things to help folks appreciate our indiginous peoples. Also, what was settler life like before the community “vanished” from the park area may be interesting? Just throwing out ideas and from watching how patrons engaged with the park. At any rate, we are so lucky to have such a treasure so close to us. Its always a joy to go there and savor what nature offers us. Cheers, Nicole DePalma

From: Leatham, Lil To: [redacted] Subject: RE: Input on Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan and Natural Resources Management Plan Date: Monday, June 22, 2020 9:06:00 AM

[redacted], Thanks for the feedback. The project team will take your feedback into consideration as we prepare the draft preferred concept. In addition, your comments, along with comments submitted from others, will be distributed to the Dakota County Board. The draft preferred concept will be on the July 23 Dakota County Planning Commission Agenda (Zoom) – I will be sending an invitation to the Hastings Planning Commission this week. I hope you are able to join us! I’m especially glad you noticed the signs in the park – this is the first time we have put those out and I have been wondering how effective they are. Kind regards, Lil

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 51 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT EMAIL + LETTER COMMENTS

From: Dakota County Webmaster Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2020 1:49 PM To: [redacted] Subject: New Comments from the External Parks Website: Suggestion

Reason for Contact: Suggestion Comment:

I read your plan for improvement at Spring Lake Park Great ideas, I am looking forward to them. What I am not seeing is the addition of restrooms along the trails. I am still baffled what they were include in the original trail design, but now is you chance to fix that. I really hate to find a tree every time I am out there I wodul be happy with a potable unit but vault/compost toilets would be preferable

From: Leatham, Lil Sent: Monday, June 8, 2020 10:41 AM To: [redacted] Subject: Restrooms in Spring Lake Park Reserve

Mr. [redacted] Thank you for taking the time to review the Spring Lake Park reserve concepts. Your suggestion will be considered as the project team develops the Draft Master Plan and Draft Natural Resources Management Plan. In addition, your suggestion, along with comments submitted from others, will be distributed to the Dakota County Board. There will be another opportunity for community review and comment on the draft Master Plan and Natural Resources Management Plan this fall. You are correct, currently there are no restrooms between Schaar’s Bluff and the West Trailhead. For your future use, I want to make sure you are aware that there are restrooms at the trailheads. The restrooms are located: at the picnic shelter at the West Trailhead, at the Schaar’s bluff picnic grounds, and in the Gathering Center at Schaar’s Bluff. Currently the indoor restrooms are closed due to COVID 19, but I believe there are port-a-potties in each of these locations.

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 52 Attachment A PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT EMAIL + LETTER COMMENTS

Comments on Dakota County Spring Lake Park Plan We are the Hastings Environmental Protectors (HEP), a local citizens’ group founded in 2005 whose mision is to preserve, protect and restore Hastings area natural environments. With this mission in mind, we would very much like to provide input on the Dakota County Spring Lake Park Plan. We support the following for the Park: • a future for Spring Lake Park that continues to honor the connection of people and the Earth, respecting the peoples who came before us, the river that shapes the land, and the native biota that inhabits the park preserve. • development of the park only if it is implemented in a manner that contributes to individuals and groups having an enhanced experience in a natural environment while preserving sensitive resources. • introduction of bison as a way to restore and enhance the native prairie. • increased access to the Mississippi River that allows people to enjoy the river and all of its natural amnities in an undeveloped environment. • a limited number of additional soft trails that should be developed to minimize forest fragmentation and disruption of flora and fauna, managed to control erosion, and limited to activities such as hiking, cross-country skiing and nature study. • creation of a nature play area that focuses on explorative, open-ended, creative play using natural matrials rather than traditional playground equipment. • campground development that is limited in size and number of campsites and that prioritizes walk-in and canoe tent camping rather than recreational vehicles. • a limited number of additional facilities or event spaces that would be used primarily for nature interpretation, education or recreation, and not for events that bring large groups to the park for activities unrelated to those above.

APPENDIX DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 53 Attachment B VISION & GUIDING PRINCIPLES SUMMARY & COMMUNITY COMMENTS

Spring Lake Park Reserve showcases the ecological and cultural integrity of the land to provide a regional destination where visitors can experience the integral relationship between humans and the landscape.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES PHASE 2 COMMUNITY FEEDBACK HIGHLIGHTS • Protect, restore, enhance, and maintain natural resources. 1. Natural Features: Many comments indicate that the community value • Create an engaging gateway to the treasures of the Mississippi River maintaining the park as a “reserve” that will not be overdeveloped especially Valley. Native Prairie and the Bluff Ecosystem. Over-development was a consistent • Become a regional, four-season destination. concern across engagement types. • Celebrate the area’s rich cultural heritage. 2. Views to the Mississippi River: The community values the visual connection to • Integrate ecological, cultural, educational, and recreational experience. the Mississippi River and favored opportunities to visually connect with or get • Provide inclusive, memorable, and relevant experiences for all. closer to the River throughout the Park. 3. Soft Surface Trails: Narrow, natural surface walking/hiking trails that explore remote areas of the park with minimal impact to natural resources was favored by community members. 4. Bison: There was a strong positive response to bringing bison to the park and including an interpretive center to help educate visitors.

JULY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 1 Attachment B NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN (NRMP) UPDATE GOALS

• Regenerate a landscape that contains a mosaic of upland plant communities across a continuum from oak forest to oak savanna to prairie • Increase native plant diversity • Minimize the invasive species cover • Prevent new non-native species encroachment • Reduce the impact of people, for example, by maintaining and establishing new trails that allow them to explore the park without adverse impacts • Reduce erosion and stabilize ravines • Protect lake water and groundwater quality • To adapt to climate change by facilitating the introduction of appropriate species native to northern Iowa, southwestern Wisconsin, and Southern Minnesota

JULY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 2 Attachment B NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE PRE-SETTLEMENT VEGETATION

JULY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 3 Attachment B NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE RANELIUS SITE - HISTORIC PHOTO

SOURCE: SCIENCE MUSEUM OF MINNESOTA

JULY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 4 Attachment B NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE 2020 NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES

JULY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 5 Attachment B NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE RESTORATION STRATEGY

JULY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 6 Attachment B NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE TARGET PLANT COMMUNITIES FOR RESTORATION

JULY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 7 Attachment B PREFERRED CONCEPT OVERVIEW OF SENSITIVE AREAS

SCHAAR’S BLUFF EXISTING FARM SILO GATHERING CENTER

THE MILL ARCHERY RANGE

WEST TRAILHEAD

RETREAT CENTER DNR BOAT LAUNCH

AREA FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUD’S LANDING

LEGEND park boundary bluff impact zone significant areas significant structures inholdings areas of indigenous habitation high quality habitat highest quality habitat critical area setback MRG trail existing trails

0 750 1,500 3,000

JULY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 8 Attachment B PREFERRED CONCEPT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT VS. EXISTING

SCHAAR’S BLUFF FARM USE AREA GATHERING CENTER

THE MILL ARCHERY RANGE

WEST TRAILHEAD

RETREAT CENTER DNR BOAT LAUNCH

RIVER LANDING USE AREA

LEGEND park boundary existing development / redevelopment areas new development area bison range high quality natural areas

0 750 1,500 3,000

JULY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 9 Attachment B PREFERRED CONCEPT SITE-WIDE PLAN - LONG-TERM PLAN

THE FARM EVENT SPACE + OBSERVATION TOWER* EAST TRAILHEAD *PHASED AS PART OF THE LONG-TERM PLAN)

SCHAAR’S BLUFF GATHERING CENTER

THE MILL WEST TRAILHEAD MRG TO HASTINGS

RETREAT CENTER

CAMPING AREA

WATER TRAIL TO ISLAND CAMPING LEGEND RIVER LANDING park boundary USE AREA current inholdings bluff impact zone woodland area INTERPRETIVE CENTER* prairie area MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND BISON savanna area INTERPRETATION RAVINE bison range *PHASED AS PART OF THE OVERLOOK buildings MRG TO ST. PAUL LONG-TERM PLAN roads TERRACE paved park trails OVERLOOK soft-surface park trails

HILARY PATH multi purpose field play area community gardens MRG trail i interpretive center overlook play area sand volleyball archery picnic shelter sun shelter / rest stop amphitheater camping bison range water access point fishing pier 0 750 1,500 3,000 P parking

Preferred Concept, Site Plan

JULY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 10 Attachment B PREFERRED CONCEPT PLAN PROGRAM DISTRIBUTION -LONG-TERM PLAN

SCHAAR’S BLUFF GATHERING CENTER ISLAND PICNIC GROUNDS AND PLAY AREA CAMPING THE MILL RIVER USE AREA DNR BOAT OVERLOOK LAUNCH HUMPHREY POINT

WEST TRAILHEAD TRAILHEAD TRAILHEAD TERRACE ENTRY RIVER-ORIENTED TRANSITION ORIENTATION CAMPING

RIVER LANDING USE AREA

PRAIRIE LAB

OVERLOOK RAVINE BISON RANGE TRAIL HEAD PRAIRIE EDGE GATHERING AREA FARM EVENT SPACES AND OBSERVATION TOWER

GROUP BISON RANGE CAMPSITES AND RETREAT CENTER

OVERLOOK LEGEND INTERPRETIVE CENTER TERRACE interpretive center or node camping area MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND gathering area BISON INTERPRETATION river oriented area bison range

JULY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 11 Attachment B PREFERRED CONCEPT SCHAAR’S BLUFF GATHERING AREA - LONG-TERM PLAN

PICNIC GROUNDS large modern reservation shelter (150-person) small modern reservation shelter restrooms/kitchen (100-person) 3 small non-reservation sun shelters

NATURE THEMED PLAYGROUND & MRG TO HASTINGS NATURE PLAY AREA relocated playground after existing equipment reaches end of life LEGEND park boundary EXISTING EVENT LAWN current inholdings bluff impact zone SCHAAR’S BLUFF GATHERING CENTER woodland area public trailhead welcome desk prairie area equipment rentals savanna area office space for staff bison range THE MILL buildings riverside use area roads interpretive site paved park trails WATER TRAIL TO small general use shelter ISLAND CAMPING fishing dock soft-surface park trails day use boat landing multi purpose field vaulted restroom or portable play area community gardens THE FARM USE AREA *PHASED AS PART OF THE LONG-TERM PLAN* MRG trail interpretation i interpretive feature silo / observation tower overlook 4-season event pavilion (150-person) sand volleyball play area EXISTING COMMUNITY GARDENS sand volleyball archery EXISTING DNR BOAT LAUNCH remove picnic shelter when the River Landing Use Area launch outdoor classroom is completed amphitheater camping ADA ACCESSIBLE PATH TO bison range MILL SITE water access point fishing pier P parking 350 700

Revised Concept, Schaar’s Bluff Gathering Area Enlargement

JULY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET 12 Attachment B PREFERRED CONCEPT DETAIL PLAN #1 - LONG-TERM PLAN

4 6 12 5 7

POSSIBLE TRAIL SPUR EXTENSION

8 11 14

1 2 LEGEND park boundary multi purpose field sun shelter / rest stop current inholdings play area amphitheater woodland area community gardens camping prairie area i interpretive center bison range savanna area overlook water access point buildings play area fishing pier roads sand volleyball P parking paved park trails archery 150 300 soft-surface park trails picnic shelter

JULY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 13 Attachment B PREFERRED CONCEPT DETAIL PLAN #1 - 10-YEAR PLAN

12 4 6 5 7

POSSIBLE TRAIL SPUR EXTENSION

8 11 14

LEGEND park boundary multi purpose field sun shelter / rest stop current inholdings play area amphitheater woodland area community gardens camping prairie area i interpretive center bison range savanna area overlook water access point buildings play area fishing pier roads sand volleyball P parking paved park trails archery 150 300 soft-surface park trails picnic shelter

JULY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 14 Attachment B PREFERRED CONCEPT SCHAAR’S BLUFF GATHERING AREA PRECEDENTS

1 2 3

4-season pavilion silo observation tower event lawn

4 5 6

nature themed play modern picnic shelter nature play

7 8 9

trailhead the mill (interpretive grounds) fishing / water access

JULY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 15 Attachment B PREFERRED CONCEPT EAST END PRECEDENTS

10 11 12

the mill (interpretive feature) overlook interpretive installation

13 14

rest stop (small shelter) rest stop (small open)

JULY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 16 Attachment B PREFERRED CONCEPT LOWER MISSISSIPPI DISCOVERY ZONE - LONG-TERM PLAN

HUMPHREY POINT ARCHERY LOOPS RIVER OVERLOOK existing archery range EXISTING WEST TRAILHEAD

RIVER-ORIENTED CAMPSITES 8-16 hike-in campsites vault restrooms + water WATER TRAIL TO ISLAND CAMPING

EXISTING RIVER LANDING USE AREA RETREAT CENTER realigned access road pull-through parking youth lodge fishing dock/water lab (boat trailer) 3-5 group camp sites small outdoor classroom small picnic shelter 4 group cabin rentals (new, outdoor storage restrooms long term) boat launch (small watercraft) amphitheater restrooms + water INTERPRETIVE CENTER* MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND BISON INTERPRETATION *PHASED AS PART OF THE LONG-TERM PLAN welcome area RAVINE OVERLOOK interpretive displays existing bridge or trail spur office space MRG TO ST. PAUL classroom space indoor restrooms equipment storage + rentals TERRACE OVERLOOK proposed interpretive node PRAIRIE LAB interactive / experimental restoration CONTINUOUS TRAIL experience soft-surface trail interpretive rest stop

LEGEND park boundary multi purpose field amphitheater current inholdings play area camping woodland area i interpretive center bison range prairie area overlook water access point savanna area play area fishing pier

buildings sand volleyball P parking roads archery paved park trails picnic shelter 350 700 soft-surface park trails sun shelter / rest stop

Preferred Concept, Lower Mississippi Discovery Zone Enlargement

JULY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 17 Attachment B PREFERRED CONCEPT DETAIL PLAN #2 - LONG-TERM PLAN

WATER TRAIL TO 7 ISLAND CAMPING

1 2 3 4 5

9 LEGEND park boundary multi purpose field amphitheater current inholdings play area camping woodland area i interpretive center bison range prairie area overlook water access point savanna area play area fishing pier 12 buildings sand volleyball P parking 11 roads archery paved park trails picnic shelter 150 300 soft-surface park trails sun shelter / rest stop

JULY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 18 Attachment B PREFERRED CONCEPT DETAIL PLAN #2 - 10-YEAR PLAN

WATER TRAIL TO ISLAND CAMPING

1 2 3 4 5

P 9 LEGEND park boundary multi purpose ﬁ eld amphitheater current inholdings play area camping woodland area i interpretive center bison range prairie area overlook water access point savanna area play area ﬁ shing pier 12 buildings sand volleyball P parking 11 roads archery paved park trails picnic shelter 150 300 soft-surface park trails sun shelter / rest stop

JULY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 19 Attachment B PREFERRED CONCEPT RIVER LANDING USE AREA PRECEDENTS

1 2

small, river-oriented structures for watercraft storage and rental water lab

3 4 5

outdoor classroom ada accessible boat launch outdoor storage

6 7 8

bike-in forest camping group bunkhouses river-oriented shelter

JULY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 20 Attachment B PREFERRED CONCEPT WEST END PRECEDENTS

9 10 11

prairie lab (interactive feature) bison interpretive center bison overlook

bison herd

JULY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 21 Attachment B PREFERRED CONCEPT TRAIL OVERVIEW

AT-A-GLANCE TOTALS: EAST TRAILHEAD SCHAAR’S BLUFF GATHERING CENTER PAVED TRAILS (INCLUDING MRG) = 7 MILES TOTAL ACCESSIBLE TRAILS = 2.85 MILES SOFT SURFACE TRAILS = 13 MILES TOTAL

THE MILL

MRG TO HASTINGS

WEST TRAILHEAD REST STOP BISON INTERPRETIVE ENTRY CENTER ORIENTATION

WATER TRAIL TO ISLAND CAMPING RETREAT CENTER

RIVER LANDING USE AREA

INTERPRETIVE CENTER RAVINE OVERLOOK MRG TO ST. PAUL MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND BISON INTERPRETATION HILARY PATH

LEGEND MISSISSIPPI RIVER GREENWAY TRAIL - 5.87 MILES ACCESSIBLE TRAILS - 2.85 MILES HWY 55 PROPOSED SOFT-SURFACE TRAILS - 6.72 MILES EXISTING SOFT-SURFACE TRAILS - 6.28 MILES PROPOSED USE AREA CIRCULATION TRAILS - 0.19 MILES 0 750 1,500 3,000

JULY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 22 Attachment B PREFERRED CONCEPT TRAIL LOOPS

CHURCH’S WOODS LOOP 0.91 MILES

SCHAAR’S BLUFF LOOP 0.86 MILES (ACCESSIBLE)

HUMPHREY POINT LOOP RESTORED PRAIRIE LOOP 0.94 MILES 1 MILE

FARM AREA LOOP 1.16 MILES BISON AND RIVER DISCOVERY LOOP 2.12 MILES (ACCESSIBLE)

INTERPRETIVE CENTER LOOP 0.76 MILES HILARY PATH

0 750 1,500 3,000

JULY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 23 Attachment B PROJECT PRIORITIZATION CHART DRAFT - 07.15.2020

Estimate of Amount of Additional Operations & Maintenance Costs Guiding Principle Implemented through Project Integrate Provide Create an ecological, inclusive, Protect, restore, engaging Become a cultural, memorable, and External Potential enhance, and gateway to the regional, four- Celebrate the educational, and relevant Ratio of Funding Running Visitors Buildings Grounds Natural for maintain natural treasures of the season area’s rich recreational experiences for Benefit to Cost Community ID Description Assumption Project Cost Total Services Maintenance Maintenance Resources Revenue? resources Mississippi River destination cultural heritage experience all (High = Good) Support

1 Natural Resource Enhancement / Restoration Phase 1 $ 1,163,840 $ 291,000 $ 291,000 Medium X X X X High High

Planning Studies (Mound Management Plan, Gathering Center/Public Trailhead Architectural Design 2 $ 180,000 $ 471,000 X X X X X High High Study, Farm Event and Rental Space Business Plan) Bison Range Visitor Service Enhancements (Sun Shelter/Outdoor Classroom, Vault Toilet, 3 Accessible Bison Viewing Trail, Parking at Fischer Ave, 2 Bison Viewing Platforms and 1 Vehicle Pull $ 1,288,000 $ 1,759,000 Medium Medium X X X X X High High Out) River Landing Use Area - Phase 1 (Boat Launch, Access Road, Sun Shelter/Outdoor Classroom, 4 $ 491,900 $ 1,211,000 $ 2,970,000 Medium Low Medium Y X X X X High High Storage, Watercraft Rental Kiosk, Vault Toilet, Fishing Dock/Water Lab, Parking

Bison and River Discovery Accessible Trail Loop (Fischer Trailhead to the River Landing Use Area to 5 $ 713,000 $ 3,683,000 Low X X X X High High the Retreat Center) 5-YEAR TARGET IS TARGET 5-YEAR $3.5 TO $5 MILLION TO $3.5 6 West Park Natural Surface Trails, Rest Areas, and Interpretation $ 122,000 $ 3,805,000 Low X X X X X High High 5-YEAR TARGET 5-YEAR Schaar's Bluff Improvements (Sun shelter at Existing Playground, Drinking Water at Community 7 $ 94,000 $ 3,899,000 Low X High High Gardens)

8 Schaar's Bluff Natural Surface Trails, Rest Areas, and Interpretation $ 173,000 $ 4,072,000 Low X X X X X X High Medium Items at the 5-year target 5-year 9 The Mill Accessible Trail, Stairs from Schaar's Bluff to Mill, and River Access Enhancements $ 595,000 $ 4,667,000 Low X X X X X Medium High bottom of the

10 Natural Resource Enhancement / Restoration - Phase 2 $ 1,557,600 $ 389,000 $ 5,056,000 Medium X X X X High High

Picnic Grounds (Reservation Shelter (150 people), 1 Reservation Shelter (100 people), 2 Small Non- 11 $ 3,612,000 $ 8,668,000 Low Low Y X X X X Medium Medium Reservation Sun Shelters, Rest Rooms, Accessible Schaar's Bluff Loop)

12 Nature-Themed Play Area + Nature Play Area $ 808,000 $ 9,476,000 Medium X X X X Medium Medium

13 Gathering Center Enhancement (Office Space, Rental Equipment Facilities) $ 536,000 $ 10,012,000 High Low Y X X X X Medium High $10 MILLION

Middle Park Natural Surface Trail (Fisher Ave to Hilary Path, Hilary Path Trailhead, Rest Stops, 14 $ 387,000 $ 10,399,000 Low X X X High High IS TARGET 10-YEAR Interpretation) 10-YEAR TARGET 10-YEAR 15 Camping (Walk-in/Bike-in Sites, Vault Toilet, Water) $ 63,000 $ 84,000 $ 10,483,000 Medium Medium Y X X High Medium Items at the of the target bottom 16 Water / Kayak Trail and Island Camping $ 50,000 $ 67,000 $ 10,550,000 Medium Medium Y X X High Medium 10-year

Mill River Use Area (Custom Picnic Shelter, Restrooms, Interpretive Site, fishing pier, day use boat 17 $ 240,000 $ 854,000 $ 11,404,000 Low Low Medium X X X X High Medium landing)

18 River Landing Use Area Phase 2 (Picnic Shelter & Restroom) $ 918,000 $ 12,322,000 Medium Medium X X X Medium High

19 Natural Resource Enhancement / Restoration - Phase 3 $ 830,320 $ 208,000 $ 12,530,000 Medium X X X X High High

20 River Overlooks $ 704,000 $ 13,234,000 Low X X X Medium High

21 Interpretive Center (Mississippi River and Bison Interpretation) $ 4,456,000 $ 17,690,000 High High Medium Low Y X X X X X Medium High

22 Silo Observation Tower $ 938,000 $ 18,628,000 Medium High X X X X X Medium High LONG-TERM TARGET LONG-TERM Farm Use Area* (Four-Season Pavilion, Parking, Associated Multi-purpose Field, Natural Surface 23 $ 3,809,000 $ 22,437,000 High High Medium Y X X X X X Medium Medium Trails) LONG-TERM TARGET ITEMS TARGET LONG-TERM

24 Spring Lake Retreat Center (New Bunkhouses) $ 1,126,000 $ 23,563,000 Medium Low Low Y X X X X High Low

*Estimated costs will be refined after studies are complete

SUMMER 2020 DRAFT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 24 Attachment B PREFERRED CONCEPT SITE-WIDE PLAN - KEY MAP FOR PRIORITIZATION TABLE

8 SCHAAR’S BLUFF NATURAL SITE-WIDE PROJECTS: SURFACE TRAILS, REST AREAS, 12 NATURE-THEMED 1 NATURAL RESOURCE ENHANCEMENT / AND INTERPRETATION 16 WATER / KAYAK TRAIL AND PLAY AREA + RESTORATION PHASE 1 ISLAND CAMPING NATURE PLAY AREA 2 PLANNING STUDIES PICNIC GROUNDS 11

10 NATURAL RESOURCE ENHANCEMENT / SCHAAR’S BLUFF IMPROVEMENTS 7 RESTORATION - PHASE 2

13 19 NATURAL RESOURCE ENHANCEMENT / GATHERING CENTER ENHANCEMENT RESTORATION PHASE 3 MILL RIVER USE AREA 17 MRG TO HASTINGS 20 RIVER OVERLOOKS

WEST-END PROJECTS:

6 WEST PARK NATURAL SURFACE TRAILS, REST AREAS, AND INTERPRETATION FARM USE AREA 23

24 SPRING LAKE RETREAT WATER TRAIL TO ISLAND CAMPING CENTER (NEW BUNKHOUSES) SILO OBSERVATION TOWER 22

15 CAMPING (WALK-IN/BIKE-IN SITES) THE MILL ACCESSIBLE TRAIL AND 9 RIVER ACCESS ENHANCEMENTS 4 RIVER LANDING USE AREA (PHASE 1)

18 RIVER LANDING USE AREA (PHASE 2)

3 BISON RANGE VISITOR SERVICES ENHANCEMENTS

21 INTERPRETIVE CENTER (MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND BISON) MRG TO ST. PAUL

5 BISON AND RIVER DISCOVERY ACCESSIBLE TRAIL LOOP LEGEND park boundary

HILARY PATH current inholdings 14 MIDDLE PARK NATURAL bluff impact zone SURFACE TRAIL woodland area prairie area savanna area bison range buildings roads paved park trails soft-surface park trails multi purpose field play area community gardens MRG trail X Items in 5-YR Target X Items in 10-YR Target 0 750 1,500 3,000 X Items in Long-Term Target

Preferred Concept, Key Plan of Project Prioritization

JULY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 25 Attachment B INTERPRETIVE GUIDELINES & THEMES SUMMARY

GUIDELINES The interpretive guidelines set forth in this master plan update will ensure a cohesive interpretive experience as the Spring Lake Park Reserve and assist in the development of interpretation content and features over the coming years. Below are the draft guidelines:

1. This is a Dakota place. Interpretation will acknowledge the relationship between the Mississippi River and Dakota people. 2. Ecological and human history are tied. Interpretation will emphasize how the ecological diversity and the human activities on this site need to be understood together. 3. The site and its stories are continually evolving. Interpretation will communicate evolution of specific locations within the park over time. 4. Connected sites and stories. Interpretation will be structured by physical places connected to stories and be mindful of other adjacent planning efforts. 5. This is a place for gathering. Interpretation will be connected to gathering opportunities across the site.

JULY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 26 Attachment B INTERPRETIVE GUIDELINES & THEMES SUMMARY

PROJECT GOALS • Engage stakeholders about the possibilities for interpreting the stories and landscapes of the river • Move beyond signs engage park visitors with interactive interpretive installations that are memorable • Draw renewed attention to SLPR as a regional destination with high-quality recreational opportunities imbued with integrated interpretive content • Create a greater sense of river access and connection to the water • Create plan that can be phased as funding becomes available

JULY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 27 Attachment B INTERPRETIVE GUIDELINES & THEMES SUMMARY

OVERARCHING THEME An interpretive theme answers the question, “What is this place about?” The theme is the unifying message that summarizes the main point of interpretation in one sentence. All the interpretive content and messaging should support and reinforce the overarching theme. Visitors should be able to describe the theme after experiencing both guided and self- guided interpretation at the park. A theme should: » Be stated as a short, simple, complete sentence » Contain only one main idea, if possible » Reveal the overall purpose of the site » Be specific » Connect tangible resources to universally understood concepts The interpretive theme for Spring Lake Park Reserve is: SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE CONNECTS YOU TO THE CHANGING RIVER, WHICH CONTINUALLY SHAPES AND UNITES THE MANY, EVER-EVOLVING STORIES EMBEDDED IN THIS PLACE.

JULY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 28 Attachment B INTERPRETIVE GUIDELINES & THEMES SUMMARY

SUBTHEMES Subthemes support and develop the theme. For SLPR, subthemes help organize the stories told, the resources revealed, and the experiences that park users will have when the master plan is developed. Interpretation throughout the park should inform the design of landscape, structures, and other features.

THE SLPR INTERPRETIVE THEME IS SUPPORTED BY THREE SUB-THEMES: #1 IMPORTANCE OF PLACE #2 GIFTS OF THE LAND #3 KINSHIP & CONNECTIONS

These sub-themes connect related stories to create a framework for the future organization of content format and user experience.

JULY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 29 Attachment B INTERPRETIVE FRAMEWORK THE HEAD-HEART-HANDS MODEL OF SUSTAINABILITY EDUCATION

SHORTER HEAD: FACTS, TIMELINES, ECOLOGY INTERPRETIVE EXPERIENCE TRAILHEADS | SIGNS | OVERLOOKS REFLECTION: Inward contemplation that PLACE: identifies, questions and reframes underlying values and beliefs; acknowledges and challenges Authentic Context For Meaning assumptions; recognizes bias and identifies fears and Engagement

HEART: PERSONAL STORIES REST STOPS | OVERLOOKS | REST STOPS RELATIONAL KNOWING: Recognition that we are connected to all life and development of a strong sense of relationship with place and all who live TRANSFORMATIVE there. EXPERIENCE *Self-examination and Transformation requires HANDS Emotional Investment, sparked by a genuine HEAD Active use of Expansion of concepts HANDS: OPPORTUNITIES TO Perception INTERACTIVE EXPERIENCE CONCEPTS THROUGH REFLECTION RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES ENGAGEMENT HEART INTERACTIVE EXPERIENCES | CLASSROOM | Expansion of Value INDOOR INTERPRETIVE SPACE RELATIONAL INTERACTIVE ENGAGEMENT: Being physically present in a place, building relationship with that KNOWING place, critically reflecting on the values one puts on a place *To be engaged is to actively participate, to be involved and invested LONGER INTERPRETIVE EXPERIENCE

JULY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 30 Attachment B INTERPRETIVE FRAMEWORK NODE TYPE AND METHODS MATRIX EACH INTERPRETIVE NODE TYPE SUPPORTS THE TRANSFORMATIVE EXPERIENCES OF HEAD, HANDS, AND HEART IN DIFFERENT PROPORTIONS. EACH NODE CONTRIBUTES TO THE CONTINUOUS INTERPRETIVE EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE. PRIMARY TRANSFORMATIVE NODE TYPE: DESIGN ELEMENTS: METHODS: EXPERIENCE:

HEAD Convey content that will catalyze reflection about SIGN Sign With Interpretive Content the audience’s prior assumptions, beliefs, or values

Link unique messages about cultural + natural Kiosk with interpretive signage and small HEAD + HANDS resources with with the TRAILHEAD interactive elements, Maps, Benches, opportunities to interact landscape through recreation LESS Trashcans, & Bike Station INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRED Highlight stories with universal themes Sign(s) with Interpretive Content, HEAD + HEART OVERLOOK connected to physical resources to tap into the Benches, Defined Pull-Off Space user’s emotions

HEAD + HEART+ HANDS Encourage contemplation of new concepts by SUN SHELTER / Sign(s) with Interpretive Content, providing spaces of rest and restoration that REST STOP Benches, Defined Pull-Off Space immerses users in SLPR’s beauty

Create opportunities to apply learned concepts Maps, Bike Station, Sign(s) with HEAD + HEART+ HANDS INTERACTIVE though immersive interpretive moments that Interpretive Content, Benches, Defined EXPERIENCE convey the stories of the people and landscape Pull-Off Space, Shade Structure MORE that make up SLPR INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRED Sign(s) with Interpretive Content, HEAD + HEART+ HANDS Provide spaces that facilitate group and individual OUTDOOR Benches, Defined Pull-Off Space, expression of reflections, immersive learning CLASSROOM Interactive Structure through engagement of the senses, and the active implementation of learned concepts

INDOOR Fully conditioned indoor space for year- HEAD + HEART+ HANDS Offer year-roundin-depth explorations of site INTERPRETIVE round programming history though fact-based information sharing SPACE that illustrates the human and ecological intersections that exist at SLPR

JULY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 31 Attachment B INTERPRETIVE FRAMEWORK PRECEDENT IMAGES

SIGN TRAILHEAD OVERLOOK SUN SHELTER / REST STOP

Tactile signs that enrich visitors’ Kiosk or rest area with immersive Moments for pause at key viewsheds Rest areas in key places with way- understanding of SLPR with hands- views, tactile elements, facts, and throughout the park. Overlooks may include finding information, descriptive on elements or relevant facts. personal stories about SLPR. interpretive art, hands-on elements, and/or information about the adjacent area, personal stories of place. interpretive art, and hands-on elements.

JULY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 32 Attachment B INTERPRETIVE FRAMEWORK PRECEDENT IMAGES

INTERACTIVE OUTDOOR INDOOR EXPERIENCE CLASSROOM INTERPRETIVE SPACE

Hands on activities with interactive Outdoor gathering spaces that Indoor spaces with tactile panels, hands- components. Engaging interpretive highlight immersive views, focus on interpretive activities, interpretive art, art, test stations and activities. on a specific topic, and create maps and visitor information opportunities for information sharing

JULY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 33 Attachment B INTERPRETIVE FRAMEWORK SITE-WIDE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUBTHEMES

Small Trailhead Primary Trailhead Interpretive Node Importance of Place Gifts of the Land Kinship and Connection

SUMMARY The interpretive strategy for the site builds a continuous story the entire length of the park via segments of the soft surface trail. Themed segments are defined by a system of interpretive nodes that engage with the HEAD, HANDS, and HEART model of learning. Trailheads bookend each sub-theme segment with smaller stops mid journey to create more flexible visitor use.

JULY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 34 Attachment B PREFERRED CONCEPT INTERPRETIVE FRAMEWORK: IMPLEMENTATION (DRAFT)

GIFTS OF THE LAND LIVING WITH THE LAND: Mitakuye Owasin - the interconnectedness of everything KINSHIP AND CONNECTION // Cultural and Natural resources are intertwined ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES: The relationship of the * Mill to Nininger // The significance of archaeological HEALING THE LAND: Bison and healthy ecosystems // Ecological degradation from sites on past and present communities human use // Building blocks of healthy SEASONAL CHANGES AND CYCLES: Minnesota plant communities climate and plant relationships // Seasonal river PLANT + ANIMAL NATIONS / Defining the recreation GIFTS OF THE LAND Land: Animals of the river STORYTELLING: Dakota Star Knowledge and the PLANT + ANIMAL NATIONS / Defining the power of intergenerational relationships Land: Interconnected significant plant and animal communities DAKOTA PEOPLE / Living with The Land: Interconnectedness of river resources and * human inhabitance WORKING THE LAND: Euro-American settlers and early industry PLANT + ANIMAL NATIONS / Defining the Land: Sensitive use of natural areas

INTERPRETIVE NODE TOTALS IMPORTANCE OF PLACE Signs: 7 Total * Dakota Homeland: Dakota relationship with the Mississippi River over time. Trailheads: 6 Total Role in the Region: Significance of Overlook: 8 Total the River within the region and North Sun-shelter / Rest Stop: 4 Total America

Outdoor Classroom: 2 Total MIGRATORY FLYWAY: Migratory bird relationship with SLPR Interactive Experience: 2 Total EURO-AMERICAN SETTLEMENT: Early Indoor Interpretive Center: 2 Total Euro-American Settlement * Existing interpretive nodes

JULY 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN & NRMP UPDATE 35 DAKOTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 23, 2020 AGENDA ITEM: Recommendation on Adoption of Land Conservation Plan (action)

PURPOSE Provide Planning Commission: 1. An overview of public review comments on the draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County 2. An update on direction received from the County Board on July 7, 2020 3. A request for the Commission’s recommendation on Plan adoption

BACKGROUND An update to the County’s 2001 Farmland and Natural Areas Protection Plan was initiated in 2018 to provide contemporary guidance for the County’s Land Conservation Program. The focus was to:

• Identify and prioritize significant natural resource lands and connecting corridors for voluntary protection and increased natural resource management, reflecting the County Board’s emphasis on wetland restoration, water retention, and other conservation measures to improve water quality; • Improve County coordination and collaboration with other agencies and organizations on land protection and long-term natural resource management; and • Explore potential tools, incentives, and financial options to increase voluntary land protection and natural resource management.

Based on public engagement, research findings, and Board direction, a draft Plan was developed with new program initiatives and refined program eligibility areas. The Planning Commission reviewed the draft Plan and recommended its release for public review and comment on February 27, 2020. The County Board released the draft Plan on March 24, 2020 for a 60-day public review process, and extended to July 1, 2020, based on a request from the Dakota County Township Officers Association for additional time to review and comment

The draft was posted on the County webpage. Due to COVID-19 restrictions on in-person engagement, the Plan was publicized through media releases, social media and emails to partners; stakeholders; federal, state, regional, and local agencies and officials; and past event participants. More than 200 comments were received.

The general public expressed strong support for the Plan. Among local governments, Empire Township requested removal of a portion of the Preliminary Conservation Focus Area (CFA) located in the southwestern portion of the township to preserve future development opportunities. On July 7, 2020, the Physical Development Committee of the Whole directed staff to modify this CFA boundaries and generally reduce the amount of agricultural lands within the preliminary CFA boundaries. The modified Plan will be presented to the Commission on July 23, 2020.

ATTACHMENTS 1. Updated draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County 2. Public and agency comments received between March 25 and July 1, 2020 3. Summary of plan revisions based on public review comments and County Board direction

QUESTIONS The following questions are intended to help assist in review of the packet materials: 1. Does the Commission have comments on the public review comment received on the draft Plan? 2. Does the Commission agree with the Plan modifications? 3. Does the Commission recommend adoption of the Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County?

Land Conservation Plan

for Dakota County

Adoption of

Considertion for Draft

Revised

Draft for Consideration of Adoption: July 16, 2020

Includes revisions made based on comments received

Dakota County Board of Commissioners Mike Slavik District 1 Kathleen Gaylord District 2 Thomas Egan District 3 Joe Atkins District 4 Liz Workman District 5 Mary Liz Holberg District 6 Chris Gerlach District 7

Dakota County Planning Commission Michael Greco District 1 Jerry Rich District 1 Lori Hansen District 2 Timothy Tabor District 2 Jill Smith District 3 Greg Oxley District 3 Amy Hunting District 4 Barry Graham District 4 Ram Singh District 5 Adoption Robert Timmerman District 5 of Nate Reitz District 6 James Guttmann District 6 Anthony Nelson District 7 Donald Post District 7 Considertion for Project Team Dakota County Environmental ResourcesDraft Georg Fisher Al Singer Lisa West Revised Dakota County Office of GIS Beth Koch Dakota County Office of Performance Analysis Josh Hill Hoang Ton Dakota County Office of Planning Kurt Chatfield Mary Jackson Dakota County Parks Tom Lewanski Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District Brian Watson

Vermillion River cover photo courtesy of Joe Walton, Dakota County Parks

Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County CONTENTS I. Executive Summary ...... 1 II. Introduction and Purpose ...... 7 Introduction ...... 7 Planning Purpose ...... 9 Planning Context ...... 9 Planning Principles ...... 11 III. The Land Conservation Plan ...... 13 Plan Vision ...... 13 Plan Goals, Strategies, and Tactics ...... 13 Preliminary Conservation Focus Areas ...... 18 Natural Resource Management ...... 30 Potential Ten-Year Outcomes for the Plan ...... Adoption 34 of IV. Implementation ...... 35 Establishing Priorities ...... 35 Partnerships ...... 41 Funding the Work ...... Considertion 43 Program Operation ...... for 51 Public Information and Education ...... 55 Draft Progress Measurement and Reporting ...... 55 Appendix 1. Planning Process and Background ...... 57 Planning Process SummaryRevised ...... 57 County Land Conservation Overview ...... 58 Refining the Direction of Land Conservation ...... 61 New Recommendations ...... 70 Appendix 2. Community Engagement Highlights ...... 71 Appendix 3. Plan Research Highlights ...... 77 Appendix 4. Public Review Comments ...... 89 Appendix 5. Capital and Operational Cost Analysis ...... 123

Adoption of

Darvan Outdoor Education Center, Inver Grove Heights Considertion for

Draft

Revised

Pine Bend Bluffs Scientific and Natural Area, Rosemount

Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Dakota County -- a vast homeland to Dakota and Ojibwa people, then part of the Dakota Territory encompassing millions of acres westward to the Missouri River -- is now one of seven core Twin Cities Metropolitan Area counties. Bounded by the Mississippi, Minnesota and Cannon rivers, the County includes 576 square miles of ecologically and visually diverse landscapes. Most of nearly 430,000 residents live in developed and expanding suburbs in the northern third of the County, and 820 farms and small rural centers cover the southern two thirds of the County.

The Need for Natural Resource Conservation Development of natural lands has altered and damaged natural resources and systems in the County, with consequences to local communities. Rivers, streams and lakes became increasingly polluted from urban and agricultural runoff. Groundwater is being pumped more rapidly than it is being replenished and contamination is a growing concern. Soil health has been compromised by development, erosion, compaction, and chemicals. Wildlife habitat has been lost, fragmented, and degraded resulting in declining plant and animal populations and overall species diversity. Many natural places enjoyed and valued by generations have disappeared across the County.

Our natural resource base is essential to individual and community health and is irreplaceable. We all need drinkable water, breathable air, reliable food, and a safe place to live. It’s not difficult to find evidence of declining environmental quality, whether relative to the world of ourAdoption childhood, or that of our grandparents, or earlier. The following indicators provide a snapshotof of water quality, natural areas, wildlife, and County residents’ concerns about environmental quality.

• State impaired waters listings identify lakes, rivers, and streams that no longer provide for designated uses, such as fishing, swimming or drinking. The number of impaired waters in the County has increased over time. In 2018, testing found at least one impairment for every tested Considertion waterbody, for a total of 81 impairments.1 The number of quality issues has also grown, as new problems emerge, and new impairmentsfor are defined.

• Wetlands are critical to overall waterDraft quality and flood control. More than 85 percent of Dakota County’s settlement-era wetlands have been lost.2 • Despite having a highly diverse mix of landscapes and ecosystems in the mid-1800s, only an estimated three percentRevised of Dakota County’s natural landscapes remain. • Habitat loss has led to declining wildlife populations and diversity. Nationally, bird populations dramatically illustrate this decline since the 1970s.3 For example, grassland bird species have declined nationally by more than 50 percent. Living in a modern world defined by development, transportation, and convenience requires balancing the trade-offs between control of our immediate environment and protection of the natural environment that sustains us all.

To protect natural resources and systems, land conservation reserves lands with significant natural resource value and manages them to restore natural functions. It is based on the concept that natural resources and natural places provide ecological, societal and economic benefits within and beyond the

1 https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/2018-impaired-waters-list 2 Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Plan, Version 1.02, 1997, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota. 3 Decline of the North American Avifauna, Science, Sept. 2019

Executive Summary, Page 1 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

conservation area boundaries. Land conservation includes protection, which restricts use of the land. To be effective over time, protection must be accompanied by ongoing natural resource management.

Benefits that protected and restored forests, grasslands, and wetlands can provide include: • Absorbing nutrient runoff, toxins, and sediments for cleaner water downstream • Promoting infiltration and groundwater recharge and protecting drinking water supplies • Moderating drought and flood • Improving soil health • Providing wildlife habitat and sustaining pollinators • Providing opportunities for recreation, education, and inspiration • Mitigating and adapting to climate change

Scientific surveys of Dakota County residents4 consistently show strong support for land protection and resource management, with the strongest support for water quality, wildlife habitat, and natural areas.

2019 County Survey, Percent identifying preserved land management as “Essential” or “Very Important” Approach Percent Protecting and improving water quality 92 Protecting and improving wildlife habitat 84 Protecting and improving natural areas Adoption 83 Increasing access for outdoor recreation of 73 Protecting and improving land used for agriculture/specialty crops 71

Land Conservation in the County Dakota County’s 2001 Farmland and Natural Area Protection Plan identified priority natural areas and farmland to protect. ResidentsConsidertion passed a $20 million bond referendum in November 2002 for a newfor land protection program. As of 2019, the County had spent $20.6 million, received $26.3 million in landowner donations, and leveraged $34.7 million Draftin non -County funds to:

• Acquire 68 agricultural easements totaling 7,770 acres, including 1,300 acres of natural areas and 49 miles of shoreland Revised • Acquire 42 natural area easements totaling 1,777 acres and 30 miles of shoreline • Work with other public entities to protect 22 properties totaling 2,000 acres and 16 miles of shoreline

Land Conservation Plan Dakota County developed this countywide Land Conservation Plan as a shared vision for the geographic area of Dakota County, to be implemented with partners, to guide future land protection efforts, and to strengthen natural resource management on protected lands. The focus is to:

• Identify and prioritize significant natural areas and connecting corridors for voluntary protection and increased resource management, especially for wetland restoration and water retention on the land

4 Residential Surveys, https://www.co.dakota.mn.us/Government/Analysis/ResidentSurvey/Pages/default.aspx

Executive Summary, Page 2 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

• Improve County coordination and collaboration with other agencies and organizations on land protection and long-term natural resource management • Explore potential tools and incentives to increase voluntary land protection and natural resource management of private lands • Update Land Conservation Program guidelines for interested landowners and partners

Stakeholder and partner engagement led to development of the Plan vision, goals, and new approaches.

Land Conservation Plan Vision The natural resources of Dakota County are collaboratively protected, improved, and managed for current and future generations.

Land Conservation Plan Goals 1. Ecologically important areas are prioritized for protection. 2. Water quality and quantity are enhanced and protected. 3. Natural resource quality is improved and sustained. 4. Biodiversity is restored and sustained. 5. The public supports and is involved in natural resource protectionAdoption and management. 6. Recreational access to conservation lands is enhanced. of

New approaches will be used to achieve these goals. Considertion Refine Land Protection Priorities with for Preliminary Conservation Focus Areas (CFAs) Draft Land protection priorities are based on the combination of natural features, connectivity, hydrology, and land ownership with renewed emphasis onRevised water. The resulting 23 Preliminary CFAs total about 77,568 acres, of which roughly 30,322 acres are already protected, and provide a framework for landowner outreach, collaborative landscape conservation and public investments. The preliminary CFAs refine and reduce the extent of eligibility areas identified in the 2002 Farmland and Natural Area Protection Plan.

Develop a City-County Conservation Collaborative Form a City-County collaborative to more effectively protect critical undeveloped areas, increase natural resource restoration and management, and share information and financial and staff resources within all incorporated areas.

Executive Summary, Page 3 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

Establish a County Conservation Private Funding Partner Continue evaluating models for raising and distributing private funds for natural resource restoration, enhancement and maintenance on protected private lands.

Restore Large-Scale Wetlands and Assist in Implementing the new Dakota County Groundwater Plan Strategically protect, restore, and maintain existing and former wetlands, recharge areas and sensitive groundwater resources. Approximately 14,000 acres of cultivated wetlands in large basins have been identified for potential restoration.

Improve Conservation in Agricultural Use Areas Assist the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District as they work with rural landowners and agricultural operators to improve management practices and convert marginal farmland to natural vegetation.

Ten-Year Plan Outcomes Ten-year outcomes and associated costs were developed for four protection and ownership scenarios: • Publicly-owned conservation land within Preliminary CFAs • Protected private lands within Preliminary CFAs Adoption • Non-protected private land within Preliminary CFAs of • Non-protected private land outside of Preliminary CFAs

Estimates were developed based on the following key assumptions: • 80 percent of public agencies would be interested in participating in partnership efforts to restore Considertion their lands. for • 30 percent of landowners with County easements would be willing to additionally protect and restore land. Draft • 20 percent of new program applicants would be interested in protecting and restoring some of their land. • Existing and future StateRevised and other non-County grant funds would continue to be available. • County cost-share likely would be 20 to 25 percent for protection and restoration activities.

Based on the scenarios, landscape types, and assumptions, a range of land protection and restoration targets for the next ten years are:

2,500 to 5,000 acres of additional land protection at a projected County cost of $4.8 - $9.5 million. 4,000 to 12,200 acres of additional restoration at a projected County cost of $2.8 - $5.5 million.

Estimated Cost The total estimated cost for protecting and restoring lands within the Preliminary Conservation Focus Areas and areas identified outside of the CFAs is $314 million, based on past program experience, current land and easement values and unit restoration costs.

Executive Summary, Page 4 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

Potential Outcomes and Estimated County Cost Ten-Year Ten-Year Ten-Year Ten-Year Ten-Year Ten-Year Protection and Total Total County Total County Protection Restoration Ownership Status Acres Protection Protection Restoration Restoration Acres Acres Costs Cost Costs Cost 1. Public 23,554 0 $0 $0 7,500 $22.5M $1.4M Conservation Lands within CFAS 2. Protected Private 8,675 2,600 $31.9M $2.1M 2,600 $16.8M $0.7M Lands within CFAs 3. Non-Protected 45,339 3,500 $133.0M $6.5M 2,100 $83.8M $3.2M Private Land within CFAs 4. Non-Protected 2,400 480 $17.4M $0.9M 400 $9.0M $0.2M Private Land outside of CFAs Totals 77,568* 6,580 $182.3M $9.5M 12,600 $132.1M $5.5M

Operational Considerations Land conservation projects can be highly complex, with many variables that influence timeframes and costs. Acquisition projects can require 18 to 24 months and restorationAdoption projects require three or more years. Staff capacity influences the amount of land that can be protectedof and restored annually and over the Plan’s ten-year timeframe. Based on current staff capacity, an estimated 250 acres could be protected each year for a total of 2,500 acres and an estimated 400 acres could be restored each year for a total of 4,000 acres over the ten-year plan.

An additional 1.0 FTE Acquisition Specialist could Considertiondouble the land protection to 5,000 acres over ten years. An additional 2.0 FTE Restoration Specialists couldfor increase natural resource restoration acreage to 12,000 acres over ten years. The estimated costs for these staffing options are outlined below:

Draft Estimated Annual Costs5 Land Protection Natural Resource Restoration Acres 250 500 400 800 1,200 Staff and Operations Revised2.5 FTE 3.5 FTE 1.5 FTE 2.5 FTE 3.5 FTE (Current) (Current) Subtotal Cost $430K $545K $258K $373K $488K Total Annual Cost $430K $545K $773K $888K $1.0M

Estimated Ten-Year Costs Land Protection Natural Resource Restoration Acres 2,500 5,000 4,000 8,000 12,000 Staff and Operations 2.5 FTE 3.5 FTE 1.5 FTE 2.5 FTE 3.5 FTE (Current) (Current) Subtotal Cost $4.3M $5.4M $2.6M $3.7M $4.9M Total Ten-Year Cost $4.3M $5.4M $2.6M $3.7M $4.9M

5 Cost estimate tables do not reflect inflation impacts.

Executive Summary, Page 5 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

The Environmental Resources Department will develop annual workplans detailing activities for the following year. Annual program budgets are subject to County Board review and approval.

Moving Forward The County will continue to rely on private landowner interest in voluntary land protection and will work with landowners within their timeframes and on meeting their needs.

Realizing the Land Conservation Vision will also rely on partners that have additional objectives, needs, and priorities beyond Dakota County’s. Dakota County envisions its role in facilitating, planning assistance, implementation assistance, and funding to realize this vision. The hope is that others embrace this Plan and take ownership of its goals and implementation.

Adoption of

Considertion Chub Creek, Sciota Township for

Draft

Revised

Marcott Lakes, Inver Grove Heights

Executive Summary, Page 6 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

II. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

Introduction 1. A Changing Landscape Dakota County -- a vast homeland to Dakota and Ojibwa people, then part of the Dakota Territory encompassing millions of acres westward to the Missouri River -- is now one of seven core Twin Cities Metropolitan Area counties. Bounded by the Mississippi, Minnesota and Cannon rivers, the County includes 576 square miles of ecologically and visually diverse landscapes. The majority of nearly 430,000 residents live in developed and expanding suburbs in the northern third of the County, while the southern two thirds of the County includes 820 farms and small rural centers.

From hunting and gathering indigenous cultures, to diverse agricultural heritage, to contemporary residential, commercial and industrial land uses, the County’s rich natural resources provided for survival, development, commerce, and special places deemed sacred, beautiful, and defining of a sense of place.

As in most communities, these natural resources and special places were transformed over time. Vast grasslands were cultivated to provide food. Forests were felled for building lumber and in turn, provided more land to farm. Large wetlands were drained, filled, and tiled to grow food. Many agricultural areas then gave way to towns and cities, a growing network of roads, suburbs, and larger cities. Adoption Development of natural lands has altered and damaged natural resourcesof and systems in the County, with consequences to local communities. Rivers, streams and lakes have become increasingly polluted from urban and agricultural runoff. Groundwater is being pumped more rapidly than it is being replenished and contamination is a growing concern. Soil health has been compromised by development, erosion, compaction, and chemicals. Wildlife habitat has been lost, fragmented, and degraded resulting in declining plant and animal populations and overall species Considertiondiversity. Many natural places enjoyed and valued by generations have disappeared across the County.for

Draft 2. Land Conservation in the County Early conservation efforts included the establishment of Carleton Arboretum along the Cannon River in the 1920’s, Kaposia Park in South St. Paul in 1937 and the Gores Pool State Wildlife Management Area along the Mississippi River floodplainRevised in the late 1930’s. Extensive land protection efforts in the County expanded in the 1960’s with the establishment of Fort Snelling State Park, Dakota County’s park system, the regional park system, Dodge Nature Center in West St. Paul, and many city parks.

These lands were protected for the many public and individual benefits that land conservation offers, including a broad range of ecosystem services (ES).

• Regulation of natural processes, such as maintaining air and water quality, climate moderation, pest mitigation, and flood control • Supporting processes that contribute to and are essential for ecosystem services, such as soil generation, waste decomposition, nutrient and water cycling, and pollination • Providing products obtained from nature, such as food, fresh water, timber, fiber, and biomass fuel • Cultural nonmaterial benefits, such as recreation, aesthetic appreciation, education, health, and inspiration

Introduction and Purpose, Page 7 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

Forests, grasslands, and wetlands absorb nutrient runoff, toxins, and sediments from roads, agriculture, and industry, protecting drinking water and aquatic resources and saving municipalities major costs in chemical or mechanical water treatment. Forests, grasslands, and wetlands also slow runoff, minimize evaporation, and allow for infiltration and groundwater recharge. This can moderate drought and flood to provide a more consistent water supply for consumption, electricity generation, industrial uses, and recreation.

Large, contiguous blocks of forests and wetlands are most likely to contain fully functioning ecosystems and provide valuable ecosystem services. Healthy, functioning watersheds naturally filter pollutants, reduce soil erosion, decrease flooding, and recharge groundwater, with cleaner water downstream.

3. Farmland, Natural Areas, and Land Conservation Resident interest in protecting farmland and natural areas increased in the 1990’s, in response to increased residential development and the possible relocation of the Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport to central Dakota County. The County’s 2001 Farmland and Natural Area Protection Plan identified more than 78,000 acres of natural area and farmland to protect. Residents supported County leadership in land protection and demonstrated a willingness to increase their property taxes by passing a $20 million bond referendum in November 2002 for land protection.

In 2003, the County began working with willing sellers to protect highAdoption-quality natural areas and farmland with high quality soils along rivers and streams, through acquisitionof of permanent conservation easements and financially assisting other public entities in acquiring fee title. As of 2019, the County had spent $20.6 million, received $26.3 million in landowner donations, and leveraged $34.7 million in non-County funds to:

• Acquire 68 agricultural easements totaling 7,770 acres, including 1,300 acres of natural areas and 49 miles of shoreland Considertion • Acquire 42 natural area easements totalingfor 1,777 acres and 30 miles of shoreline • Work with other public entities to protect 22 properties totaling 2,000 acres and 16 miles of shoreline Draft The combination of County acquisitions and lands acquired by cities and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has increased the amount of publicly accessible protected natural lands in the County by an estimated 3,811 acres over the past 18 years. Combined with nearly 8,700 acres of permanently Revised protected private lands, nearly 8.6 percent of the County is permanently protected conservation lands.

Management of natural resources on protected lands also has accelerated throughout the County. Recognition that land is not truly protected unless it is actively managed, the relentless spread of invasive species, expanding scientific knowledge, increased management capacity in the public and private sectors, and greater access to native plants and seeds have contributed to this essential component of lasting conservation work.

Despite this notable progress, the need for additional conservation work continues. • Most surface waters in the County that have been assessed continue to be impaired in some way. • Nitrate contamination is documented in extensive portions of the County’s groundwater. • Diminished soil health continues to be a concern. • Flood damage has increased due to land use practices and more frequent and extreme precipitation. • Special concern wildlife species continue to decline in number and diversity. • Recognition that people benefit physically and mentally from quality time outdoors has grown.

Introduction and Purpose, Page 8 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

Land conservation reserves land with significant natural resource value, to protect natural resources and systems from the harmful impacts of various land uses. This is based on the concept that natural resources and natural places provide a wide range of ecological, societal and economic benefits within and beyond conservation area boundaries. Land conservation includes land protection, generally achieved through the purchase of land in fee title or easements that restrict use of the land. To be effective over the long-term, land protection must be accompanied by ongoing natural resource management, including restoration when needed. Many natural processes that would normally maintain the integrity of natural resources have been disrupted by a range of land use activities (e.g., suppression of natural fire, alteration to pre- settlement hydrology, and introduction of invasive species). Without evaluation, intervention, and ongoing management, natural resources on protected lands are likely to decline over time, undermining the investment made in protecting these lands.

Planning Purpose In 2018, the County began developing this countywide Land Conservation Plan as a shared vision for the geographic area of Dakota County, to be implemented with partners, to guide future land protection efforts, and to strengthen natural resource management on protected lands. The Plan focus is to:

• Identify and prioritize significant natural resource lands and connecting corridors for voluntary protection and increased natural resource management, especiallyAdoption for wetland restoration and improved water retention on the land of • Improve County coordination and collaboration with other agencies and organizations on land protection and long-term natural resource management • Explore potential tools and incentives to increase voluntary land protection and natural resource management of private lands Considertion • Update Land Conservation Program guidelinesfor for interested landowners and partners Draft This Plan builds from the lessons learned and the successes of the 2002 Dakota County Farmland and Natural Area Protection Plan and the countywide Farmland and Natural Areas PRevisedrogram (FNAP) , as well as its successor, the Dakota County Land Conservation Program.

Planning Context This Plan was informed by many comprehensive and natural resource management plans that address the geographic area of Dakota County, including City, Township, County, Regional, and State plans. Review of current plans demonstrated alignment of goals and principles for protection and management of land and

natural resources. Vermillion River Gorge, Hastings

Introduction and Purpose, Page 9 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

County Plans This Land Conservation Plan is guided by two overarching County plans, the 2017 Dakota County Strategic Plan and the 2040 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan.

The Dakota County Strategic Plan reflects the County Board of Commissioners' vision for the County and guides County programs and initiatives, including the Land Conservation Plan.

A great place to live • Dakota County strives to be a welcoming place where all people are safe, have opportunities to thrive, and enjoy a high lifelong quality of life.

A healthy environment with quality natural areas • Dakota County protects and maintains natural resources for the health and enjoyment of current and future residents.

A successful place for business and jobs • Dakota County fosters business and employment success through modern infrastructure, low taxes, and a prepared, connected workforce.

Excellence in public service Adoption • Dakota County demonstrates sound stewardship of humanof and financial resources, communicates and engages with the public, and innovates and collaborates to provide excellent service.

The Land Conservation Plan supports the following Natural Resource Goals identified in the 2040 Dakota County Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2019: Considertion 5.3 Preserve vital functions of natural systems by strategically and collaboratively improving Dakota County’s green infrastructure for

5.4 Conserve and protect natural Draftresources in Dakota County, including air quality, water, soil, productive farmland, minerals (bedrock, sand and gravel aggregates), vegetation, and wildlife

5.5 Sufficient and sustainable high-quality water resources Revised 5.6 Sufficient and sustainable high-quality water supplies

City and Township Plans Comprehensive Plans prepared in 2018-2019 by municipalities in the County identify land protection and natural resource management goals for the coming decades. More than half of the city plans identify needs for open space/natural area protection not related to parks acquisition, and many identify working with the County on land protection. Roughly half of the large city plans call for habitat corridors linking natural areas. Most townships and rural centers in Dakota County participated in the Rural Collaborative Comprehensive Plan, which includes land protection and natural resource management policies that are consistent with the County’s, as shown by the following excerpt:

Introduction and Purpose, Page 10 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

Rural Collaborative 2040 Comprehensive Plan Environmental Resources Policies • Work cooperatively with Dakota County and other organizations that support the goals of protecting natural areas and corridors in southern Dakota County. • Develop and implement a protection and management plan for natural areas that includes:

- A cohesive system of natural areas connected by natural corridors - Areas identified and prioritized for preservation, protection, or restoration - A functional classification of natural areas based upon appropriate use, including recreation, preservation, hunting, agricultural, and private access - Land protection strategies for targeted areas, including voluntary conservation plans, donation or purchase of conservation easements, transfer of development rights, purchase of development rights, and acquisition - Strategies and standards for the long-term management of natural areas - A description of partnerships with other units of government to protect shared natural areas - Innovative and appropriate natural area agricultural practices - Funding and funding sources

Adoption Planning Principles of Guiding Principles were developed for this Plan based on research and stakeholder engagement. These principles establish primary approaches for the County in pursuing land protection and natural resource management.

1. Protect and manage land to ensure that quality natural resources exist for future generations. Considertion 2. Recognize that natural resources are not confined to jurisdictional or ownership boundaries. for 3. Protect and manage natural resources as a shared responsibility. 4. Emphasize protection and managementDraft of natural resources that provide multiple benefits. 5. Emphasize connection of natural communities. 6. Manage natural resources as an adaptive process requiring a long-term commitment. Revised 7. Serve as a catalyst for broader participation and collective action in Dakota County as a place with natural resources and systems worth protecting and managing.

Operating Principles articulate values grounding the Dakota County Land Conservation Program and are a lens through which program decisions will be made and how program work will be done:

• Accountability: track and report program progress toward County and Plan goals • Collaboration: develop working partnerships with other agencies, organizations, and residents to achieve shared goals • Data-driven decision making: use sound, science-based information as a foundation for decisions • Equity and inclusiveness: engage all people who may have an interest in program activities • Fiscal stewardship: make optimal use of program budget and leveraging outside funding • Transparency: provide easily accessible public communication on program activities

Introduction and Purpose, Page 11 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

Adoption of

School Field Trip in Restored Prairie

Considertion for

Draft

Revised

Restored Prairie, Miesville Ravine Park Reserve

Introduction and Purpose, Page 12 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

III. THE LAND CONSERVATION PLAN

Plan Vision The overarching vision for the Land Conservation Plan is:

The natural resources of Dakota County are collaboratively protected, improved, and managed for current and future generations.

Plan Goals, Strategies, and Tactics Plan Goals Six goals emerged from research and community engagement. The goals aspire to desired future conditions for natural resource protection and 1. Ecologically important management in the County. areas are prioritized for protection. The following section discusses the goals, providing a set of strategies (approaches) for reaching the desired future conditions. Proposed tactics 2. Water quality and (specific tasks) for the Program and its partners support the strategies. quantity are enhanced Proposed tactics will be refined throughout implementation, related to and protected. Program annual work planning and landowner response to outreach.Adoption A current status is provided for each tactic – ongoing (activity that ofwill 3. Natural resource quality is continue), expanded (increased activity) , or new (activity introduced by this improved and sustained. Plan). 4. Biodiversity is restored Goal 1: Ecologically important areas are prioritized for protection. and sustained. Preliminary Conservation Focus Areas (CFAs) emergedConsidertion from an evaluation and refinement of previously-identified priorityfor areas for voluntary land 5. The public supports and is protection and enhanced natural resource management. CFAs include involved in natural natural resource lands that are publicly Draftprotected, private easements, resource protection and unprotected areas, and connecting corridors. The CFAs form a countywide management. network of landscapes and corridors that represent some of the County’s best natural resources, but also are a starting point for discussion with 6. Recreational access to stakeholders. Section C of thisRevised chapter provides information on the process conservation lands is used to identify CFAs. enhanced.

Strategies and Proposed Tactics: A. Use preliminary Conservation Focus Areas (CFAs) as a framework for protecting and connecting natural areas and habitat. 1. Refine acquisition project evaluation criteria and weighting for different classifications (surface water, wetland/upland and upland) to prioritize potential land protection projects. (expanded) 2. Conduct landowner outreach within all CFAs to effectively inform and engage landowners. (expanded) 3. Create detailed, baseline information profiles for each CFA to document natural resource quality, needs, and opportunities with evolving updates. (new) 4. Identify and prioritize wetland basins for further hydrological analysis and cost estimates. (new)

The Land Conservation Plan, Page 13 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

5. Use a range of voluntary land protection methods, such as fee title and easement acquisition and land registry.6 (expanded) 6. Develop and test prioritization approaches for individual CFAs. (new) 7. Protect representative, high-quality native communities (wetlands, grasslands and forests) within the County. (expanded) 8. Establish a technical advisory group to evaluate and develop recommendations for the use of property tax modifications as conservation incentives. (new) 9. Protect critical groundwater recharge areas within CFAs as identified by the County Groundwater Plan. (new) 10. Review CFA boundaries every five years and revise as needed, based on new information. (new)

B. Expand strategic partnerships with agencies and organizations. 1. Establish and begin implementing a City-County Conservation Collaborative for natural resource planning, protection, and management. (new) 2. Establish and implement a coordination group among all townships and the County for natural resource planning, protection, and management. (new) Adoption of Goal 2: Water quality and quantity is enhanced and protected. Land conservation with enhanced natural resource management can be powerful tools in improving and protecting surface and groundwater quality. To improve surface water quality, the Land Conservation Program will focus on wetland protection and restoration, with emphasis on large cultivated wetland basins, and on protecting and restoring shoreline.Considertion The Program also can assist in implementing the new County Groundwater Plan by working with interestedfor landowners to strategically protect vital recharge areas and sensitive groundwater resources. Several Drinking Water Supply Management Areas and other infiltration areas could benefit from landDraft-management changes and land protection to adequately protect groundwater. These areas also could be a priority for the Land Conservation Program, whether or not the lands are located within the preliminary CFAs. Revised To improve water quality, it will be important to work with willing landowners to improve agricultural management practices; potentially convert row crop agricultural lands to less impactful crops; implement innovative practices, such as cover crops and practices emphasizing improved soil health; or even restore natural areas. It is envisioned that the Land Conservation Program would assist the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District as they lead these activities.

Strategies and Proposed Tactics: A. Use preliminary CFAs to identify, prioritize, protect, and restore wetland basins, shoreland, headwaters, and groundwater recharge areas to improve water quality and supply and to reduce flooding. 1. Establish evaluation criteria and weighting to prioritize potential protection and restoration projects. (expanded)

6 See Chapter IV, Implementation, for more information on the range of land protection tools.

The Land Conservation Plan, Page 14 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

2. Conduct landowner outreach within all CFAs to effectively inform and engage landowners. (expanded) 3. Use a range of voluntary land protection methods, such as fee title and easement acquisition and explore options for long-term agreements.7 (expanded) 4. Use a range of natural resource management techniques to restore, enhance and maintain lands for improved water quality, infiltration and storage to reduce flooding and provide wildlife habitat benefits. (expanded) B. Partner with the SWCD and other entities to promote, incentivize and implement water quality and quantity management and soil health practices (e.g., functional buffers, perennial vegetation on critical recharge areas, erosion control, wetland restoration, water retention basins, and soil health). 1. Develop project goals and funding criteria. (expanded) 2. Secure new cost-share funding for best management practice (BMP) implementation. (new) 3. Promote awareness of BMP implementation opportunities among landowners and operators. (expanded) 4. Combine and leverage resources to implement projects. (ongoing) C. Protect and restore critical infiltration areas outside CFAs identified by the County Groundwater Plan. 1. Establish evaluation criteria and weighting to prioritize potentialAdoption protection and restoration projects. (new) of 2. Conduct landowner outreach outside of CFAs where important areas have been identified to effectively inform and engage landowners and initiate wetland restoration initiatives. (expanded) 3. Use a range of voluntary land protection methods, such as fee title and easement purchase and long-term agreements. (expanded) Considertion 4. Use a range of natural resource managementfor techniques to restore, enhance and maintain lands for improved water quality, infiltration and storage to reduce flooding and provide wildlife habitat benefits. (expanded) Draft

Goal 3: Natural resource quality is improved and sustained. Natural areas are not truly protectedRevised unless natural resources are managed over time. Restoration and natural resource maintenance are needed to protect the initial investment made in conservation lands, but also require long-term commitment of funding and effort. The need for restoration and management applies to publicly-owned and privately-owned protected lands. More can be accomplished on public lands through collaborative approaches, such as a City-County Conservation Collaborative (CCCC). The CCCC would identify land protection priorities and opportunities; develop natural resource management plans and priorities for city properties; develop joint grant proposals; improve efficiencies and lower costs for purchasing seed, nursery stock, and other materials; and potentially share staff resources and equipment.

Funding natural resource restoration, management, and maintenance on protected private land has been a critical and ongoing challenge.

7 See page 49 for more information on the range of land protection tools.

The Land Conservation Plan, Page 15 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

Strategies and Proposed Tactics: A. Restore, enhance, and maintain natural resources on private lands. 1. Develop criteria and weighting for ranking potential natural resource restoration projects within CFAs. (new) 2. Develop funding formulas for restoration projects on private land within and outside of CFAs. (new) 3. Require ongoing restoration, management and maintenance activities as part of land protection agreements. (ongoing) 4. Partner with the SWCD and other entities to promote, incentivize, and implement natural resource management practices on private lands. (expanded) 5. Provide new incentives for improved natural resource management on protected and non- protected private lands. (new) 6. Work with other jurisdictions, agencies, and organizations to share natural resource management information and techniques with private landowners. (new) 7. Explore options for using a private funding entity to secure and disburse private funds for natural resource restoration and maintenance on protected private lands. (new) 8. Develop and implement monitoring protocols of management areas to assess results. (new) Adoption B. Restore, enhance, and maintain natural resources on publicof lands. 1. Develop criteria and weighting for prioritizing potential natural resource management projects within CFAs. (new) 2. Develop funding formulas for restoration projects on public lands within and outside of CFAs. (new) 3. Use the CFA framework to determine naturalConsidertion resource management priorities for public lands. (new) for 4. Establish and implement a City-County Conservation Collaborative to increase natural resource Draft management within ecologically significant city lands using shared and leveraged resources. (new) 5. Expand strategic partnerships to increase natural resource management using shared and leveraged resources forRevised ecologically significant, non-County public land. (expanded) 6. Coordinate natural resource information with other public entities. (new) 7. Establish a network of natural resource restoration reference sites. (new) 8. Develop and implement monitoring protocols of management areas to assess results. (new)

Goal 4: Biodiversity is restored and sustained. Located at the intersection of five major ecological subsections and on the Mississippi River Flyway for migratory birds, Dakota County’s rich legacy of biodiversity can be restored and sustained. The process for identifying CFAs looked at State biodiversity data and rare species and ecosystems, as well as corridors that are vital for the movement and population health of wildlife. The use of land protection tools combined with collaborative enhanced natural resource management is intended to assist in stabilizing and sustaining the County’s native natural heritage.

The Land Conservation Plan, Page 16 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

Strategies and Proposed Tactics: A. Use CFAs to protect habitat for rare, declining, and special concern species on public lands. 1. Identify and inventory areas of existing high biodiversity and high restoration potential. (expanded) 2. Develop baseline biodiversity data, goals, priorities, and monitoring protocols for the County and each CFA. (new) 3. Compile a comprehensive list of plant and animal species found in the County. (new) B. Use CFAs to protect habitat for rare, declining, and special concern species on private lands. 1. Prioritize biodiversity in CFA protection and restoration criteria, weighting, and implementation. (new) C. Develop and implement a Pollinator Habitat Network. 1. Develop a Pollinator Habitat Network for the County. (new) 2. Partner with transportation agencies and utilities to improve pollinator habitat within right-of-way and corridors. (new) 3. Partner with non-profit and other entities to improve smaller-scale pollinator habitat sites within the Pollinator Habitat Network. (new) Adoption of Goal 5: The public supports and is involved in natural resource protection and management. This goal addresses the need for enhanced communication about the Land Conservation Program, land protection, and natural resource management. In addition to providing high quality information, this goal seeks ways to engage people who would like to be more involved in land and water conservation activities. Strategies and Proposed Tactics: Considertion A. Provide timely and relevant Land Conservationfor Program information. 1. Develop a business plan for creating a web-based network with partners for sharing natural Draft resource information. (new) 2. Develop inclusive and accessible information resources for the public. (new) 3. Provide regular informationRevised and two-way communication opportunities for participating landowners. (expanded) B. Work with partners to engage the public through in-person conservation events and activities. 1. Provide volunteer opportunities in partnership with other organizations and County departments (e.g., BioBlitz, seed collection, and vegetation and wildlife monitoring). (expanded) 2. Provide seminars, tours, and speaking engagements. (expanded) 3. Help promote the SWCD Conservation Landowner of the Year program. (new)

Goal 6: Recreational access to conservation lands is enhanced. Although the focus of this plan is land protection and natural resources management, access to protected public lands with high quality natural resources enables people to learn about and appreciate nature, relax, recreate, and be inspired. For youth, early experiences in nature may help shape the next generation of conservationists and natural resource stewards. All preliminary CFAs include protected public land that is

The Land Conservation Plan, Page 17 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

accessible. Program staff will explore CFA private landowner interest in allowing some degree of additional public access. Across all CFAs, there should be a net increase in publicly-accessible sites, particularly to expand opportunities to experience higher quality natural areas and representative landscapes of the County. Strategies and Proposed Tactics: A. Provide new and enhanced opportunities for compatible outdoor recreation activities through the addition of publicly accessible lands within CFAs. 1. Work with willing landowners to provide at least one publicly accessible site within each CFA. (expanded) 2. Provide at least one location for the public to access high quality, representative wetland, grassland and forest communities. (expanded) B. Improve outdoor recreation activities on public lands through enhanced natural resource quality, information and amenities. 1. Work with other public entities to provide coordinated information about recreational and interpretive opportunities. (new) 2. Work with the DNR to provide more public amenities (kiosks, benches, trails) on state Wildlife and Aquatic Management Areas. (new) Adoption of Preliminary Conservation Focus Areas Evaluation of natural areas and connectivity in the County considered public and private lands that are already protected and past conservation mapping work from other plans, including:

2002 Farmland and Natural Area Protection PlanConsidertion In 2002, residents identified natural open forspace, compiled into a “Citizen Natural Area Protection Map.” The Dakota County SWCD mapped landDraft cover and protected areas using the newly-developed Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS). Combined analysis identified 36,000 Revisedacres of priority natural areas. Residents also identified priority farmland to protect and the Plan included 42,000 acres of productive farmland adjacent to natural corridors and within a half mile of a stream or river.

2003 Metro Conservation Corridors The Minnesota DNR and Metro Greenways Program partners used the MLCCS to update a Metro Conservation Corridors map for the seven-county metropolitan area, focused on larger areas and connections between waterways and existing public lands.

2008 Dakota County 2030 Park System Plan Chimney Rock, Marshan Township This plan proposed a 200-mile network of multi- purpose greenways connecting natural areas, parks,

The Land Conservation Plan, Page 18 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

schools, open and civic spaces, and new development. Greenways would benefit habitat, water, and non-motorized recreation and transportation. Many corridors aligned with previously identified conservation corridors.

2010 Vermillion River Corridor Plan With funding from the state Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund, the County developed a plan for the Vermillion River Watershed to integrate water quality, wildlife and outdoor recreation.

2015 Refined County Conservation Corridors Map With updates to the MLCCS, land protection projects, regional greenways, and land use changes, a refined map was developed with County Priority Natural Areas and Metro Conservation Corridors in the County, which became the basis for the County’s land conservation efforts.

1. Preliminary Conservation Focus Areas The County’s landscape is a diverse and dynamic mixture of public and private natural areas, farmland, culturally and historically significant places, rural towns, and suburban cities -- which do not exist independently of one another. These landscapes can protect water, clean air, mitigate climate change impacts, and provide habitat for plants and animals that people depend on for many needs. Natural landscapes help drive local and regional economies (e.g., timber, grazing, farming, tourism), reflect cultural legacies, provide scenic beauty, and offer opportunities for recreationAdoption and gathering. Communities need healthy, natural landscapes to remain viable. of

A more integrated effort is needed to connect habitats for biodiversity, ecological function, and climate resilience. Conservation efforts cannot ignore ownership or political boundaries but need to take a larger view and recognize interrelated large-scale issues, such as wetland loss and declining water quality or habitat fragmentation and loss of species. Considertion for CFA Definition To refine priorities and protect significant and sustainable natural areas and connecting corridors, this Plan Draft proposes working with landowners on a voluntary basis within landscape-oriented preliminary Conservation Focus Areas (CFAs). These preliminary CFAs were identified to include high quality natural areas, undeveloped open space, restorable cultivated wetlands, and interconnectingRevised corridors to create an extensive, integrated open space system.

The preliminary CFAs encompass 77,568 acres and include a combination of public and private lands. Examples of public lands included in the CFAs are the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, State Aquatic and Wildlife Management Areas and Scientific and Natural Areas, Dakota County Regional Parks, and several city-owned community parks, totaling about 21,648 acres.

This Plan suggests greater collaboration with other public entities managing natural resource lands. Dodge Nature Center, Mendota Heights

The Land Conservation Plan, Page 19 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

The following map shows preliminary CFAs, which total 77,568 acres. The preliminary CFAs are organized into 23 named areas. Due to their size or river corridor character, some CFAs are further subdivided into sub-units.

1. 180th Street Marsh 2. Cannon River 3. Chimney Rock 4. Chub Creek 5. Chub Lake 6. Darden Creek 7. Douglas Township Natural Area 8. Dutch Creek 9. Etter Creek 10. Hampton Woods 11. Lake Marion 12. Lebanon Hills 13. Marcott Lakes 14. Minnesota River A. Black Dog Unit B. Fort Snelling Unit Adoption C. Mendota/Lilydale Unit of D. Oheyawahe Unit 15. Mississippi River A. Pine Bend Unit B. Spring Lake Unit C. River Bluffs Unit Considertion D. Vermillion Bottoms Unit for 16. Mud Creek 17. Orchard Lake 18. Pine Creek Draft 19. Sand Coulee 20. Trout Brook 21. Vermillion Highlands Revised 22. Vermillion River Main Stem 23. Vermillion River Tributaries

The Land Conservation Plan, Page 20 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

CFAs include protected and unprotected private lands. For the approximately 8,675 acres of private lands already under permanent protection, this plan suggests greater outreach and collaboration with landowners on restoration, enhancement and long-term natural resource management. For lands that are not currently protected, this plan will continue to rely on outreach and working with willing landowners to protect land and manage natural resources over the long-term through a variety of incentives.

PRELIMINARY CFA IDENTIFICATION METHOD The CFAs were developed through review of previous plans Protection Status within and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis of: Preliminary CFAs, Acres

• surface water and hydrology Public Protected, • presence of larger drained wetland basins 21648 • public and private protected lands and buffers • land cover • natural resource quality and restoration potential Not Protected, Private • natural area size and connectivity 47246 • land ownership Protected, 8675 • interpretation of land protection needs based on twenty years of Program experience Public Protected Private Protected Not Protected Adoption The CFAs presented in this Plan are preliminary and are the of framework for outreach and subsequent land conservation projects. Outreach would be a first step in convening landowners to assess the issues and opportunities for each CFA and determine priorities, goals, and future land protection and natural resource improvement projects. CFA boundaries will likely evolve based on landowner discussions. Some areas may be removed from the map, due to a lack of landowner interest or relative importance. Other lands couldConsidertion be added to CFAs . Wetland restoration hydrology involves many unknowns and will likely requirefor project boundary adjustments and different approaches. Potential wetland restoration areas are included in the preliminary CFAs. The identification of proposed wetland restoration areas focused on largerDraft drained basins (most are currently cultivated) with relatively fewer landowners, using the following method:

1. Using the County Soil RevisedSurvey and MLCCS data, a map of cultivated, hydric (former wetland) soils was developed. 2. Light Detection and Ranging landform sensing technology (LIDAR) was used to identify basins. Relatively larger scale potential wetland basins were selected and divided into units. 3. Using basin size, proximity, land ownership and avoidance of roads, individual basins were aggregated to maximize size and minimize multiple ownership parcels.

More than 14,000 acres in 90 potential wetland restoration basins have been identified, although basin boundaries may be modified based on further study. The location and impact of underground drain tile is largely unknown, which will influence the feasibility and extent of wetland restoration projects. The preliminary CFAs include 10,834 acres in 77 identified restorable wetland basins.

The Land Conservation Plan, Page 21 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

PRELIMINARY CFA DESCRIPTIONS The preliminary CFAs represent some of the highest quality natural resources in the County and include a diverse mix of natural landcover types and agricultural land. They also represent opportunities to restore natural resource integrity and functions and connect high-quality habitat.

Preliminary Conservation Focus Areas and Proposed Large Wetland Restoration Basins

Adoption of

Considertion for

Draft

Revised Land Cover Public Protected Private Total Percentage Private Land Land Floodplain - Natural vegetation 6,967 1,140 7,166 15,274 19.7 Cultivated - Non-hydric 909 3,366 7,417 11,692 15.1 Upland Forest/Woodland 3,975 367 6,367 10,771 13.9 Cultivated Wetlands 381 1,846 7,626 8,196 10.6 Grassland/Pasture 4,480 481 2,962 7,923 10.2 Floodplain - Cultivated 175 752 5,888 6,816 8.8 Designated Wetlands 1,097 512 3,346 4,918 6.3 Open Water 2,345 140 5,936 7.6 Artificial* 1,032 47 1,984 3,121 4.0 Transportation Right-of-Way 1,906 0 0 1,906 2.4 Designated 50- and 16.5-foot wide Stream Buffers 65 21 354 452 0.6 Totals 23,554 8,675 45,339 77,568 100

The Land Conservation Plan, Page 22 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

The preliminary CFAs encompass the majority of the sites in the County identified by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) as having high or outstanding biodiversity. A broad range of representative native communities8 of varying ecological quality exist within the preliminary CFA boundaries. The CFAs also include existing and potential habitat for rare and declining native species, including many with legal protection status. Examples of Species of Greatest Conservation Need associated with some of these communities are provided below.

Native Communities and Species of Greatest Conservation Need Found within CFAs Native Community found in CFAs Example Species of Greatest Conservation Need Wetlands Wetland Species • Black Ash - (Red Maple) Seepage Swamp • Calcareous Fen (Southeastern) • Northern Wet Meadow/Carr Sedge wren (bird) Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrow (bird) • Sedge Meadow Two-spotted Skipper (insect) • Seepage Meadow/Carr Least Bittern (bird) • Southern Seepage Meadow/Carr Virginia Rail (bird) • Spikerush - Bur Reed Marsh (Prairie) Blanding’s Turtle (reptile) • Tamarack Swamp (Southern) • Willow - Dogwood Shrub Swamp Grasslands Grassland Species • Dry Barrens Prairie (Southern) Adoption of Loggerhead Shrike (bird) • Dry Bedrock Bluff Prairie (Southern) Henslow’s Sparrow (bird) • Dry Hill Prairie (Southern) Western Hognose Snake (reptile) • Dry Sand - Gravel Prairie (Southern) Prairie Vole (mammal) • Mesic Prairie (Southern) Karner Blue (insect) • Wet Prairie (Southern) Savanna Considertion Savanna Species for Eastern Racer (reptile) • Dry Sand - Gravel Oak Savanna (Southern) Field Sparrow (bird) Draft Red-headed Woodpecker (bird) Forest and Woodland Forest and Woodland Species • Red Oak - Sugar Maple - Basswood - Forest Revised Acadian Flycatcher (bird) • Red Oak - White Oak Forest Wood Thrush (bird) • Silver Maple Floodplain Forest Cerulean Warbler (bird) • Southern Dry-Mesic Oak Forest Prothonotary Warbler (bird) • Sugar Maple - Basswood Forest Four-toed Salamander (amphibian) • White Pine - Oak - Sugar Maple Forest Woodland Vole (mammal) • Pin Oak - Bur Oak Woodland Eastern Pipistrelle (mammal) • White Pine - Oak Woodland Northern Long-Eared Bat (mammal) Lakes, Rivers, and Streams Lake, River, and Stream Species • Shallow Lake Higgin’s Eye Pearly Mussel (mussel) • Deep Lake Pallid Shiner (fish) • Coldwater Stream Paddlefish (fish) • Major River

8 DNR, Natural Heritage Information System GIS Database

The Land Conservation Plan, Page 23 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

Prothonotary Warbler, National Audubon Society Higgins Eye Pearly Mussel, US Fish and Wildlife Service

Adoption of

Considertion for

Blanding’s Turtle, US Fish and Wildlife Service Redheaded Woodpecker, National Audubon Society Draft

Revised

The Land Conservation Plan, Page 24 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

The following profile for the preliminary Marcott Lakes CFA in Inver Grove Heights provides an example of the information that will be developed for each CFA.

Size and Ownership 650 acres 93 Landowners 10.8 percent public protected land 34.4 percent private protected land 54.8 percent unprotected land

Unique or Significant Features This preliminary CFA encompasses three of the four southernmost lakes in the Marcott Chain of Lakes, which are the most pristine with visibility reaching depths of 20 to 30 feet.

Vegetation Forest/Woodlands are varied and include oak woodland-brushland, non-native deciduous woodland, oak forest, mesic oak forest, and Adoption of conifer plantations.

Grasslands include long grasses, medium-tall grass altered/non-native dominated, short grasses and mixed trees, mixed planted and/or native grasses, Considertion for Wildlife Although not documented on protectedDraft land, Blanding’s turtle was recorded within one mile. This CFA contains suitable habitat for this species. Revised

Sixteen to twenty bird Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) have been recorded within the vicinity of the Marcott Lakes CFA, including rose-breasted grosbeak, eastern pewee, black-billed cuckoo, and wood thrush.

Other SGCN documented over many years on protected land include big brown bat, least weasel, five-lined skink, and spotted salamander.

The Land Conservation Plan, Page 25 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

The preliminary CFAs represent a reduction in and refinement of the areas prioritized in the 2002 Farmland and Natural Areas Protection Plan (FNAP) and subsequent modification of its eligibility areas, as shown in the following map and summary table.

Land Protection Eligibility Effort Acres Original FNAP, 2002 160,459 Modified FNAP, 2009-2019 100,103 Preliminary Conservation Focus Areas, 2020 77,568

Adoption of

Considertion for

Draft

Revised

The Land Conservation Plan, Page 26 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

PRELIMINARY CFAS AND GREENWAYS In addition to larger protected public lands, such as Regional Parks and State Wildlife Management Areas, many of the preliminary CFAs already include segments of the larger, long-term Regional Greenway System that are already open or planned for public use. Other portions of the planned greenway system are located outside of the Preliminary CFAs. These corridors were partially chosen for their natural amenities and include potential areas for protection and restoration that would enhance both the ecological functions and the recreational experience of users. Specific conservation opportunities will be determined as greenway corridor plans are further refined and implemented. The following map shows the relationship of the County Greenway System with the preliminary CFAs.

Dakota County Greenways and Preliminary CFAs

Adoption of

Considertion for

Draft

Revised

The Land Conservation Plan, Page 27 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

2. Additional Eligible Lands Outside of CFAs A. GROUNDWATER PROTECTION AREAS Groundwater aquifer recharge areas are vital in ensuring an adequate water supply in the future. Depending on soil types, some portions of the County have faster infiltration rates ranging from a half an inch to more than five inches per hour.

Where groundwater is highly vulnerable to contamination, voluntary land protection, in tandem with adoption of groundwater-protective management practices, provides another option for improving groundwater quality over time. The County Land Conservation Program will assist, as needed and when feasible, in protecting high priority aquifer recharge areas outside of CFAs.

The following map shows the location of 83,807 acres of significant recharge areas, which include substantial areas outside of the preliminary CFAs. The significant recharge areas shown exclude developed areas with more than ten percent impervious surface.

Adoption of

Considertion for

Draft

Revised

The Land Conservation Plan, Page 28 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

B. OTHER NATURAL FEATURES Additional areas outside of the preliminary CFAs that have ecological value would be evaluated for protection based on landowner inquiry. These areas include:

• More than 1,800 acres of forests/woodlands with greater than 40 contiguous acres • Smaller restorable wetlands • Locally significant open spaces • Small sites that could provide native plant seeds • Surface water corridors

Adoption of

Considertion for

Draft Restored Prairie on protected private property, Eureka Township

Revised

Woodland Easement, East Lake Community Park, Lakeville

The Land Conservation Plan, Page 29 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

Natural Resource Management

1. Purposes Natural resource management is vital for Conservation Focus Areas and private or public protected lands Ongoing stewardship maintains ecological functions as part of a larger regional natural framework.

Dakota County’s rich natural heritage is based on its location at the crossroads of several ecological subsections identified by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, including the St. Paul Baldwin Plains and Moraines, Big Woods, Oak Savanna, Rochester Plateau, Bluff land, and three Major River systems. Although little pre-settlement landscape remains in Dakota County, high quality natural areas and open space areas could be restored and managed as wetland, prairie, and woodland.

Restoration and management of these natural areas can increase provision of a broad range of ecological services. These services provide real economic benefits that are measurable in dollars per year but are often regarded as “free” and generally not well-accounted for in a Adoption range of land uses and development. of Many studies have evaluated economic values for these services9. For more information, please see Appendix 3. Considertion Natural resources also influence how for a community defines itself, with effects on culture and the economy, Draft beyond the ecological benefits often Vermillion River, Vermillion Township cited as the main purpose of natural areas. Parks, open spaces, greenways, and agricultural landscapes addRevised value and create a sense of place that Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services (ES): 5 attracts new residents and convinces Middle Cedar River Watershed, Iowa, 2011 A valuation study of ecosystem service benefits in the Middle current residents to stay. Increased Cedar River Watershed in Iowa identified 14 categories of ES awareness of the economic and across eight land cover classes in the 1.5 million-acre (~2,400 community benefits of natural square miles) watershed. The study estimated that the ES resources establishes a rationale for generated between $548 million and $1.9 billion in goods and protecting and properly managing services. Wetlands constitute 2.3 percent of the land cover in the natural resources as a widely watershed but were found to contribute 16.5 to 30.1 percent of accepted, normal part of a the total ES value. The top-ranking ES provided by wetlands was community’s ongoing and future flood risk mitigation, valued at $2,544 to $3,651 per acre per year. activities.

9 Kocian, M., Traughber, B. Batker, D. (2012). “Valuing Nature’s Benefits: An Ecological Economic Assessment of Iowa’s Middle Cedar River Watershed.” Tacoma: Earth Economics

The Land Conservation Plan, Page 30 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

2. Natural Resource Management Issues and Opportunities Restoring natural places and systems amid a long history of ecosystem alteration and loss must address systemic changes over time, current efforts and issues, and growing research on effective approaches.

Systemic changes that have contributed to the decline of native species and ecosystems include: 1. Land use change since the mid 1800’s: Native ecosystems were removed or altered as the County was farmed and urbanized, resulting in the loss and fragmentation of native species habitat, disrupted connectivity between habitat areas, and a reduction in the number of native species.

2. Removal of natural regulatory processes, such as fire and grazing, contributes to changes in landscape composition and health. Fire recycles excess nutrients and repeated fire prevents colonization by pioneering woody plants that convert grasslands to shade-dominated woodlands.

3. Hydrologic changes from urban stormwater systems and agriculture (e.g., drain tile) have increased runoff entering natural waterways instead of being infiltrated on land. Warm water from streets and fields enters lakes, streams, and wetlands, carrying chemicals, nutrients, and sediment.

4. Invasive species include a growing number of plants and animals. Without natural predators or diseases, non-native invasive species outcompete the native species and ecosystems.

5. Climate data has indicated warmer and wetter conditions withAdoption more frequent severe weather events and weather extremes, with impacts to native ecosystemsof .

Ongoing Issues include: • Reversing these systemic changes mentioned above is difficult, even when possible. Mitigation of their impacts at a smaller scale requires aConsidertion long-term effort. • Natural resource management requiresfor an ongoing commitment to maintenance. • Despite increased public investment in protecting land and water quality, more restoration and natural resource management remainsDraft to be done. • Most land will remain in private ownership and pose many challenges in addressing long-term natural resource management and costs. Revised • Natural resource management would benefit from a clear and shared framework, including language and terminology.

Natural Resource Management Recommendations include: • Basing management decisions on sound science and professional practice. • Involving the public and landowners, to benefit from diverse perspectives, needs, and interests. • Working across jurisdictional and ownership boundaries, through partnerships and collaboration. • Having clearly-conceived goals that are realistic, with sufficient time horizons. • Having clear performance metrics to track progress toward project goals. • Continuing natural resource monitoring and assessment over time. • Developing and using clear standards for restoration and management goals, effective monitoring, and adapting project practices when needed.

The Land Conservation Plan, Page 31 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

• Providing adequate budgets to sustain restoration and management efforts over time. • Sharing resource and management information with landowners, partners, and the public.

Ecological Restoration and Management Ecological restoration rebuilds ecosystems by stabilizing and enhancing their diversity, resilience, and natural functions. Healthy ecosystems are usually diverse in plants and wildlife, have few invasive plants, have healthy soils and good reproduction of important species, and generate ecosystem services, such as clean air and water, regulating and purifying stormwater runoff, recharging groundwater, controlling erosion and building soil.

The composition and function of restored ecosystems is intended to be similar to native ecosystems. The development of site-specific Natural Resource Management Plans (NRMPs) is fundamental to effective natural resource management. NRMPs describe the ecological setting, existing conditions, and goals for natural resource restoration and management. Plans define management units, tasks, costs, and a schedule of work. Successful natural resource restoration and management plans are flexible. Ecosystems may not respond as expected, or new technology and scientific understanding may emerge. NRMPs are a starting point and should be updated every five years, or as needed based on site response and new information. Regular monitoring of conditions and reporting on progress provides a basis for adjusting NRMPs, also referred to as adaptive management. Adoption Ecological restoration involves short- and long-term phases. Theof short -term phase is often more intensive but provides an essential foundation for the overall restoration. Establishing the proposed plant community structure (e.g., tree canopy, shrub layer) often lasts three to four years. Tasks can include woody brush removal, invasive species control, seeding/planting native species, and using bio-control techniques when available. After initial restoration, ongoing management is essential to protect the investment already made. Typical tasks include spotConsidertion spraying of invasive plants, re-seeding disturbed or poorly developing areas, re-planting woody plants,for and maintaining the right disturbances, such as fire, to perpetuate the plant community. Draft It is important to develop and use consistent standards and language for describing natural resource management. The Five-Star Ecological Recovery Reference System10, developed by the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER), providesRevised a potential framework for setting goals and monitoring progress. The Five Star model:

• Evaluates progression of an ecosystem based on recovery outcomes, not restoration activities. • Is based on key attributes, or broad goals, supported by more specific goals and objectives. • Recognizes that each restoration project does not necessarily start at the same level and full recovery of some attributes will be difficult to achieve.

10 https://www.ser.org/page/SERNews3113

The Land Conservation Plan, Page 32 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

The following table and adapted graphic provide an example set of attributes, goals, and measures.

Five-Star Ecological Recovery Reference System Attributes, Goals, and Measures Attributes Goals Example Measures 1. Absence of • Reduce invasive species Common buckthorn, honeysuckle, garlic Threats mustard, and black locust are not present 2. Physical • Restore wetlands and increase surface Acre-feet of new water storage Conditions water storage and quality 3. Species • Increase number of desirable plants List of all native species evidently persisting on Composition • Increase number of desirable animals the site, particularly any threatened species 4. Structural • Establish desired vegetative layers Assemblage of species and age Diversity 5. Ecosystem • Maximize number of wildlife indicator Breeding bird census Function species 6. Connectivity • Maintain and increase wildlife movement Wildlife species using adjacent/nearby sites

Adoption This adapted Ecological Recovery of Wheel is based on a more complex SER Ecological Recovery Wheel. It can be used to visually depict the status of a site at a specific time in the restoration process. This can be an Considertion important tool for comparing efforts for but requires coordination and acceptance of established standards Draft and measurements. The concentric rings are used to represent a “one to five” assessment for each attribute over time. Revised

The Land Conservation Plan, Page 33 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

Potential Ten-Year Outcomes for the Plan Targeted ten-year outcomes and associated cost estimates were developed for four protection and ownership scenarios:

• Publicly-owned conservation land within preliminary Conservation Focus Areas • Protected private lands within preliminary Conservation Focus Areas • Non-protected private land within preliminary Conservation Focus Areas • Non-protected private land outside of preliminary Conservation Focus Areas

Acquisition and restoration costs were then estimated for the following eleven major landscape types:

• Open water • Floodplain – natural vegetation • Floodplain – cultivated • Designated wetlands • Designated 50-foot wide stream buffers and 16.5-foot wide ditch buffers • Upland forest/woodlands • Cultivated, non-hydric land Adoption • Cultivated hydric land/wetland of • Grassland/pasture • Public right-of-way • Other

Considertion The total estimated cost for protecting and restoring lands within the Preliminary Conservation Focus Areas and areas identified outside of the CFAsfor is $314 M, based on past program experience, current land and easement values and unit restoration costs. Estimates were adjusted based on these key assumptions: Draft • 80 percent of public agencies would be interested in participating in partnership efforts to restore their lands, the majority of floodplain acres would not require restoration and one third of grasslands have alreadyRevised been restored • 30 percent of landowners with County easements would be willing to additionally protect and restore land. • 20 percent of new program applicants would be interested in protecting and restoring some of their land. • Continued availability of existing and future State and other non-County grant funds • County cost-share likely would be 20 to 25 percent for protection and restoration activities

Based on the scenarios, landscape types, and assumptions, a range of land protection and restoration targets for the next ten years are:

The Land Conservation Plan, Page 34 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

IV. IMPLEMENTATION

Establishing Priorities The following section discusses prioritization of plan actions that should occur early in implementation and at the geographic level, to identify approaches for initiating work within preliminary Conservation Focus Areas.

1. Priorities for Plan Actions Goals, strategies, and tactics are summarized in the following table with preliminary priorities suggested for strategies. The fourth column identifies when the tactic generally would be initiated over the ten-year life of this Plan: within one-two years (2020-2021), within three-four years (2022-2023), or within five or more years (2024 and beyond). Determining initiation timeframes is based, in part, on overall priority and partly on the availability of needed resources and information. It is useful to note that some of the tactics are discrete tasks that can be completed in less than one year, others will be multi-year projects, and many will be ongoing activities. Implementation and prioritization of strategies and tactics are subject to County Board approval, through annual budgeting, work planning processes, and partner considerations.

GOALS STRATEGIES PROPOSED TACTICS STATUS TIMEFRAMES

1. Refine acquisition project evaluationAdoption criteria and Expanded 2020 weighting for different classificationsof .

2. Conduct landowner outreach within all CFAs. Expanded 2020-2021

3. Create detailed, baseline information profiles for New 2020-2022 each CFA. Considertion 4. Identify and prioritize wetland basins. New 2020-2025 for 5. Use a range of voluntary land protection Expanded 2020-2030 A. Use preliminary methods. Conservation Focus Areas Draft 6. Develop and test conservation approaches for (CFAs) as a framework for New 2020-2024 protecting and connecting individual CFAs. natural areas and habitat. 7. Protect representative, high quality native Revised Expanded 2020-2030 Goal 1 Priority: HIGH communities. Ecologically important 8. Establish a technical advisory group on property New 2021-2022 areas are tax modifications as conservation incentives. prioritized for 9. Protect critical groundwater recharge areas New 2022-2030 protection. within CFAs.

10. Review CFA boundaries every five years and New 2025-2030 revise as needed.

1. Establish and implement a City-County B. Expand strategic Conservation Collaborative for natural resource New 2020-2030 partnerships with agencies, planning and protection. organizations, and local 2. Establish and implement coordination group governments. among all townships and the County New 2020-2030 Priority: MEDIUM

Implementation, Page 35 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

GOALS STRATEGIES PROPOSED TACTICS STATUS TIMEFRAMES

1. Establish evaluation criteria and weighting to A. Use CFAs to identify, Expanded 2020 prioritize, protect, and restore prioritize potential water quality projects. wetlands, shoreland, 2. Conduct landowner outreach within all CFAs. Expanded 2020-2021 headwaters, and groundwater recharge areas for water 3. Use a range of voluntary land protection Expanded 2020-2030 quality and supply and flood methods. reduction. 4. Use a range of natural resource management Expanded 2020-2030 Priority: HIGH techniques.

B. Partner with the SWCD and 1. Develop program goals and funding criteria. Expanded 2020 Goal 2 other entities to promote, Water quality incentivize and implement 2. Secure new cost-share funding for BMPs. New 2021-2030 and quantity water-quality and quantity are enhanced management and soil health 3. Promote awareness of BMP opportunities. Expanded 2020-2030 and practices. protected. Priority: MEDIUM 4. Combine and leverage resources. Ongoing 2020-2030

1. Establish project criteria and weighting New 2020 C. Protect and restore critical 2. Conduct landowner outreach outside of CFAs. Expanded 2021-2030 infiltration areas outside of CFAs identified in the County 3. Use a range of voluntary land protection Expanded 2020-2030 Groundwater Plan, as needed methods. Adoption and when feasible 4. Use a range of natural resourceof management Priority: LOW techniques for water quality, infiltration and Expanded 2020-2030 storage, and habitat. 1. Develop criteria and weighting for restoration New 2020 projects within CFAs. 2. DevelopConsidertion funding formulas for restoration projects New 2020 withinfor and outside of CFAs. 3. Require ongoing restoration, management and Ongoing 2020-2030 Draftmaintenance as part of protection agreements. A. Restore, enhance, and 4. Partner with the SWCD and other entities on Expanded 2020-2030 maintain natural resources on natural resource management. protected private lands. 5. Provide new incentives for improved New Revised management. 2021-2030 Goal 3 Priority: HIGH Natural 6. Work with other organizations to share natural resource resource management information and New 2021-2030 quality is techniques with private landowners improved 7. Explore a private funding entity for natural New 2021-2022 and resource management. sustained. 8. Develop and implement monitoring protocols of New 2020-2021 management areas to assess results. 1. Develop criteria and weighting for natural New 2020-2021 resource management projects within CFAs. B. Restore, enhance, and 2. Develop funding formulas for restoration projects maintain natural resources on New 2020-2021 within and outside of CFAs. public lands. 3. Use CFA framework to determine natural Priority: MEDIUM New 2021-2030 resource priorities.

4. City-County Conservation Collaborative for New 2020-2021 management of ecologically significant city lands.

Implementation, Page 36 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

GOALS STRATEGIES PROPOSED TACTICS STATUS TIMEFRAMES

5. Expand partnerships to increase management of Expanded 2020-2030 ecologically significant, non-County land. 6. Coordinate natural resource information with New 2021-2030 other public entities. 7. Establish a network of natural resource New 2021-2022 restoration reference sites. 8. Develop and implement monitoring protocols of New 2020-2021 management areas to assess results.

1. Inventory areas of high biodiversity and Expanded 2020-2022 A. Use CFAs to protect habitat restoration potential. for rare, declining, and special 2. Develop baseline biodiversity data, goals, concern species on public New 2020-2022 lands. priorities, and monitoring protocols.

Priority: HIGH 4. Compile list of plant and animal species in Dakota New 2020-2030 County. Goal 4 B. Use CFAs to protect habitat Biodiversity is for rare, declining, and special 1. Prioritize biodiversity in CFA criteria, weighting restored and concern species on private New 2020-2021 and implementation. sustained. lands. Adoption Priority: MEDIUM of 1. Develop a pollinator habitat network for the New 2021-2022 County C. Develop and implement a pollinator habitat network. 2. Partner with transportation agencies and utilities New 2021-2030 to improve habitat within right-of-way. Priority: LOW 3. PartnerConsidertion with other entities to improve smaller New 2022-2030 scalefor pollinator habitat sites within the network. 1. Develop a business plan for a web-based network New 2021 for sharing natural resource information. Draft 2. Develop a web-based natural resource A. Provide timely and relevant New 2021-2023 information network. Goal 5 natural resource information.

The public 3. Provide regular information and opportunities for Priority: HIGH Expanded 2020-2030 supports and Revised participating landowners. is involved in 4. Develop inclusive and accessible public natural New 2023-2030 resource information. protection 1. Provide volunteer opportunities in partnership and B. Work with partners to with other organizations and County Expanded 2020-2030 management engage the public through departments. conservation events and 2. Provide seminars, tours, and speaking activities. Expanded 2020-2030 engagements. 3. Help promote the SWCD Conservation Landowner Priority: LOW New 2022 of the Year Program. Goal 6: A. Provide new and enhanced 1. Work with landowners to expand and improve Expanded 2020-2030 Recreational opportunities for compatible publicly accessible sites within each CFA. access to outdoor recreation activities conservation through addition of publicly 2. Provide at least one location for the public to lands is accessible lands within CFAs. access high quality, representative wetland, Expanded 2020 grassland and forest communities. enhanced Priority: MEDIUM

Implementation, Page 37 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

GOALS STRATEGIES PROPOSED TACTICS STATUS TIMEFRAMES B. Improve outdoor recreation 1. Work with other public entities to provide activities on public lands coordinated information on recreational and New 2020-2030 through enhanced natural interpretive opportunities. resource quality, information 2. Work with the DNR to provide more public and amenities. amenities on state Wildlife and Aquatic New 2021-2030 Priority: MEDIUM Management Areas.

3. Establishing Preliminary Conservation Focus Area Priorities The preliminary Conservation Focus Areas (CFAs) are the primary geographic focus for this Plan. While unprotected lands within CFAs would be automatically eligible for protection, the Land Conservation Program will still need a mechanism to evaluate and prioritize projects as they are submitted from CFA landowners.

A. PRIORITIES ACROSS CONSERVATION FOCUS AREAS Implementation of this Plan will involve outreach to all landowners in all CFAs after Plan adoption. The Land Conservation Program will respond to all expressions of landowner interest. CFAs with greater interest among landowners would move up in priority for convening CFA landscape conservation dialogues. Adoption In addition to priorities based on the degree of landownerof interest from initial outreach efforts, the presence of larger-scale wetland restoration basins would increase the priority level of a CFA to begin the process of convening landowners and working to develop projects.

B. PRIORITIES WITHIN PRELIMINARY CONSERVATIONConsidertion FOCUS AREAS CFA-level priorities will be identified throughfor landowner meetings. Initial CFA-wide meetings may include representatives of local government and watershed management organizations. This plan proposes establishing one to threeDraft pilot landscape conservation projects involving individual CFAs in 2021. Early in the process, the goal is to convene landowners to discuss their priorities for their CFA.

Updated project evaluationRevised criteria will reflect at least three types of land protection projects:

• Areas with Surface Water Present: including priority natural areas, natural area conservation zones, greenway corridors, areas adjacent to water, priority groundwater recharge areas, and areas with flood reduction or storage potential. Additional consideration will be given to public health benefits, urban projects, and areas adjacent to protected land. • Areas with a Combination of Uplands and Wetlands: including priority natural areas, natural area conservation zones, greenway corridors, areas adjacent to water, priority groundwater recharge areas, and areas with flood reduction or storage potential. Additional consideration will be given to public health benefits, urban projects, and areas adjacent to protected land. • Upland Forest and Grassland: including priority natural areas, natural area conservation zones, greenway corridors, and priority groundwater recharge areas. Additional consideration will be given to urban projects, and areas adjacent to protected land.

Implementation, Page 38 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

C. PRIORITIES FOR OTHER COUNTYWIDE NATURAL AREAS (OUTSIDE OF PRELIMINARY CFAS) Although the preliminary CFAs are the primary plan focus, additional areas are important to protect and restore. Apart from preliminary CFAs, natural areas with at least one of the following significant natural characteristics are eligible for protection under the Land Conservation Program: • Includes ecologically significant features • Provides important wildlife habitat • Is adjacent to a river, lake, or stream • Is adjacent to existing protected property with natural habitat • Is located within a designated greenway corridor • Provides other environmental benefits (e.g., surface water or groundwater quality protection, aquifer recharge, flood control, connectivity). Depending on the benefits, this may be considered as more than one criterion to eligibility • Is considered locally significant open space Examples of other natural areas that that merit review for protection are small woodlands at least 40 acres in size, restorable wetlands, and other natural areas with habitat characteristics or known species of concern.

D. PRIORITIES FOR NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROJECTSAdoption Criteria for evaluating natural resource management projectsof within and outside of CFAs will be developed to address water quality goals, ecological benefits, social considerations, economics, and project locations, including:

Water Quality • Improves water retention and infiltrationConsidertion • Retains water in stream headwaters for • Installs stream channel and shoreline stabilization projects • Promotes functional vegetativeDraft buffers along water resources in areas where they are not already required by regulations and/or restores native or desirable vegetation in buffers that consist of non-desirable species • Promotes perennial vegetation on critical recharge areas Revised • Implements erosion control practices • Promotes soil health • Improves habitat

Ecological • Existing high biodiversity • Presence of rare or unique species • Offers opportunity to develop baseline biodiversity data • Offers opportunity to develop comprehensive list of plant and animal species • Improves pollinator habitat • Connects existing natural areas or restorable areas • Improves Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) habitat • Cessation of threats from over-utilization or elimination and control of invasive species • Reinstatement of hydrologic conditions • Elimination of undesirable plants and animal species and promotion of desirable species

Implementation, Page 39 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

• Reinstatement of structural layers, food webs, and spatial diversity • Promote connection of habitat links into bigger, functional whole • Difficulty of restoration • Conditions of adjoining lands

Social • Promotes landowner involvement • Promotes City-County Conservation Collaborative on ecologically significant land • Expands strategic partnerships with other entities • Promotes information sharing with other entities • Provides public participation opportunities • Includes areas of public use or visibility • Provides potential education opportunities

Economic • Cost • Leveraged non-County funding resources • Relative restoration cost to achieve a certain standard • Long-term maintenance costs • Level of landowner commitment Adoption • Level of partner(s) commitment of • Opportunities for volunteer assistance

Project locations • Inclusion in a CFA • Drinking Water Supply Management AreaConsidertion outside of a CFA • Woodlot outside of a CFA for • Wetland outside of a CFA • Other undeveloped land in Draftcities • Native seed source site

Revised

Implementation, Page 40 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

Partnerships 1. City-County Conservation Collaborative Many agencies -- such as Dakota County, Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), Watershed Management Organizations, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), private and nonprofits groups -- work to protect natural areas and manage natural resources. Agencies often work independently, using the legal, financial, and other resources available to them. Collaboration often occurs on case-by-case projects or initiatives, but conservation and resource management are not always coordinated and systematic. An organized collaborative can help coordinate activities, allowing partnering agencies to do more together than they could do separately. Each collaborating would bring its own strengths, expertise, experience, and tools to create a whole that is greater than the sum of its individual parts. These suggested guidelines envision several layers of collaboration to perform different tasks. The large group guides efforts, coordinates plans, and shares experiences. Project-specific partner groups meet more regularly to perform tasks with a focus on specific project delivery.

The collaborative approach also puts the weight of the region and multiple organizations behind funding applications and project delivery. This gives local projects legitimacy and demonstrated need by showing they are supported. The following table suggests participants and activities for a large group collaborative and smaller project-specific collaboratives.

Adoption of Suggested Model for a City-County Conservation Collaborative

Group Large Group Collaborative Project-Specific Partnerships

• Businesses Considertion• Cities and Townships for • Dakota County • DNR and other state agencies • Cities Draft Participants • • Dakota County Landowners • Nonprofit Organizations Revised • SWCD • Watershed Management Organizations

• Identify collaboration opportunities • Guide efforts • Develop standards • Develop comprehensive, master, development and other plans based on • Communicate values shared vision Activities • Reinforce regional importance • Land protection projects • Develop grant applications • Natural resource restoration and • Increase staff capacity and knowledge management • Share natural resource information • Coordinate purchasing

Implementation, Page 41 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

Governance of a collaborative requires a mutually-acceptable framework by which cities, the County, landowners, and other partners set project goals and fund activities. The roles of each agency or organization may vary greatly from project to project. Partners should seek a structure that is opportunistic and flexible, to take advantage of funding and opportunities without cumbersome processes. It must also build from the strengths of each project partner. Suggested functions and roles are:

Collaborative Functions

Communication will be vital to develop and institutionalize effective communication channels

Coordinated Planning will be necessary to build consensus on conservation and project goals, roles, and funding responsibilities. In many cases, integration of objectives from existing plans will be essential.

Project Prioritization will use a collaborative approach to identify priorities within each project.

Land Protection and Ownership Options will be determined based on project type, location and other factors.

Cost-Sharing and Funding should be linked with other strategic decisions. Funding roles should be determined based on the strengths of each agency and individual conservation projects. In-kind contributions of land, easements, design, restoration, and management are encouraged. Joint AdoptionPowers Agreements will be developed to establish predominant roles and responsibilities. of Long-Term Management and Stewardship will vary across projects and land ownership types. The Collaborative will develop goals and identify partner roles for natural resource management and long-term maintenance of conserved areas.

Measuring Success includes lands protected, restored,Considertion and maintained; outside dollars leveraged by the collaborative, dollars saved through cost sharing or combined purchasing, staff time utilized on conservation related activities, and more. for

Draft

2. Convening Preliminary CFA Landowners and Stakeholders In addition to conducting annualRevised landowner application rounds as the Program has done in the past, this Plan uses a “landscape conservation” approach to convene landowners, stakeholders, and local governments to share information and make decisions in a way that promotes natural landscapes as a valued part of society. The idea of a shared landscape fosters dialogue and exchange of ideas to develop projects that are community-supported, locally significant, and enduring. Bringing all interests together -- with diverse perspectives, expertise, and responsibilities -- can help find common ground, avoid and address conflicts, and develop creative solutions that protect and restore natural resources.

This Plan recognizes that each preliminary CFA is unique in terms of land, natural resources, and people. The landscape conservation approach will explore how to engage and convene landowners within each preliminary CFA to determine individual and shared needs, goals, and conservation-related priorities. The following chart summarizes how the County could convene landowners and stakeholders and help advance desired goals.

Implementation, Page 42 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

Elements of a Collaborative CFA Initiative ADVANCE and PHASES ORGANIZE ASSESS DEVELOP ACHIEVE SUSTAIN Define CFA Identify resources, Prioritize, fund Evaluate progress, boundary based on issues, challenges, and Develop vision, PREPARATION and implement update plan and resources, land use, opportunities within goals, and strategies strategies adapt over time ownership, etc. the CFA With Partners: • Finalize vision and • Map ecological • Celebrate • goal Contact and features, land uses successes convene • Identify concerns, • Refine boundary • Identify and • Identify interests, and interests and profile • Evaluate secure funding progress and concerns, goals, • Explore connectivity • Finalize plan • Implement effectiveness and roles to other Protection KEY priority With Landowners: conservation efforts priorities • ACTIVITIES activities Recalibrate • Create owner • Identify protection Resource strategies and • database opportunities and management Monitor, tactics to reflect • Meet with key approaches priorities measure, and lessons learned share results landowners • Identify resource Communications • Adapt as • Outreach management needs Metrics necessary • Convene and opportunities • Select projects • Building trust • Give credit to all • Strengthen • Determine most • Add stakeholders • Continue relationships effective • RecognizeAdoption partner strategic • PARTNER Showcase • Identify others communications to contributions,of outreach and BUILDING successes and who should be build trust, shared activities, develop new AND progress involved partnerships, and and understanding communication OUTREACH through events • Conduct ongoing learn from each • Ensure good activities and and effective communications other communication products communications • Acknowledgment Considertion • Identify lead • Establish • Refine entity for coordination governance • Identify key • Explore leadership structure, roles, structures as • Remain flexible STRUCTURE landowners and and organizational and needed and adaptive, AND Draft partners options, roles, and responsibilities • patient and STAFFING Increase • Identify potential activities • Establish project staffing persistent coordination roles and capacity as structure Revised responsibilities needed

Funding the Work 1. Current Land Conservation Operating Budget The Land Conservation Program has grown incrementally since its inception. Program staff and budget for 2020 include:

4.0 FTEs, salaries and benefits: $486,137 Operations/Contracted Services: $201,664 $687,801

Implementation, Page 43 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

2. Potential Protection and Restoration Outcomes and Estimated County Cost Based on the scenarios, landscape types, and assumptions, a range of potential land protection and restoration targets for the next ten years are:

Potential Outcomes and Estimated County Cost Ten-Year Ten-Year Ten-Year Ten-Year Ten-Year Ten-Year Protection and Total Total County Total County Protection Restoration Ownership Status Acres Protection Protection Restoration Restoration Acres Acres Costs Cost Costs Cost 5. Public 23,554 0 $0 $0 7,500 $22.5M $1.4M Conservation Lands within CFAS 6. Protected Private 8,675 2,600 $31.9M $2.1M 2,600 $16.8M $0.7M Lands within CFAs 7. Non-Protected 45,339 3,500 $133.0M $6.5M 2,100 $83.8M $3.2M Private Land within CFAs Adoption 8. Non-Protected 2,400 480 $17.4M $0.9Mof 400 $9.0M $0.2M Private Land outside of CFAs Totals 77,568* 6,580 $182.3M $9.5M 12,600 $132.1M $5.5M

Please see Appendix 5 for additional information Considertionon cost analyses. for Operational Considerations It is important to recognize that land conservationDraft projects can be highly complex, with many variables that influence timeframes and costs. Typical acquisition projects require 18 to 24 months and typical restoration projects require three or more years.

In the past, most land protectionRevised projects consisted of large tracts of agricultural easements, resulting in: • An average of ten completed acquisition projects per year for one full-time staff person (FTE) • Higher average acreage per project • Lower average cost per acre and lower total cost per project • Less complexity and reliance on partners requiring less average time per project • Initially no natural resource restoration requirements

Based on past performance and going forward, anticipated land protection projects and associated restoration will likely result in: • Lower average acres per project • Higher average cost per project • Greater complexity and reliance on partners, including adjacent landowners • Obligatory natural resource management will increase project duration and require more staff time per project and longer duration

Implementation, Page 44 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

Staffing Staff capacity influences the amount of land that can be protected and restored annually and over the Plan’s ten-year timeframe. Based on current staff capacity, an estimated 250 acres could be protected each year for a total of 2,500 acres and 400 acres could be restored each year for a total of 4,000 acres over the ten-year plan.

An additional 1.0 FTE Acquisition Specialist could double the land protection to 5,000 acres over ten years. An additional 2.0 FTE Restoration Specialists could increase natural resource restoration acreage to 12,000 acres over ten years. The estimated costs for these staffing options are outlined below:

Estimated Annual Costs11 Land Protection Natural Resource Restoration Acres 250 500 400 800 1,200 Staff and Operations 2.5 FTE 3.5 FTE 1.5 FTE 2.5 FTE 3.5 FTE (Current) (Current) Subtotal Cost $430K $545K $258K $373K $488K Total Annual Cost $430K $545K $773K $888K $1.0M

Estimated Ten-Year Costs Land Protection NaturalAdoption Resource Restoration Acres 2,500 5,000 4,000of 8,000 12,000 Staff and Operations 2.5 FTE 3.5 FTE 1.5 FTE 2.5 FTE 3.5 FTE (Current) (Current) Subtotal Cost $4.3M $5.4M $2.6M $3.7M $4.9M Total Ten-Year Cost $4.3M $5.4M $2.6M $3.7M $4.9M Considertion Please see Appendix 5 for additional informationfor on cost analyses.

3. Grant Opportunities Draft Successful land conservation efforts require sufficient funding, typically sustained through collaboration and robust grant opportunities. An inventory of available funding programs follows.

Revised A. FEDERAL FUNDING U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resource Conservation Service: Conservation Easements • The Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) consists of the Agricultural Land Easements (ALE) Program and the Wetlands Reserve Program. ACEP provides matching funds that can be used to purchase permanent conservation easements on agricultural land, grasslands, and wetlands and to assist with grassland and wetland restoration. • The Healthy Forest Reserve Program helps protect and restore forest lands. Conservation projects must benefit endangered species, improve biodiversity, or enhance carbon sequestration. This program funds restoration activities as well as permanent or 30-year easements.

11 Cost estimate tables do not reflect inflation impacts.

Implementation, Page 45 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

• The Forest Legacy Program protects private forest land by purchasing conservation easements or land in fee from voluntary landowners. • The Community Forests Program provide financial assistance to local governments, tribal governments, and qualified nonprofit entities to establish community forests that provide continuing and accessible community benefits.

Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) • The RCPP enlists local governments, state agencies, tribes, and other groups to coordinate conservation on a national or state scale and also engages landowners and agricultural producers in conservation activities that improve water, soil, wildlife habitat, or other natural resources. Conservation easements may be acquired using RCPP funds and cost-share funding is available.

Conservation Practices • The Environmental Quality Incentives Program provides financial and technical assistance for activities on agricultural lands that benefit air quality, water quality, soil and water conservation, and wildlife habitat.

The Conservation Stewardship Program helps maintain, improve, and expand activities that benefit natural resources (including soil, water, air, andAdoption wildlife habitat) or conserve energy. of The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is the largest land conservation program in the United States, signed into law in 1985 and administered by the USDA Farm Service Agency. In exchange for a yearly rental payment, farmers enrolled in the program agree to remove environmentally sensitive land from agricultural production and establish vegetative cover that will improve environmental health andConsidertion quality. CRP contracts are 10-15 years in length. The long-term goal of the program is tofor re -establish land cover to help improve water quality, prevent soil erosion, and reduce loss of wildlife habitat. CRP participation in Dakota County reached a peak in the 1990’s,Draft with nearly 9,000 acres enrolled. From 1986 through 2018, the Program paid more than $13 M in rent to Dakota County landowners.

CRP AcresRevised and Rental Payments in Dakota County: 1986-2018 10,000 $800,000 9,000 $700,000 8,000 $600,000 7,000 6,000 $500,000 5,000 $400,000 4,000 $300,000 3,000 $200,000 2,000 1,000 $100,000 0 $0

Acres Rent $

Implementation, Page 46 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) is a part of the CRP and is a partnership between state and federal government. CREP targets specific State or nationally significant conservation concerns and uses federal funds to supplement non-federal funds to address those concerns. In exchange for removing environmentally sensitive land from agricultural production and establishing permanent resource-conserving plantings, farmers and ranchers are paid an annual rental rate and other incentives, as applicable per each CREP agreement. Participation is voluntary, and the contract period is typically 10-15 years.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • The North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) provides competitive matching grants to increase bird populations and wetland habitat, while supporting local economies, hunting, fishing, bird watching, family farming, and ranching. • The Partners for Wildlife Wetlands Restoration Program provides cost-share for wetland restoration, preferably large drained wetlands or multiple basins, using ten-year agreements. There are no restrictions on haying or grazing. • The Partners for Wildlife Grasslands Restoration Program provides cost-share for grassland restoration, preferably adjacent existing or restorable wetlands, using fifteen-year agreements. Haying and/or grazing are typically not allowed. Adoption • The provides funds for permanent easement on existing or restorable Habitat Easement Program of wetlands and grasslands, preferably close to other protected lands. Haying and/or grazing may be allowed. • The Wetland Easement Program provides payment for permanent easements on existing or restorable wetlands. Haying, grazing and/or farming wetlands may be allowed. Considertion B. STATE FUNDING for Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund In November 1988, Minnesota voters passedDraft a constitutional amendment that permanently established the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund (ENRTF). In 1998, voters passed another constitutional amendment extending the dedication through December 2024. This constitutionally-dedicated fund originates from a combination ofRevised Minnesota State Lottery proceeds and investment income. The ENRTF supports projects with the public purpose of protection, conservation, preservation, and enhancement of the state’s air, water land, fish, wildlife, and other natural resources. The Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR) governs this fund and makes annual funding recommendations to the legislature.

The County has received past ENRTF funding for development of the Farmland and Natural Area Protection Plan, development of the Farmland and Natural Areas Program Guidelines, Vermillion River Corridor Plan, funding to acquire conservation easements, and funding through the Metropolitan Council to acquire greenway and regional parkland.

Clean Water, Land and Legacy Fund In November 2008, Minnesota voters approved the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment, which dedicated a sales tax increase of 3/8 percent (0.375) to clean water, natural areas, parks, arts education and history. Three primary funds can be used for conservation purposes:

Implementation, Page 47 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

• Outdoor Heritage Funds (OH) are used to restore, protect and enhance wetlands, prairies, forest and habitat for fish, game, and wildlife. The Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council (LSOHC) oversees this fund and makes annual recommendations to the legislature. The County has received a total of $8.867 million in OH funds since 2008 and currently has $5.8 million of OH funds appropriated by the 2018 and 2019 Minnesota Legislatures for natural resource protection, restoration and enhancement.

• Clean Water Funds are used to protect, enhance, and restore water quality in surface and groundwater. The Clean Water Council, as well as an interagency committee of state agencies, makes funding recommendations to the governor.

• Parks and Trails Funds support parks and trails of regional or statewide significance. Funds are divided among the ten Metropolitan Regional Park Implementing Agencies (including Dakota County), the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for state parks and trails, and Greater Minnesota Regional Parks and Trails Commission for grants to counties and cities outside the metropolitan area.

• The Conservation Partners Legacy (CPL) Grant Program funds projects that restore, enhance, or protect forests, wetlands, prairies, and habitat for fish, game, and wildlife in Minnesota. Funding for the CPL program is from the Outdoor Heritage Fund. The CPL Program has been reviewed by the LSOHC and approved by the MN Legislature annually since 2009. The MN DNR manages this reimbursable program to provide competitive matching grants from $5,000 toAdoption $400,000 to local, regional, state, and national nonprofit organizations, including government entities.of Since 2009, more than $5 M has been awarded to Dakota County and jurisdictions and organizations working within the county.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) • The General Operating Fund includes direct appropriations for managing state parks and trails, minimizing the spread of invasive species, managingConsidertion the state’s forests and lands, protecting water, providing outdoor recreation opportunities,for and enforcing natural resource laws. • The Game and Fish Fund supports management, monitoring, and protection of fish and wildlife resources as well as the enforcementDraft of game and fish laws. Sales of hunting and fishing licenses and federal sport fish and wildlife federal grants provide a significant portion of this funding.

• The Natural Resources FundRevised supports the development and maintenance of Minnesota’s natural resources and the enforcement of natural resource laws. This fund consists of 20 accounts dedicated for specific purposes ranging from water-based recreation to forest management to state parks. • A range of Local Park and Natural Area Grant Programs, such as the Conservation Partners Legacy Grant Program, Federal Recreational Trail Program, Local Trail Connections Program, National Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Program, Natural and Scenic Area Program, No Child Left Inside Grant Program, and Outdoor Recreation Grant Program provide matching funds to local governments and organizations for a variety of conservation and recreation projects.

Reinvest in Minnesota The Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) conservation easement program permanently protects habitat and water resources. It is primarily funded through legislative bonding, and the Clean Water and Outdoor Heritage Fund. It is administered by the Board of Water and Soil Resources. The Re-Invest in Minnesota Critical Habitat Match program is administered by the DNR for the protection of wildlife habitat. It is funded by legislative bonding, license plate sales and private donations.

Implementation, Page 48 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

C. REGIONAL FUNDING The Metropolitan Council (MC), the planning agency serving the Twin Cities seven-county metropolitan area, works with ten Regional Park Implementing Agencies (IAs) to award grants to finance land acquisition and development of the parks system.

• The Acquisition Opportunity Fund (AOF) assists IAs in acquiring land for the Regional Parks System. The AOF comprises state and regional funding sources in two separate accounts:

The Parks and Trails Legacy Fund / Park Acquisition Opportunity Fund account funded by state Legacy dollars and regional park bonds.

The ENRTF / Park Acquisition Opportunity Fund account funded by ENRTF dollars and MC funds. • Operation and Maintenance (O and M) funding is appropriated by the State of Minnesota from the General Fund and “Lottery in lieu of sales tax” to the MC for distribution to the IAs to assist in operating and maintaining the Regional Parks System. O and M can include natural resource restoration and maintenance, which is up to individual Agency discretion. • The Regional Parks Bonding Program is intended for acquisition, development, and redevelopment projects. The State of Minnesota can issue bonds appropriated for the Regional Parks System matched with MC-issued regional park bonds. The funds are disbursed to IAs according to the population within the jurisdiction of each IA and the number of visits an IA hostedAdoption from people who live outside the Agency’s jurisdiction. of • Approximately 59,000 acres of agricultural land in the County is currently enrolled in the Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Program, which is administered by individual townships. The Program stipulates that development cannot occur for eight years after un-enrolling and it provides a $1.50 per acre property tax reduction. The Legislative Auditor concluded that the program has been effective in Considertion preserving agricultural land, but it should not be considered as permanent protection. for

D. COUNTY FUNDING Draft Environmental Legacy Fund The Environmental Legacy Fund (ELF) was established in December 2015 for the specific purpose of protecting, preserving, and enhancingRevised the environment in the County. The ELF receives revenue from two primary sources: • Host Fees are negotiated with the six landfills located in the County, including two municipal solid waste landfills, an industrial waste landfill, and three construction/demolition landfills. Host fee agreements were updated in 2017, with an increase in most of the fees that have an annual escalator. However, revenues are also based on the volume of waste and can fluctuate considerably. Host fees generated about $8.9 million in 2018. • Gravel Tax Revenues generate fifteen percent of the annual funding deposited in ELF. The Gravel Tax is also based on volume and has fluctuated based on markets. The gravel tax generated about $181,000 in 2018. Most of the ELF funding is used for County programs, including matching dollars for grants or funding to partners for projects that directly relate to County goals and objectives. Specific County activities that are eligible for ELF support include brownfield redevelopment, environmental capital projects, Environmental Resources Department operations, gravel pit remediation, natural area and shoreland conservation, park/greenway master plan improvements, and implementation of the County’s Natural Resource

Implementation, Page 49 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

Management System Plan and Solid Waste Master Plan. ELF funding is also used for the Landfill Host Community Grant Program. One grant cycle has been held and the selection process is continuing to evolve. The following table summarizes various grant sources for Land Conservation Program activities.

Potential Funding Sources Acquisition Restoration Maintenance U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Natural Resources Conservation Service Agricultural Conservation Easement Program X X (Wetland) Community Forests Program X Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) X X Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) X X Conservation Stewardship Program X Environmental Quality Incentives Program X Forest Legacy Program X Healthy Forest Reserve Program X Regional Conservation Partnership Program X U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat Easement Program X Adoption North American Wetlands Conservation Act ofX X Partners for Wildlife Grasslands Restoration Program X X Partners for Wildlife Wetlands Restoration Program X X Wetland Easement Program X State of Minnesota Considertion Clean Water Fund for X X Conservation Partners Legacy Program X X Environmental and Natural Resources TrustDraft Fund X X Outdoor Heritage Fund X X Parks and Trails Legacy Fund X X Reinvest in Minnesota Revised X Minnesota Department of Natural Resources General Operating Fund X X Game and Fish Fund X Local Parks and Natural Area Grant Program X X Natural Resource Fund X (20 specific-purpose accounts) Metropolitan Council Regional Parks Acquisition Opportunity Fund X Regional Parks Operation and Maintenance Fund X Regional Parks Bonding X Metropolitan Agricultural Preserves Program X Dakota County Environmental Legacy Fund X X X

Implementation, Page 50 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

Potential County Funding Options The County could issue General Obligation Bonds for parks and natural area capital projects. For example, a $20 million bond would add $1.3 million to the County’s annual debt service and cost the owner of a median-valued home an average of $11 per year in property taxes for ten years. Voter approval is required. General Obligation Bonds typically do not cover operational costs.

The County could issue Capital Improvement Bonds for parks and natural area capital projects. For example, a $20 million bond would add $1.3 million to the County’s annual debt service and cost the owner of a median-valued home an average of $11 per year in property taxes for ten years. Adoption of a Capital Improvement Plan and approval by at least four members of the County Board is required.

The County could increase its Property Tax levy through the standard budget process or by seeking voter approval. Revenue could be used for capital projects, as well as operations and maintenance. For example, a $10 million levy increase would cost the median household $42 per year in property taxes. Alternatively, a voter-approved $10 million levy increase (levied against referendum market value instead of tax capacity) would cost the median homeowner $55 per year in property taxes. In both cases, the tax could have a sunset after a certain number of years or continue in perpetuity.

The County could seek authority from the state Legislature to impose a local Sales Tax. For example, a 0.15 percent sales tax would generate more than $7.6 million annually and cost the typical household $30 per Adoption year. Visitors would also pay a sales tax. While there is no limit onof the number of years this tax can be in effect, in most cases, the duration of the tax is determined by the time necessary to generate enough revenue to finance general obligation bonds for a project and will terminate upon raising that amount. Voter approval is required after the County receives taxing authority from the state.

4. Funding Policy Considertion As Plan implementation proceeds, cost-sharing formulas will be explored to match the needs of various project types (e.g., wetland restoration or uplandfor habitat protection and improvement). In general, the preferred policy option for land protection is to use County-available funding to maximize the use of non- County funding. Draft

Funding for short- and long-term natural resource management will also consider the ability to leverage outside funding and protect publicRevised investments. Formulas for restoration, enhancement, and maintenance will be developed for private and non-County public lands.

Program Operation 1. Land Protection Tools The Program seeks to continue offering multiple options for land protection and is considering new options to increase landowner participation and awareness of the program’s benefits. Determining which protection scenario is the best option will be determined by:

• Individual landowner wishes • County authority, interest and purpose • Funding sources/requirements • Funding availability

Expanding the mechanisms for land protection, to include tools available from all project partners, can contribute to the success of land conservation efforts and reduce participation barriers for willing

Implementation, Page 51 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

landowners. An inventory of the Program’s existing land protection tools and potential new opportunities are identified below:

Park Dedication Park dedication is a powerful tool available to municipalities in securing land protection. It is typically used in conjunction with city parks at the time of surrounding development to fulfill a neighborhood’s recreation needs. In some situations, it is used to meet the shared vision of a greenway system. In other situations, park dedication can be used to protect land for conservation purposes in addition to the recreation benefit that city parks offer. In some cases, dedicated land becomes publicly owned parks, where the municipality would be the primary agent of stewardship. In other cases, neighborhood or Homeowner Associations may be the property owner. In any case, the conservation collaborative would exist to offer support for land stewardship.

Comprehensive Planning and Zoning Municipal land use guidance and zoning could define and help protect high priority or ecological value lands by designating them in comprehensive plans and zoning codes. Examples include establishing special zoning designations, such as overlays, and coupling land conservation areas with otherwise protected lands, such as floodways and bluffs.

Official Mapping Conservation areas could be officially mapped by government entitiesAdoption as a public record of their intent to acquire land for conservation that has a public benefit. Dakota Countyof adopted Ordinance No. 130 on official mapping in 2008.

Acquisition There are several approaches to acquiring land, each of which has its own set of activities, advantages and limitations. The major approaches are described below.Considertion There are numerous potential conservation partners, both public and private, that may befor able to assist in acquisition. Potential new options include phased acquisition, life estate, restoration easement, and land registry. Draft Fee Title The County can acquire fee title for specified reasons or assist another public entity in acquiring fee title from a willing seller. Another option may be to “Buy-Protect-Sell” where an entity acquires the entire property, places restrictionsRevised on all or portions of the property, and then sells the entire or portions of the property.

Land Donation/Bargain Sale Landowners may choose to donate land or reduce the sale price below the appraised value. The landowner may be able to receive tax benefits for land donation or reduced land value to a qualified public or conservation partner.

Phased Acquisition (Proposed) Landowners and purchasers may agree that acquisition of land or an easement can be completed through more than one transaction over a specified period of time – months or years – resulting in a complete acquisition by a specified time.

Option or First Right of Refusal A landowner that chooses to initially sell only partial interest in property to the County or other conservation entity may be willing to sell the remaining property interest at a future date. A landowner could choose to execute a purchase option that offers full ownership, with or without additional

Implementation, Page 52 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

payment, to the County or other conservation entity; or execute a first right of refusal, granting the County or other conservation entity the first opportunity to purchase the property, before it is marketed to other buyers. Terms and potential payment are variable.

Life Estate This option allows the landowner to continue to live on the land after selling the fee title. Life estates can be structured in numerous ways (e.g., the landowner can live on the land for the rest of their life or any mutually agreed upon timeframe). Life estates will reduce the value of the property in amounts proportional to the length of the life estate.

Permanent Conservation Easement A voluntary legal transaction between a landowner and a qualified buyer (governmental unit or private land conservation organization) to protect the natural, scenic, cultural, historic or open space values of the property to achieve specified conservation purposes. The seller retains underlying fee title to the protected property and continues to pay all or reduced property taxes. The easement establishes allowed and prohibited activities. Easements may be unique or customized to reflect individual landowner needs and property characteristics.

Conservation Easements are valued-based on the difference between the fee title value of the property without any restrictions and the value of the property with the Adoptioneasement restrictions in place. The seller can sell the easement at the full or partial appraised valueof or donate the entire appraised value (Bargain Sale). Land with a conservation easement provides additional potential benefits to the landowner, because the easement area is eligible for public investments in restoration and management at no cost or at a significantly reduced, shared cost to the landowner. Many different types of easements can be used for conservation purposes: Considertion Agricultural Easement for A permanent easement that allows agricultural activities and requires a Stewardship Plan with a NRMP, as appropriate. Use of this type of easement will be very limited in the Land Conservation Draft Program, used only when it provides high priority ecological and recreational benefits, including: • Protecting open space lands adjacent to County parks and greenways, wildlife management areas, protected natural areas on public and private land, and wetland restoration Revisedareas • Maintaining open space connectivity between protected natural areas

Buffer Easement A permanent easement that restricts certain types of non-compatible residential, commercial or industrial development adjacent to existing public land.

Flowage Easement (Proposed) A permanent easement that allows new surface water to flow across private property. This type of easement has been used by the County for transportation and other types of development projects but has not been used for conservation purposes. It is anticipated that large-scale wetland restoration projects will require these types of easements to address hydrologic changes to the landscape. It would allow the County and its contractors to perform restoration, management and maintenance activities within existing or proposed natural portions of the easement at no or significantly reduced cost to the landowner.

Implementation, Page 53 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

Greenway Corridor Easement A permanent easement on a linear corridor that provides a combination of habitat, water quality and recreational benefits. The easement would allow for the future development of a recreational trail and amenities, such as rest areas, kiosks and benches, but no other non- recreational development. A jointly developed NRMP would be required. It would allow the County and its contractors to perform restoration, management and maintenance activities within the easement area at no or significantly reduced cost to the landowner.

Greenway Trail Easement A permanent easement on a narrow, linear corridor that allows for the future development of a recreational trail and amenities -- such as rest areas, kiosks, and benches -- often associated with a specific funding source.

Natural Area Easement A permanent conservation easement focused on protecting and improving the natural resources and conservation values of the property. No residential, commercial, industrial or new utility- related development is allowed. Temporary agricultural use may be allowed. A jointly-developed NRMP is required. It would allow the County and its contractors to perform restoration, management and maintenance activities within existing or proposed natural portions of the easement at no or significantly reduced cost to the landowner.Adoption of Park Easement A permanent easement on private land within existing County park boundaries that preserves the natural features of the property but restricts future development that could negatively impact the park’s natural resources or park-user recreational experiences. It would allow the County and its contractors to perform restoration,Considertion management and maintenance activities within the easement area, at public forexpense, requiring no landowner contribution.

Restoration Easement (ProposedDraft, to be developed) A voluntary transaction between a landowner and the County (in this case), through which a landowner agrees to convey a permanent restoration easement in a defined area to the County at no cost, agrees to conservation purpose restrictions on the easement area, and agrees to allow Revised the County and its contractors to perform restoration, management and maintenance activities within the easement area, at public expense, requiring no landowner contribution.

Land Registry (Proposed) A voluntary action taken by a landowner who agrees to register land for conservation purposes. A Land Registry Program is a unique, flexible option to assist private landowners in managing the natural resources on their property. The program would provide general information and technical assistance to landowners in developing and implementing long-term plans for restoring, enhancing or maintaining their property and could lead to permanent protection. A County Land Registry Program would request that a landowner:

A. Manage and conserve the land to the best of their ability B. Notify the program of significant planned changes or natural changes that occur C. Notify the program of intent to sell the registered property

Implementation, Page 54 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

2. Annual Work Planning Process Due to the voluntary nature of participation in conservation activities, it is not possible to estimate landowner response to Land Conservation Program opportunities, partner involvement, or the number of conservation projects the County will receive or implement each year.

Annual budgeting and Program-level work planning will begin with the implementation timeframes identified for Plan strategies and tactics – such as outreach to all CFA landowners in 2020 and initiating one to three CFA pilot studies in 2021. These and other new priority initiatives will be facilitated through annual budgeting processes, subject to County Board approval.

Public Information and Education 1. Program Information The Land Conservation Program has relied on direct communication with landowners and potential project partners, and it will be important to maintain a contemporary Communications Strategy for the Program moving forward. The strategy will need to use a variety of accessible outreach media and have clear information on the Program for its primary audiences. The Communications Strategy should address the following needs: a. Audiences -- who might be interested and how they preferAdoption to receive information b. Media – how information should be shared (e.g., web,of social media, print, news releases) c. General Program information, eligibility, contacts, events, and landowner opportunities d. Current project information e. Annual reporting on Program activities f. Information referrals and links to otherConsidertion webpages for natural resources information for 2. Engagement Activities In addition to providing accessible informationDraft for the public and specific audiences, other activities may be added to the Program, including interactive events, such as tours, speaking engagements, and volunteer opportunities. Volunteer activities could include assistance in natural resource restoration, data collection, vegetationRevised and wildlife monitoring and sharing observations, seed collection, and photographing sites.

Progress Measurement and Reporting Progress measurement and reporting will be based on the following three sets of outcomes:

• Plan implementation: Dakota County will annually track and report implementation progress against the proposed timeframes included in this Plan.

• Land protection outcomes: Dakota County and partners will track and report progress on the priorities established by the County, partners, CFA landowners and stakeholders for protection of priority natural areas and connection corridors.

Implementation, Page 55 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

• Natural resource management outcomes: Dakota County and partners will track and report progress on the priorities established by the County, partners, CFA landowners and stakeholders for the restoration and long-term management of priority natural areas and connection corridors.

The following table includes examples of performance measures for the three sets of outcomes, packaged by three questions used in Dakota County’s Program and Service Inventory: 1) How much did we do? 2) How well did we do it? and 3) Was anyone better off?

Example Performance Measures for Implementation of the Land Conservation Plan Natural Resource Plan Implementation Land Protection Management • CFA Landowners • Applications received • Acres of protected contacted from within and outside private land restored • Number of CFA profiles of CFAs • Acres of non-County completed • Projects initiated public lands restored • Program Guidelines • Acres of wetland • Miles/acres converted to (Criteria, funding, protected pollinator habitat application process) • Acres of natural area • Acres of protected updated protected private land enrolled in Adoption • City-County Conservation • Acres of critical long-term management How much Collaborative (CCCC) of did we do? infiltration areas organized protected • Property Tax Study Group recommendations • Number of CFA Considertion landowners interviewed/ convened for • Natural Resource Restoration StandardsDraft established • Implementation • Establishment of CFA • Ecosystem recovery How well timeframesRevised met priorities indicators did we do it? • CCCC participation rates • Transactions completed • Use of non-County in a timely manner funding • Landowner satisfaction • Number of new/ • Public feedback surveys expanded public use • Number of enhanced Is anyone better off? • Partner satisfaction areas public use areas surveys

Implementation, Page 56 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

APPENDIX 1. PLANNING PROCESS AND BACKGROUND

Planning Process Summary

The plan development process occurred over three phases:

PROJECT ORGANIZATION: late 2018 • Identify scope of plan • Identify stakeholders and interests and develop the Public Engagement Plan • Identify and organize research topics • Coordinate with County Groundwater Plan effort on research and public engagement • Present project intro and scope to County Planning Commission • Present project intro and scope to County Board

RESEARCH AND VISIONING: 2019 • Conduct research on land conservation and natural resource management topics • Conduct stakeholder and public engagement on interests, opportunities, and program needs • Synthesize research and engagement findings with preliminary opportunitiesAdoption and recommendations • Identify draft goals and potential strategies of • Review findings and preliminary recommendations with County Planning Commission • Review findings and preliminary recommendations with County Board • Post findings and recommendations for public

Considertion DRAFT PLAN REVIEW AND ADOPTION: 2019-early 2020 for • Develop and refine draft goals and strategies based on Planning Commission and County Board comments • Conduct targeted stakeholder engagement on priorities and program refinements Draft • Refine plan outline and prepare draft Plan chapters • Review draft Plan with County Planning Commission • Review draft Plan with CountyRevised Board , request release for public review (30 days) • Sixty-day public review period with Plan posted online and stakeholder engagement, per engagement plan • Compile comments from stakeholder input and complete plan modifications, as needed • Review comments with Planning Commission, seek recommendation on Plan adoption • Review comments with County Board, request adoption

Appendix 1, Planning Process, Page 57 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

County Land Conservation Overview The Dakota County Park System marked the County’s first effort in permanently protecting natural resource lands, starting in the late 1960’s. The Dakota County Farmland and Natural Areas Program began to take shape 30 years later, in response to accelerated residential growth in Dakota County over the 1980’s and 1990’s when more than 4,000 new homes were being constructed each year. Farms and natural areas were rapidly giving way to expanding suburbs and residents consistently expressed concern about the loss of open space in County surveys.

A regional study in the 1990’s was exploring relocation of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) to a site in south central Dakota County. A new airport Adoption would have further reshaped the Twin of Cities, drawing hotels, restaurants, warehousing, and airport-supported 1970 Dakota County Park System Plan businesses to a largely rural area. Investments in new freeway, sewer, and water improvements likely would have Considertion attracted more residential development. for A citizen group, “The Dakota County Draft Agricultural Protection Task Force,” organized in opposition to the airport move and met regularly on protecting farmland and farming as a way of life inRevised the County. Although the MSP did not relocate, an organized farmland protection effort was underway. The County began to evaluate potential farmland protection tools, including “Purchase of Development Rights” (PDR), which uses conservation easements to permanently protect land, while allowing the land to remain in private ownership and stay in agricultural production.

Recognizing shared interest in land protection between urban and rural residents, the County worked with land protection groups and agencies on a plan to

Publicly-Protected and Privately-Owned Natural Areas, 2002

Appendix 1, Planning Process, Page 58 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

protect natural areas and farmland, with a grant from the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR). The County’s first Farmland and Natural Area Protection Plan was adopted in early 2002, identifying 42,000 acres of priority farmland and 36,000 acres of priority natural areas for potential protection. In November of that year, County voters approved a $20 million, non-binding bond referendum for farmland and natural area protection, with 57 percent support. The Farmland and Natural Areas Program (FNAP) was underway by the following year and held its first application round in November 2003.

Since 2003, the County has completed 121 projects totaling more than 11,500 Adoption acres and including 95 miles of of protected shoreline. In 2005, the Program was one of six recipients from across the country to receive an Resident-Identified Natural Areas to Protect, 2002 inaugural County Conservation Leadership Award from the National Considertion Association of Counties and the Trust for for Public Land. It has also received awards from the American Planning Draft Association, Minnesota Association of Counties, and the Minnesota Environmental Initiative. In 2009, the FNAP received a Governor's AwardRevised for Pollution Prevention.

Over time, Program priorities were adjusted in response to new information, shifts in available funding, and emerging issues of concern. The following map shows the status of land protection in the County as of 2019.

Refined Priority Natural Areas, 2010

Appendix 1, Planning Process, Page 59 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

Adoption of

Considertion for

Draft

Revised

Appendix 1, Planning Process, Page 60 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

Refining the Direction of Land Conservation Over two decades of operation, the FNAP, now Land Conservation Program, priorities have evolved to reflect concerns related to surface and groundwater quality, groundwater recharge, non-native invasive species, and the loss of native species diversity. Changes to external funding also have contributed to greater emphasis on improving countywide environmental quality.

Research and public engagement on natural resource issues and concerns, now and for the future, provided a foundation for formulating new land conservation approaches. Key findings are presented in this section, with more detailed information provided in other Plan Appendices.

1. Research Conclusions Broad research on countywide conservation topics produced the following key conclusions:

1. A more integrated approach is needed to protect water quality and supply, mitigate climate impacts, support declining native species, control invasive species, and address public concerns in these areas. 2. Natural resource needs are shared. Plans from state, federal and other entities identify similar needs, presenting opportunities to collaborate on protection and natural resource management. 3. Participation barriers can be reduced for private landownerAdoption conservation and management of

A. MORE INTEGRATED APPROACH IS NEEDED Considertion Environmental Needs Key indicators of environmental quality providefor a snapshot of water quality, natural vegetation status, wildlife populations and biodiversity, and County residents concern. Draft

Revised 14.3% Remaining Wetlands Native Wetlands (1981) Wetlands are critical to overall water quality and flood control. More than Drained/Destroyed 85 percent of Dakota Wetlands 85.7% County’s settlement-era wetlands have been lost.12

12 Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Plan, Version 1.02, 1997, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Appendix 1, Planning Process, Page 61 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

Pre-settlement Natural Areas Natural Areas Lost Despite having a highly diverse mix of landscapes and ecosystems in the mid- 1800s, only an estimated Natural Areas Remaining three percent of Dakota County’s natural landscapes 97% from the pre-settlement era remain.

Water Quality Monitoring and assessing 2018 Water Quality Impairments Minnesota’s water quality produces updated listings of Turbidity, 4 Chloride, 1 Dissolved impaired waters that no oxygen, 3 PCB in fish Adoption tissue, 2 longer provide for their of designated uses, such as fishing, swimming or drinking. The number of Eutrophication impaired waters in the Bacteria, 19 County has increased over bio-indicators, Considertion15 time. In 2018, testing found for at least one impairment for Nitrates, 3 every tested water body, totaling 81 documented Draft Mercury, 21 impairments.13 The number Fish and of quality issues has also macroinvertebrate assessments, 13 grown, as new problems Revised emerge, and new impairments are defined.

Oheyawahe or Historic Pilot Knob, Mendota Heights

13 https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/2018-impaired-waters-list

Appendix 1, Planning Process, Page 62 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

Species and Biodiversity Bird Species Loss in the US Habitat loss and other issues have contributed to a Western Forest decline in wildlife populations as well as the Eastern Forest number of species found in Habitat Generalist Minnesota and Dakota Forest Generalist County. Bird populations dramatically illustrate this, Boreal Forest with declines in grassland Grasslands bird populations of more than 50 percent since the Wetland 14 1970s. -60.0% -50.0% -40.0% -30.0% -20.0% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0%

Resident Opinions 2019 Survey, Percent identifying preserved land management as “Essential” Scientific surveys of County or “Very Important” residents consistently show Approach Percent strong support for land 1. Protecting and improving water qualityAdoption 92% protection and 2. Protecting and improving wildlifeof habitat 84% management, with the 3. Protecting and improving natural areas 83% strongest support for water 4. Increasing access for outdoor recreation 73% quality, wildlife habitat, and 5. Protecting and improving land used for agriculture/specialty crops 71%

natural areas. Considertion Land Protection Status for Although many significant natural resource areas in the County have been protected, additional significant opportunities exist and include enhancedDraft natural resource management. Nine percent (33,875 acres) of Dakota County’s total land area is currently protected for natural resource value and/or public use, including parks, natural resource management areas, and private easements. These protected lands represent some of the best ofRevised the best natural areas in the County, including federal, state, and local parks, reserves and other natural resource areas. Of the protected lands that are publicly-held, roughly 73 percent allow public access and use.

Summary of Protected Lands PROTECTION TYPE ACRES Federal Lands (National Wildlife Refuge, Waterfowl Production Areas) 1,643 State (Park, Wildlife Mgmt. Areas, Scientific and Natural Areas, Aquatic Mgmt. Areas, Zoological Gardens) 12,297 Dakota County Parks and Park Conservation Areas 6,136 Other Agency Regional Parks 404 City Park Natural Areas and other City Conservation Areas 4,215 Private Permanent Easements, through Dakota County 8,874 Private Permanent Easements, MN Board of Water and Soil Resources’ Reinvest in Minnesota, Minnesota Land Trust 76 Total 33,875 Total for Public Lands with Public Access (73 percent of total) 24,836

14 Decline of the North American Avifauna, Science, Sept. 2019

Appendix 1, Planning Process, Page 63 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

For context, roughly 24 percent of Open Dakota County Land Use, 2016 land in the State of Minnesota is Water publicly protected, excluding private 3% easements. At a national level, 14 Undeveloped percent of land is publicly protected, Land Commercial Industrial also excluding private easements. 15% Residential 2% 3% Wide variation in protected land 17% percentages across counties in one Institutional state or across states is expected, 2% reflecting dominant land uses and the Agricultural Park and extent of urbanization. Land Recreational 49% 8% Major Protected Lands in Dakota County Roadways 1%

Adoption of

Considertion for

Draft

Revised

Appendix 1, Planning Process, Page 64 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

Critical Protection Elements Additional protection opportunities for the County and partners include:

A. Unprotected natural areas, representative plant communities, and landscapes of Dakota County Dakota County originally had some of the richest ecological diversity in the state, due to its location within five major ecological subsections. The subsections and pre-settlement conditions are:

• Big Woods: predominantly forested • Blufflands: bluff prairies, steep bluffs, river valleys • Oak Savanna: Bur oak savanna, some tallgrass prairie, and forest • Rochester Plateau: riverine with tallgrass prairie and oak savanna • St. Paul Baldwin Plains and Moraines: Oak and aspen savanna, some tallgrass prairie and forest

Only three percent of the original pre-settlement native plant communities remain intact, with many already publicly protected. Outside of these rare places, other unprotected natural areas of varying quality remain and represent fourteen major communities once found throughout the AdoptionCounty. Scenic landscapes shaped by topography, water, and natural communitiesof are culturally valued and present another protection opportunity. Representative Native B. Connecting corridors between natural areas Plant Communities Protected lands in the County typically are physically separate and function in Dakota County ecologically as islands, as shown in the preceding Considertionmap. Even relatively large ”islands” need interconnectivity to other areas to sustain wildlife health and Wetlands for diversity. County greenways are planned and designed to provide connectivity Wet Meadow (Sedge and Fen) between natural areas for recreational and ecological benefits. Additional Shallow Marsh connection corridors and corridors of anDraft ecologically optimal width should be Deep Marsh Shallow Open Water considered for protection to allow greater species movement between natural Swamp (Shrub, Alder, areas. Hardwood) Revised C. Natural area buffers to improve ecological functions and habitat Grasslands The publicly protected lands in the County often represent the “best of the Dry Prairie best” ecologically. However, the boundaries used in protecting these lands Mesic Prairie have been based on parcel (ownership) rather than natural features. Because Wet Prairie of this, boundaries of some protected areas are not always adequately protecting the resources. Land conservation tools to permanently protect Oak Savanna appropriate buffers should be considered. Woodlands

D. Wetlands and shorelines for surface and groundwater quality Forest Wetlands form when hydric soils, aquatic/wetland plants, and wetland Oak Forest hydrology are present. Wetlands provide many benefits, including: Maple-Basswood Forest . Storage for excess stormwater water during flooding and wet cycles Hardwood Forest (Lowland, . Filtering out pollutants before they enter lakes, rivers and streams Aspen) . Infiltration and groundwater recharge (depending on wetland type) Floodplain Forest . Fish and wildlife habitat

Appendix 1, Planning Process, Page 65 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

. Public recreation

Wetlands can take a wide variety of forms, ranging in appearance from shallow lakes to meadows to woodlands. The following map shows existing wetlands (green) as well as hydric soil areas where wetlands likely once existed (orange). An estimated 85 percent of the County’s original wetlands have been drained or filled, but in many cases, could be restored as functioning wetlands.

According to the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Plan15, restoration should be the primary wetland management strategy in Dakota County. This will require detailed analysis and close coordination and partnerships with agencies, organizations, and adjacent landowners. In addition to the County’s wetland banking program, the County’s Land Conservation Program has unique land protection tools that can assist permanent wetland protection and restoration.

Wetlands and Wetland Soils/Drained Wetlands, 2011

Adoption of

Considertion for

Draft

Revised

15 Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Plan, Version 1.02, 1997, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Appendix 1, Planning Process, Page 66 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

E. Source water protection and recharge areas Dakota County is updating its Groundwater Protection Plan, which will identify opportunities for land protection to be used as a tool in improving the County’s groundwater quality and supply. Emerging issues for groundwater include quantity and quality.

Quantity: concerns are growing about groundwater withdrawal rates that exceed the rates at which some aquifers can recharge. Dakota County residents use more groundwater per capita than any other Metro county, and most residents are served by public supplies that pump groundwater.

Aquifer drawdown becomes more of a threat as development and overall Projected Groundwater Drawdown consumption rates increase. The adjacent map shows the Metropolitan Council’s forecast areas for significant drawdown by 2040, which include communities projected to have significant population growth (e.g., Lakeville, Apple Valley). Protection of significant recharge areas and water conservation will continue to be essential. Adoption Quality: Drinking water safety is a concern of due to contaminants in groundwater, including compounds related to land use activities (e.g., nitrogen fertilizers, pesticides, de-icing salt, and perfluorochemicals) and naturally- Considertion occurring elements (e.g., manganese and for arsenic). Agricultural chemical use in eastern Dakota County has been linked Draftto increasing nitrate and pesticide levels in well water. Adoption of chemical best management practices has notRevised always been effective with the coarse, highly permeable soils and fractured bedrock in these areas.

F. Climate Adaptation Climate change is requiring society to re-evaluate its notion of “normal” conditions and adapt to some consequences that are reasonably certain and others that are largely unknown. A primary challenge will be building resilience into natural systems in the face of changing precipitation, temperature, and severe weather regimes. As climate shifts to warmer and wetter with more frequent severe weather events16 in Dakota County, the concept of “native” species also will likely change over time. Land protection with natural resource management can help efforts to mitigate climate change and lessen its impacts.

16 Minnesota State Climatology Office, https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/climate_change_info/climate-trends.html

Appendix 1, Planning Process, Page 67 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

2. Natural Resource Needs are Shared In addition to land protection opportunities, long-term natural resource management was a recurring theme heard from a variety of stakeholders throughout the planning process. The idea that land is not fully protected unless its natural resources are managed over time also guided the development of Dakota County’s 2017 Natural Resources Management System Plan. Long-term efforts to improve and stabilize natural resource quality can protect the public’s investments in land protection.

A broad range of local, state and federal plans speak to land protection and natural resource management needs for geographic areas that include Dakota County: • Plans identify many overlapping areas of interest and need related to habitat protection, conservation efforts for targeted species, and approaches to protect biodiversity. • Current focus areas include Species of Greatest Conservation Need, pollinators, and invasive species. • Climate uncertainty is recognized in some of the more recent plans, although how to address this uncertainty is still evolving. • Most plans speak to the need for interagency and partnership approaches that engage the public.

Plans and reports specific to water resources (e.g., Soil and Water Conservation District, watershed, other agencies) also cover geographies that include Dakota County and illustrateAdoption the need for partnership approaches: of • The general plan focus is on water quality and quantity, although some of the newer plans also discuss wildlife habitat and climate resilience. • The plans make limited reference to land protection and easement acquisition; but the needs exist, and most watershed management organizations historicallyConsidertion have not protected land. • Sub-watershed analyses will help identify forspecific areas for enhanced conservation practices targeting sediment and phosphorus loading within sub-watersheds. Draft Progress has been made in managing natural resources on park lands in recent years, but the County recognizes a need to do more and sustain efforts over time. Interviews and surveys with city, state and federal agencies indicated a similar interest in doing more natural resource management on their lands to Revised protect long-term resource quality. Constraints they identified include lack of staffing, time, and budget to do more. The most commonly cited natural resource management needs on public lands include invasive species, water quality, and the impacts of altered hydrology, such as increased and repetitive flooding.

City park land in Dakota County includes roughly 8,100 acres of land. City Park Directors interviewed in 2019 about their natural resource management efforts expressed strong interest in partnership approaches to expand their resource management efforts (e.g., share knowledge, skills, and equipment).

City Park Natural Resource Management TOTAL CITY PARK NATURAL AREAS ACTIVELY PLANNED RESTORED PARK AND CONSERVATION MANAGED NATURAL NATURAL AREAS TO NATURAL AREAS, ACRES ACRES AREAS, ACRES AREAS, ACRES MANAGE, ACRES 8,100 4,215 1,279 556 757 28% 12% 18%

of park natural areas of park natural areas of park natural areas

Appendix 1, Planning Process, Page 68 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

3. Participation Barriers Can Be Reduced Land owners are ultimately responsible for long-term natural resource management on their land. A 2019 survey of rural agricultural landowners (with 20 acres or more of cultivated land in the county) received 245 responses (26 percent response rate) and reflected the diversity of the County’s farm operations, owner interests in their farms, and preferred types of conservation incentives and natural resource management assistance.

Respondents rated the importance of a range of potential County roles in land conservation and natural resource management, summarized in the following table. The most important roles were in cost sharing for water quality and flood control and purchasing permanent easements for wellhead and groundwater protection.

Importance of Potential County Roles in Conservation 1=Very 2= 3= 4=Very Not Weighted Potential County Roles in Conservation unimportant Unimportant Important important sure Total Average a. Cost-share contracts to implement water quality and flood control 28 12 87 58 27 212 2.57 practices (structural) b. Permanent easements to protect well head protection areas and 32 21 86 52 19 210 2.57 groundwater c. Permanent easements that protect Adoption existing natural areas such as 39 22 of 74 59 20 214 2.53 woodlands or wetlands d. Cost-share contracts to implement native plantings or cover crop 29 27 88 42 24 210 2.45 practices (non-structural) e. Permanent easements to restore drained agricultural land to wetlands 41 Considertion25 76 43 27 212 2.32 primarily for flood control purposes for f. Permanent easements to convert cultivated land to native perennial 58 55 50 19 30 212 1.86 vegetation Draft

A majority of respondents cited the ability to generate an income, continued farming, and family farming traditions as the most importantRevised features of their property to protect. Soil health, which is linked to farm profitability, was cited by 63 percent of respondents. The most-favored type of conservation incentive was a reduction in property tax, followed by incentive payments for a range of different practices. Incentive payments for soil health received the most support (roughly 50 percent), with slightly lower degrees of support for water-protective practices.

Appendix 1, Planning Process, Page 69 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

New Recommendations From targeted research and stakeholder engagement, several new recommendations emerged that refine priority areas for protection, facilitate landowner participation in the program, and improve management of natural resources on a countywide basis:

Refine Land Protection Priorities with Preliminary Conservation Focus Areas Land protection priorities will be based on natural features, connectivity, hydrology, and land ownership with renewed emphasis on water. The resulting 24 Preliminary Conservation Focus Areas total 82,000 acres, of which 22,874 acres are already protected, and provide a framework for landowner outreach, collaborative landscape conservation and public investments.

Restore Large-Scale Wetlands and Assist in Implementing the newAdoption Dakota County Groundwater Plan Strategically protect and restore existing and former wetlands, rechargeof areas and sensitive groundwater resources.

Improve Conservation in Agricultural Use Areas Assist the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District as they work with rural landowners and agricultural operators to improve managementConsidertion practices and convert marginal farmland to natural vegetation. for

Draft

Revised

Chub Creek, Waterford Township

Appendix 1, Planning Process, Page 70 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

APPENDIX 2. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT HIGHLIGHTS As part of the planning process, a public engagement plan was developed to gain insight from the public and specific stakeholders on a range of issues related to the Plan, including: • Continued land conservation efforts in Dakota County • Emerging land and natural resource issues to address • Priorities and focus areas for the next five to ten years • Partnership approaches • Funding, fiscal tools and incentives • Draft Plan vision and goals

Six public events, surveys and agency meetings were conducted as part of the project research: • Online public survey and written version sent to all program participants - 125 responses • 2019 Residential survey questions, and previous years • Two open houses (held jointly with the Groundwater Plan effort) - 80+ participants • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge staff meeting • MN DNR Central Region Managers meeting • Two Land Conservation Workshops in a Rural Setting -21 participants • Two Countywide Conservation and Natural Resources Management Workshops - 16 participants • Survey of City park directors on natural resources management and land protection - 10 Adoption participants of • Agricultural Landowner questionnaire – 250 participants

General promotion of the online survey, open houses, and workshops occurred through media releases, County webpage, social media, and targeted mailings to past Land Conservation Program participants. Direct invitations to participate in workshops were sent to past Land Conservation program participants; local, state, and federal agencies; and environmentalConsidertion and agricultural organizations. for From surveys, open houses, and dialogues with various stakeholders, several themes emerged: Draft 1. Dakota County’s land conservation efforts are supported by residents. Over successive, statistically-representative residential surveys, residents have supported efforts to protect open space and natural areas in the County. The following table of relative-importance scores, calculated from residentialRevised surveys in 2011, 2013, and 2016, shows a trend of increasing importance in public opinion over the years.

2011-2016 Importance of investing in open spaces and parkland (adapted to a 1-100 scale) How important is it to invest County funds for each of the following? 2011 2013 2016 1. Protect lakes, streams and wetlands from pollution 72 79 80 2. Protect the highest-rated natural areas 63 75 79 3. Protect farmland from future development 50 65 N/A

2. The location, associated goals and prioritization of different land conservation efforts has become increasingly important. Residents and stakeholders have expressed concern about several environmental issues and see an important role for the County’s Land Conservation Program in mitigating some of these issues, such as improving water quality by retaining water on the land and providing habitat for declining wildlife species.

Appendix 2, Community Engagement Highlights, Page 71 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

While not considered statistically representative, the Land Conservation Planning 2019 online survey results mirror the County’s Residential Survey results and further emphasize the importance of land protection to improve water quality. Lands that improve water quality and quantity and unique/high quality natural areas were the most important types of land protection efforts, followed by land protection for wildlife benefits (habitat and movement corridors). Although ranking lower in importance, all other types of land protection still scored well above the rating scale’s midpoint value (2.5), indicating that respondents regarded all land protection purposes as having some importance.

Importance of protecting different types of land (weighted average scores on 1-5 scale) Type of Land to Protect Score Natural areas that can improve surface water quality or groundwater quality/availability 4.4 Shoreland along lakes, rivers and streams to improve water quality 4.3 Unique and high-quality natural areas 4.3 Wetlands to improve surface water quality, recharge groundwater, provide wildlife habitat, and reduce flood impacts 4.3 Wildlife habitat for species with declining populations 4.1 Connecting corridors for wildlife movement 3.9 Agricultural lands that are adjacent to waterbodies and natural areas 3.8 Larger (65+ acres) natural and/or restorable areas Adoption 3.8 Lower quality natural areas that could be restored to improve theirof quality 3.7 Open space or undeveloped land 3.7 Small natural areas in more densely populated areas 3.7 Scenic landscapes 3.4

Considertion 3. Long-term management of natural resourcesfor is vitally important. Ongoing natural resource management will require assistance and incentives to protect public interests and investments. The following table from the 2019 ResidentialDraft Survey shows that residents identified water quality, followed by habitat and wildlife as the most important reasons for managing protected (preserved) lands. Revised 2019 percent rating preserved land management as “Essential” or “Very Important” Approach Percent 1. Protecting and improving water quality 92% 2. Protecting and improving wildlife habitat 84% 3. Protecting and improving natural areas 83% 4. Increasing access for outdoor recreation 73% 5. Protecting and improving land used for agriculture/other specialty crops 71%

Long-term natural resource management for public and private lands likely will be different and may be addressed through different funding streams. The 2019 online survey, while not statistically representative, demonstrated 50 percent or greater support for County program funding and/or incentives for: • Private landowners to restore and manage natural resources on their property • Restoration and management of natural resources on permanently protected private lands

Appendix 2, Community Engagement Highlights, Page 72 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

4. Collaboration among agencies and organizations is needed. A key finding from city and agency interviews is that inter-agency partnerships will continue to be important in protecting and improving the natural resource base throughout the County. Public agencies identified constraints (time, staff, and budget) as the greatest limitation on their ability to do the level of natural resource management they believe would be beneficial.

5. More comprehensive incentives for agricultural land stewardship are needed. A questionnaire designed to gain insight from agricultural landowners on their preferences and interests in land conservation received 250 responses in late 2019. The overall response rate was just over 26 percent. The responses represented a wide diversity of farm types, acres operated, land rentals, concerns for the future, environmental interests, and best practice adoption. Farm sizes ranged from under 50 acres to more than 1,000 acres, with 63 percent of respondent farms comprising less than 180 acres. Sixty percent of respondents rent out farmland to other farmers of operators.

Highlights from Agricultural Landowner questionnaire include:

How important is Dakota County’s role in the following land conservation options? Cost shares and easements to protect water quality were the most strongly supported roles. The only potential Dakota County role deemed relatively unimportant wasAdoption “Permanent easements to convert cultivated land to native perennial vegetation,” with an averageof weighted score below the midpoint of 2.0.

How important is Dakota County’s role in the following land conservation options? 100% 90% 80% Considertion 70% for 60% 50% 40% Draft 30% 20% 10% 0% Revised Cost-share Permanent Permanent Cost-share Permanent Permanent contracts to easements to easements that contracts to easements to easements to implement water protect well head protect existing implement native restore drained convert cultivated quality and flood protection areas natural areas such plantings or cover agricultural land to land to native control practices and groundwater as woodlands or crop practices wetlands primarily perennial (structural) wetlands (non-structural) for flood control vegetation purposes Very unimportant Unimportant Important Very important

Appendix 2, Community Engagement Highlights, Page 73 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

Local issues that create challenges: Respondents checked off their top three challenges from a list. Property tax was the only issue cited by a majority of respondents (65 percent). Soil loss and erosion followed at 47 percent.

Challenge Responses Property taxes 65% Soil loss and erosion 48% Flooding or weather (repeated or delayed planting) 30% Land availability or loss of agricultural land due to development 27% Irrigation and water appropriation regulations 26% Crop pests, diseases, and pesticide resistance 23% Fertilizer or pesticide regulations 22% Lack of profitable alternative crops 20% Lack of programs for marginal crop land 18% Soil health incentives that not available or profitable 15% Other (please specify) 7%

What kinds of voluntary conservation incentives would you beAdoption most interested in? The most-favored type of conservation incentive was a reductionof in property tax, followed by all types of incentive payments for different practices. Incentive payments for soil health received the most support (roughly 50 percent), with lesser degrees of support for water-protective practices. Easement purchase was the least supported form of incentive payment, with the strongest support for natural area easements (24 percent). Considertion Voluntary Incentives for Responses Reduced property taxes for landowners that protect land or implement 73% conservation practices Draft Incentive payments for soil erosion control projects 50% Incentive payments for soil health practices such as reduced tillage or cover crops 48% Incentive payments for settingRevised aside marginal cropland 40% Incentives for reduced fertilizer or chemical management 38% Incentives for irrigation or groundwater management programs 37% Easement for protecting natural areas 23% Easement for wetland restoration 13% Easement for flood control 10% Other (please specify) 5%

Appendix 2, Community Engagement Highlights, Page 74 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

In general, what are the greatest barriers to adopting conservation practices? Although no single answer choice was selected by a majority of respondents, the most frequently cited barrier was a lack of financial incentives for installing conservation practices, followed by a lack of information on available programs. Least cited barriers include the notion that practices are already well adopted and provide no benefits to the land or farm operation.

Barriers to Conservation Practice Adoption Responses Lack of financial incentives to install conservation practices 46% Lack of information about what programs are available and appropriate 38% Compatibility of conservation practices with current farming systems 36% Conservation practices take land out of production 28% People often prefer to manage their property year to year and conservation 26% practices would be too restrictive Need for specialized equipment (e.g. no-till planter or reduced tillage equipment) 26% Programs are too complicated or time consuming 26% Conservation practices add to the complexity of farming with today’s technology 20% and equipment Lack of interest in conservation practices 20% Conservation practices are already well-adopted Adoption 19% Conservation practices do not have a direct benefit to one's landof or operation 18% Other (please specify) 6%

Considertion for

Draft

Revised

Appendix 2, Community Engagement Highlights, Page 75 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

This page intentionally left blank

Adoption of

Considertion for

Draft

Revised

Appendix 2, Community Engagement Highlights, Page 76 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

APPENDIX 3. PLAN RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS This section summarizes key findings from research conducted as part of the planning process.

1. Economic and other benefits of conservation To identify benefits associated with land protection, studies on the economic value of benefits provided by natural systems were reviewed. The degree to which these types of benefits can be described and quantified can help advance public investments in land protection and natural resource management. Economic benefits related to land protection and natural resource management are often categorized and discussed as ecosystem services (ES), and generally appear in this context.

Ecosystem services are the benefits people receive from nature. They encompass nature’s contributions to the production of food and timber; life-support processes, such as water purification…; and life fulfilling benefits, such as places to recreate or to be inspired by nature’s diversity. 17

ES are often categorized according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,18 created by an international scientific assessment. The four overlapping categories are: • Regulating services - benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes • Supporting services - services necessary for the production of all other services • Provisioning services - the products obtained from ecosystems • Cultural services - nonmaterial benefits obtained from ecosystemsAdoption of Economic Services Often Cited in Research Regulating services: benefits obtained from regulation of ecosystem processes • Air quality maintenance • Climate regulation, e.g., carbon sequestering; local change to temperature and/or precipitation • Water regulation, e.g., aquifer recharge; flood control;Considertion timing and/or m agnitude of runoff • Water purification and waste treatment for • Erosion control • Regulation of human disease, e.g., choleraDraft and vectors and biological control of pests and diseases Supporting services: services necessary for the production of all other services • Soil formation and nutrient cycling • Primary production • Oxygen production Revised • Water cycling • Habitat for wildlife • Photosynthesis • Decomposition of waste • Pollination of crops and plants • Seed dispersal Provisioning services: products obtained from ecosystems • Fresh water • Clean air • Agricultural and forestry products (food, fiber, fuel, and wood)

17 Olander, L. P., D. Urban, R. J. Johnston, G. Van Houtven, and J. Kagan. 2016. “Proposal for Increasing Consistency When Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Decision Making.” National Ecosystem Services Partnership Policy Brief 16-01. Durham, NC: Duke University, www.nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/publications. 18 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. “Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis”. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Appendix 3, Plan Research Highlights, Page 77 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

• Fertile and productive soil • Biodiversity and wild genetic material Cultural services nonmaterial benefits obtained from ecosystems, more difficult to quantify • Recreation, e.g., hiking, fishing, hunting • Educational value (formal and informal) • Aesthetic value (beauty) • Cultural heritage • Physical and mental health

That ecosystem services have economic value is not questioned, but the methods of value identification, valuation estimates, and local factors to consider can vary widely. Interest in ES quantification has grown among national and international governing bodies and agencies, as well as some local government entities and non-profits active in conservation. ES quantification may provide the metrics to improve project prioritization, such as prioritizing wetlands restoration. While technically complex, technological advances and ongoing research are making ES approaches a more relevant component to consider. Research, case studies, toolkits, and software continue to be developed by the scientific and academic community.

While the research conducted for this report did not involve quantification of ES economic benefits or define the best methods for doing so, example findings from ES quantification studies may have relevance for Dakota County: Adoption of Middle Cedar River Watershed, Iowa, 201119 A valuation study of ecosystem service benefits in the Middle Cedar River Watershed in Iowa identified 14 categories of ES across eight land cover classes in the 1.5 million-acre (~2,400 square miles) watershed. The study estimated that the ES generated between $548 million and $1.9 billion in goods and services. Wetlands constitute only 2.3 percent of the land coverConsidertion in the watershed but were found to contribute 16.5 to 30.1 percent of the total ES value. The top-forranking ES provided by wetlands was flood risk mitigation, valued at $2,544 to $3,651 per acre per year. Draft Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units, 201220 An international study team analyzed more than 320 publications over 300 case study locations around the world to yield an overview of ecosystem service values for ten major biomes. Their analysis showed that the value of ecosystem servicesRevised is considerable, although values are variable due to the contextual nature of studies and inherent uncertainties in valuation.

Comparative ranges of values for each biome are shown in in the following chart. Values are expressed in “international dollars” (Int. $), a hypothetical unit of currency that standardizes monetary values across countries by correcting to the purchasing power of the US dollar at a given time (2007). Benefits are stated in Int. $ / hectare (2.47 acres) / year. The numbers of studies reviewed are provided in parentheses with each of the ten biomes. Of note, inland wetlands were the most studied of the ten biomes, with 168 valuation case studies reviewed.

The reviewed studies calculated the highest ES economic values for coral reefs, coastal wetlands and coastal systems, followed by inland wetlands, which had an ES mean value of Int. $25,682/hectare/year, or

19 Kocian, M., Traughber, B. Batker, D. (2012). “Valuing Nature’s Benefits: An Ecological Economic Assessment of Iowa’s Middle Cedar River Watershed.” Tacoma: Earth Economics 20 deGroot, R., Brander, L., van der Ploeg, S., Costanza, R., Bernard, F., Braat, L., Christie, M., et. al. (2012). “Global Estimates of the Value of Ecosystems and their Services in Monetary Units.” Elsevier B.V

Appendix 3, Plan Research Highlights, Page 78 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

Int. $10,397/acre/year. Comparing ES valuations among biomes present in Dakota County, the reported mean ES valuation for inland wetlands was higher than for rivers and lakes, temperate forest, grasslands, and woodlands.

Range of Valuations for Ten Biomes in International$ per Hectare per Year

Adoption of Summary • A well-established body of research has established consensus that natural resources and systems provide significant societal and economic benefits • ES valuation methods, contexts, and metrics varyConsidertion • Based on several studies, wetlands may providefor more relative economic benefits than forest and grasslands Draft 2. Context provided by related plans and programs A. COUNTY PLANS Dakota County’s activities relatedRevised to land protection and natural resource quality are mostly governed by the following plans:

Dakota County 2040 Comprehensive Plan (DC2040): adopted 2019. DC2040 identifies high-level goals and strategies for protection of natural resource quality on a county-wide basis, such as natural area protection and surface- and groundwater protection and enhancement. DC2040 also addresses natural resources protection and management in the County Park System and the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area.

Dakota County Natural Resources Management System Plan: adopted 2017. Addresses long-term management needs and actions in the Dakota County Park System and on private land conservation easements held by the County. Greater detail is provided in individual park and greenway natural resources management plans as they are developed or updated.

Dakota County Park System Plan: adopted 2008. The Plan identifies high-level land protection and natural resources management needs and priorities for parks and greenways in the Park System. Greater detail is provided in master plans and natural resources management plans as they are developed or updated for individual parks and greenways.

Appendix 3, Plan Research Highlights, Page 79 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

Dakota County Farmland and Natural Area Protection Plan: adopted 2002. The Plan identified 36,000 acres of priority natural areas and 42,000 acres of priority farmland for voluntary protection by landowners, and established protection tools and strategies. The Farmland and Natural Areas Program required preparing individual natural resource management plans for easements enrolled in the program. This Land Conservation Plan replaces the Farmland and Natural Area Protection Plan; and the Land Conservation Program is the current version of the Farmland and Natural Areas Program.

B. STATE, FEDERAL, AND REGIONAL CONSERVATION AND WILDLIFE PLANS AND PROGRAMS Existing plans authored by state and federal agencies and conservation organizations address conservation and wildlife issues that are relevant to the County’s land conservation planning efforts. The following table highlights the reviewed plans, key recommendations or goals, notes on how the plans relate to County planning, and the potential for a County collaborative role in implementing the plans.

Conservation and Wildlife Plans and Programs Reviewed Relevance to County Plan Key Conservation and Wildlife Recommendations and Goals the County Role? MN Statewide 1. Protect priority land habitats (native prairie, savanna, old-growth forest, Y Y Conservation and connections) Conservation Contributor Preservation 2. Protect critical shorelands of streams and lakes planning and Plan, MN DNR, 3. Improve connectivity and access to outdoor recreationAdoption implementation 2008 4. Restore and protect shallow lakes 5. Restore land, wetlands, and wetland-associated watershedsof 6. Protect and restore critical in-water habitat of lakes and streams 7. Keep water on the landscape 8. Protect large blocks of forested land Minnesota's 1. Ensure the long-term health and viability of Minnesota’s wildlife, with a Y Y Wildlife Action focus on species that are rare, declining, or vulnerable to decline. Recommended Vermillion Plan, MN DNR, 2. Enhance opportunities to enjoy SpeciesConsidertion of Greatest Conservation Need actions for each River 2015 and other wildlife and to parforticipate in conservation County Watershed 3. Acquire the resources necessary to successfully implement the Minnesota Conservation Conservation Wildlife Action Plan Focus Area Focus Area Minnesota 1. Prairie core area–basedDraft conservation: areas of at least 10,000 acres are Limited N Prairie most functional Western MN is Conservation 2. Corridor-based conservation: between core areas allows species the Plan focus Plan, MN DNR, movement 2011 3. Local conservation:Revised is essential and a minimum of 10% of the terrestrial lands in each major watershed outside the core areas, corridors and strategic habitat complexes should be set aside for soil, water and wildlife conservation purposes Strategic Habitat 1. Start with ecologically meaningful scales: larger vs smaller, may cross Y Potential Conservation. jurisdictional boundaries Plan applies to Working to Our Conservation 2. Work in partnership to maximize effectiveness and efficiency: involve a the MN Valley reduce Approach, US diversity of partners National stormwater Fish and Wildlife 3. Use Adaptive Management Framework: with biological planning, Wildlife Refuge reaching the Service (USFWS), conservation design, monitoring and research, science and tools MN River 2016 4. Use Surrogate Species to Implement Strategic Habitat Conservation: focus on outcomes for a limited number of species Scientific and 1. The state’s natural heritage is not lost from any ecological region of Y Y Natural Areas Minnesota, including: Analyses on Future SNA Strategic Land • Plant and animal communities Biodiversity additions as Protection Plan, • Rare species (endangered, threatened, special concern, and Species of Significance opportunities MN DNR, 2008 Greatest Conservation Need) and supporting habitat Ranking, specific occur • Places of biodiversity significance SNAs in County. Source of

Appendix 3, Plan Research Highlights, Page 80 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

Relevance to County Plan Key Conservation and Wildlife Recommendations and Goals the County Role? • Geological features (significantly illustrate geological processes, are of parallel metrics statewide significance, and significant fossil remains) for the County • Other natural features of state or regional significance (illustrating succession of plant communities, relict flora or fauna persisting from an earlier period, and seasonal havens for wildlife) 2. The SNA system provides people with opportunities for scientific purposes and compatible nature-based recreation and education. Managing Increase grassland and wetland restoration and protection of native habitats in Limited N Minnesota’s the direct contributing catchment basins of shallow lakes. County has few Shallow Lakes for • Shallow lakes provide important habitat to many environmentally shallow lakes as Waterfowl and sensitive species, including over 20 species listed as a Species of Greatest identified by the Wildlife, MN Conservation Need (SGCN) Plan DNR, 2010 Metro 1. Establish priorities, coordinate work by the partner organizations and Y Potential Conservation focus on areas with greatest regional importance as core habitat, habitat Areas in County Depends on Corridors corridors, buffers for existing protected land, and increase public access to identified by Program Program, MN nature-related recreation. Program status in the DNR, to 2006 2. Protect and restore priority natural lands in focus areas: future • Restore habitat on up to 1,700 acres of private and public land. • Protect land by acquiring fee title and conservation easements from willing landowners on about 600 acres. Note: Program is currently not active and has not been fundedAdoption since 2011 Federal Species Dakota County is home to several species on the federalof threatened and Y Y Listing, USFWS, endangered species list: Areas of County County owns- 2016 • Northern Long-Eared Bat provide habitat manages land • Higgins Eye Pearly Mussel for these that could • Rusty Patched Bumble Bee species provide • Prairie Bush Clover (potential) habitat for Plans provide guidance for protectionConsidertion and management of these species these species MN White-Tailed Plan Goals most relevant to Dakotafor County Y Y Deer 1. Healthy Habitat: Maintain natural wildlife habitat by protecting, As manager Management enhancing and restoring habitat and by managing for an appropriate of public Plan, MN DNR, number of deer. Draft lands in 2019 2. Impact of Deer on Other Resources: Reduce negative impacts of deer to County the land, resources and other species, including people. Urban Bird The guide draws on expertise of agencies, municipalities and conservation Y Y Conservation for organizationsRevised to ensure that: Identifies mgmt. As manager the Twin Cities • key habitats are protected or enhanced goals and of public and Surrounding • threats and hazards to birds are identified and reduced habitat in lands in Area, Audubon • residents and citizens are engaged in conservation action County, includes County Minnesota, 2012 • scientific monitoring needs are identified and supported Important Bird Area Blueprint for Identifies target bird conservation species and outlines habitat protection and Y Y Minnesota Bird management goals for these species in the MN Prairie Hardwood Transition Identifies As manager Conservation, Region, including Forster’s Tern, Red-Headed Woodpecker, Wood Thrush, habitat in of public MN DNR, 2014 Louisiana Waterthrush, Prothonotary Warbler, Cerulean Warbler, Eastern County lands in Meadowlark, Yellow-Headed Blackbird, Loggerhead Shrike, Black Terns, County Trumpeter Swans, Henslow’s Sparrows, and Wood Ducks Birds of Identifies the migratory and non-migratory bird species (in addition to federally Y Y Conservation threatened or endangered) that represent the Service’s highest conservation Helps determine As manager Concern, USFWS, priorities. land protection of public 2008 and restoration lands in goals County Specific Bird A number of species-based plans prepared by organizations and agencies Y Y Species address habitat protection and management for the Upland Sandpiper,

Appendix 3, Plan Research Highlights, Page 81 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

Relevance to County Plan Key Conservation and Wildlife Recommendations and Goals the County Role? Conservation Grasshopper Sparrow, Loggerhead Shrike, Red-Headed Woodpecker, Cerulean Helps determine As manager Plans, various Warbler, and Henslow’s Sparrow. land protection of public and restoration lands in goals County Long-Range Duck Increase breeding population of waterfowl Y Y Recovery Plan, 1. Importance of protection and restoration of wetlands Contributor MN DNR, 2006 2. Importance of protection and restoration of adjacent grasslands The Wisconsin 1. Expand the quality and quantity of habitat for managed and wild Y N Pollinator pollinators (includes road right-of-way) Specific Protection Plan, 2. Minimize stressors on managed and wild pollinators methods apply WI DATCP, 2016 3. Increase managed bee hive health and survival to the County 4. Outreach (Spread the word on pollinator friendly practices) Pollinator Plan, 1. Protect pollinator habitat through wetland protection and restoration. Y Y MN Board of 2. Incorporate pollinator habitat protection and restoration planning into In the Water and Soil conservation easement projects. selected goals Resources, 2019 3. Incorporate pollinator habitat into agricultural conservation practices. listed 4. Incorporate pollinator habitat into urban water quality projects Mid-America Presents approaches to increase Monarch Butterfly in the Upper Midwest- Y Y Monarch Great Plains and identifies supporting programs and funding sources. Potential As manager Conservation Minnesota goal is to add 187,200,000 milkweed stems in the Core habitat is of public Strategy, Conservation geography of the state by 2038. MN strategies include: present in the lands in Midwest Assn. of • Conduct pollinator habitat inventory and analysis to identifyAdoption existing County County Fish and Wildlife habitat for conservation and high-priority areas forof protection, agencies, 2018 restoration, and enhancement. • Maintain, restore and enhance monarch habitat on permanently protected lands. • Maintain, restore, and enhance monarch and pollinator habitat in rights- of-way. • Maintain, restore, and enhance monarchConsidertion and pollinator habitat on agricultural lands. for • Maintain, restore, and enhance monarch and pollinator habitat on urban and developed lands and other private, non-agricultural lands. Draft Summary • Plans identify many overlapping areas of interest and need • Current focus areas includeRevised Species of Greatest Conservation Need and pollinators • Climate uncertainty is recognized in some of the more recent plans, although the best way to address this uncertainty is still evolving • Most plans speak to partnership opportunities and needs

C. WATER PLANS IN DAKOTA COUNTY The purpose of the inventory and assessment was to research existing comprehensive planning documents as they relate to developing long-term land protection goals for water or wildlife management purposes. The following plans were reviewed:

Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) The SWCD Comprehensive Plan (2016-2025) identifies a number of county-wide objectives and strategies to protect and restore surface water quality, groundwater quality and supply, restore wildlife habitat and improve soil health. Specifically, the Plan indicates the SWCD will work with Dakota County to:

• Develop a conservation easement program for wetland restorations to reduce flood impacts

Appendix 3, Plan Research Highlights, Page 82 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

• Develop a conservation easement program for riparian areas to reduce flood impacts • Establish conservation easements over designated floodplain areas currently in either agricultural production or urban use to reduce flood impacts • Collaborate on easement programs to install pollinator plant communities to restore habitats. The SWCD is responsible for assisting the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources to implement State easement programs such as the Reinvest in Minnesota, Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program and Wetland Banking easements under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. The SWCD Plan identified the need to develop individual sub-watershed analysis (SWA) whereas water quality improvement projects are identified at a smaller watershed scale to prioritize projects with the highest estimated cost/benefit. Four SWAs were completed by the end of 2019. The SWAs primarily look at soil loss and phosphorus loading since current modeling tools are most appropriate for those pollutant indicators.

Black Dog Watershed Management WMOs in Dakota County Organization (BDWMO) The BDWMO Comprehensive Water Management Plan (2012-2022) has multiple water quality initiatives, identifies priority resources and seeks to protect and enhance fish Adoption and wildlife habitat. However, it does not of specifically identify locations or land areas to pursue long-term protection options. Rather it includes more general statements such as it will preserve and enhance the quality of open space, protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and Considertion protect and increase recreational opportunities. for North Cannon River Watershed Management Organization (NCRWMO) Draft The NCRWMO Comprehensive Water Management Plan (2013-2023) has multiple water quality initiatives, identifiesRevised priority resource areas and seeks to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat. It identifies the goal of wetland restoration projects within the Chub Creek Watershed but does not specify a method of protection such as easements, acquisition or cost share contracts. The NCRWMO Plan also identifies working with the DNR to develop a management plan for the Chub Lake Wildlife Management Area and to advocate with Dakota County the preservation and protection of critical natural areas, farmland and wetlands in the watershed for wildlife, habitat and recreation.

Eagan-Inver Grove Heights Watershed Management Organization (E-IGHWMO) The E-IGHWMO Comprehensive Water Management Plan (2016-2025) has multiple water quality initiatives, identifies priority resources and seeks to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat. However, it does not specifically identify locations or land areas to pursue long-term protection options.

Appendix 3, Plan Research Highlights, Page 83 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

Rather it has more general statements such as it will protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities.

Lower Minnesota River Watershed District (LMRWD) The LMRWD Comprehensive Water Management Plan (2018-2027) has a number of water quality initiatives. Namely, it has listed strategies to develop a mechanism for identifying and acquiring high value natural area conservation easements and encouraging wildlife connectivity projects that achieve multiple goals such as water quality improvements, fen and steep slope protection. Of note, it also includes a strategy to develop vegetation management standards. Since the LMRWD Plan also includes significant portions of Hennepin, Scott and Carver counties, it is unknown what opportunities exist within the Dakota County portion of the watershed.

Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization (LMRWMO) The LMRWMO Comprehensive Water Management Plan (2011-2021) has multiple water quality initiatives, identifies priority resources and seeks to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat. However, it does not specifically identify locations or land areas to pursue long-term protection options. Rather it has more general statements such as it will evaluate and pursue locations to conduct wetland restoration projects or reduce future flood potential. The LMRWMO does not identify a specific method of protection.

Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization (VRWJPO) The VRWJPO Comprehensive Water Management Plan (2016-2026)Adoption has multiple water quality initiatives, identifies priority resource areas and seeks to protect and enhanceof fish and wildlife habitat. It identifies the goal of establishing wetland banks in the watershed, which is a State sponsored easement program. The VRWJPO Plan does not identify specific locations or methods for the long-term protection of water or wildlife management but does identify collaboration with others including Dakota County to evaluate long- term land and water protection opportunities. It was noted that the VRWJPO Plan also includes the development of SWAs mentioned above and has Considertioncollaborated with the SWCD under this initiative. for Key Findings for Water Plans • The general plan focus is on water qualityDraft and quantity, although some of the newer plans also discuss wildlife habitat. • The plans make limited reference to land protection and easement acquisition, but the need exists, and most watershed management organizations do not acquire land. Revised • Sub-watershed analyses will help identify specific areas for enhanced conservation practices specific to sediment and phosphorus loading within sub-watersheds.

D. CITY AND TOWNSHIP PLANS IN DAKOTA COUNTY Staff reviewed current 2018-2019 comprehensive plans prepared by the eleven large cities, several small cities, and 13 rural townships in Dakota County for land protection and natural resource goals.

City Plans Most of the larger cities in Dakota County have some staff dedicated to land protection and natural resource management, most typically in parks departments.

Land Protection: the following themes were noted related to permanent land protection: • More than half of the city plans identified the need for open space/natural area protection not related to parks acquisition, and some referenced working with Dakota County on land protection.

Appendix 3, Plan Research Highlights, Page 84 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

• Roughly half of the large city plans called for connecting habitat corridors linking natural areas, not necessarily greenways as defined by County plans. • Fewer city plans identified protection needs for wetlands and floodplain. At least one city seeks permanent protection of floodplain. • Six cities are within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) and their Comprehensive Plans included a MRCCA component. Several city plans considered protection of bluffs, steep slopes, and floodplain within their MRCCA section. • Relatively fewer cities in Dakota County have farmland or are adjacent to farmland, and a few of the cities include a goal of protecting prime farmland or farming in their comprehensive plans. • Most city plans referenced land protection as part of their parks system chapter, either acquiring land for existing parks or adding new parks in response to population growth and development. • Most city plans also referenced working with the County Greenway Collaborative on protecting land for greenways in their cities.

Natural Resources Management: Greater variability was seen among city plans related to natural resources management, in part related to the community’s vision, location, natural resource base, age and degree of development. Relatively few cities appear to have a stand-alone natural resources management plan for either their park systems or at a community wide level. BurnsvilleAdoption is an exception, with a citywide of Natural Resources Management Plan and a citywide Wetland Management Plan. Several city comprehensive plans called for future development of either a park system natural resource management plan or a citywide environmental plan.

Common natural resource management goal areas presented in city comprehensive plans include: • Invasive species management Considertion • Native species enhancement (more commonlyfor in parks) • Surface water quality • Sustainability (e.g., waste reduction,Draft energy conservation) • Education to residents on a range of environmental topics

Rural Collaborative Plan Revised Most townships in Dakota County (with the exception of Eureka and Sciota) participated in the Rural Collaborative Comprehensive Planning process. The Collaborative Plan land protection and natural resource management policies are highly consistent with the County’s, as the following excerpt shows:

Environmental Resources Policies: • Work cooperatively with Dakota County and other organizations that support the goals of protecting natural areas and corridors in southern Dakota County. • Develop and implement a protection and management plan for natural areas that includes: - A cohesive system of natural areas connected by natural corridors - Areas identified and prioritized for preservation, protection, or restoration - A functional classification of natural areas based upon appropriate use, including recreation, preservation, hunting, agricultural, private - Land protection strategies for targeted areas, including voluntary conservation plans, donation or purchase of conservation easements, transfer of development rights, purchase of development rights, acquisition

Appendix 3, Plan Research Highlights, Page 85 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

- Strategies and standards for the long-term management of natural areas - A description of partnerships with other units of government to protect shared natural areas - Innovative and appropriate natural area agricultural practices - Funding and funding sources • Work with Dakota County and Dakota SWCD to identify, evaluate, and map locally important natural areas. • Enforce provisions in local ordinances that provide for and promote the protection of regionally and locally-important natural areas, including: - Protection of undisturbed natural areas in southern Dakota County - Protection of natural areas with scientific, cultural, or local significance - Protection and enhancement of the ecological diversity of southern Dakota County • Involve citizens and stakeholders in the planning process and in programs for managing and restoring natural areas • Use park dedications or cash-in-lieu donations in new cluster developments to acquire high quality natural areas • Encourage permanent set-aside programs to create and protect open space, create wildlife habitat, protect surface and ground water quality, and reduce erosion and sedimentation in streams • Encourage the use of native species in plantings where soil disturbance requires long-term erosion control, through local ordinance regulation and WMO standards, on public lands, reclamation projects on private land, natural areas, and similar projects Adoption • Actively seek funding to acquire priority areas of • Support education of residents to increase the knowledge, skills, motivation, and commitment to work individually and collectively toward protecting natural resources

Considertion 3. Program Opportunities Program refinements to assist participating landownersfor were explored. Known gaps to address include: • Adequately addressing the long-term natural resources management needs on private easements. Most funding sources currently Draftused by the Program do not cover long-term management costs.

• Seeking greater tax equity for easement lands that no longer generate income. Land enrolled in the program continuesRevised to be taxed at its pre-enrollment rate, typically the tax rate for agricultural land. At the same time, local governments depend on existing tax base.

A. POTENTIAL LANDOWNER INCENTIVES As noted in discussing program gaps, landowners are ultimately responsible for long-term natural resource management on their land protected by easements, and funding to assist them is often limited to initial restoration. The gap occurs when ongoing maintenance of restored areas continues beyond a required three-year period, after which funding assistance may no longer be available to landowners. In addition, landowners often continue to pay the same level of property tax on land in easements, whether or not the land is in agricultural production and generating income. Staff from Dakota County’s Office of Performance Analysis explored two potential means of reducing tax burden to encourage residents to participate in conservation easements or transfer of fee title for conservation easements:

• Targeted reduction in property taxes for those with conservation easements • County tax credits for residents participating in the conservation easement program, similar to federal income tax deductions for charitable contributions

Appendix 3, Plan Research Highlights, Page 86 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

Reduction in Taxes: Minnesota Statutes 2018, section 273.117, Conservation Property Tax Valuation, rules out property tax reduction for conservation easement purposes, but subsection (b)(2) provides Dakota County a unique exception as the County adopted the Farmland and Natural Areas Program (FNAP) via referendum. As a result, Dakota County has the option and authority to reduce valuations of property subject to a conservation restriction or easement. Dakota County makes some use of this, re-classifying the property tax of parts of some private lands with conservation easements in order to reduce the fee title owner’s associated property taxes and provide a financial incentive to landowners to participate in the conservation easement program.

Property tax assessments are based on the “highest and best use” of a parcel, and the restrictions placed on parts of a property by a conservation easement reduce the potential “highest and best use” of that given parcel. Assessing staff noted that property tax reductions that are granted result in a de mimimis shift of the tax burden to the rest of Dakota County taxpayers. In other words, the difference between the assessed highest and best use property tax valuation prior to the conservation easement and following a conservation easement will be shared and paid by the other county taxpayers.

Potential Tax Credits: Like other charitable contributions, the donation of a conservation easement may allow the landowner to claim a federal income tax deduction for the value of the easement.21 Perpetual conservation easements can be used to gain up to a 50% federal income tax deduction off of adjusted gross income in a given year, with a carry-forward of an additional 15 years,Adoption and up to a 100 percent federal tax 22 deduction for 16 years in the case of agricultural lands. of Minnesota is not one of the 15 or so states that provides landowners with state income tax credits for gifts of land or easements.21,23 Attempting to change Minnesota state law is not likely to be successful at this time, but is an area to keep an eye on for the future as a number of other states do have relevant state statutes in place. Considertion There is precedent for offering tax credits at afor county -level, but no examples were found of counties that offer such credits that were not located in states with state-level income tax credits for such a purpose. For example, of the 24 counties in Maryland,Draft 10 counties offer county property tax credits for perpetual conservation easements.24 These vary in their terms, with lengths ranging from 1 to 5 years and amounts of the credit ranging from a set percent of associated county property tax obligations (e.g., 75-100 percent) to a set dollar amount cap (e.g.Revised, up to $500). As a result, it appears there is no precedent for a county offering tax credits for easements when there is not a related state income tax credit in place.

Summary • Tax credits may be the most feasible option that would not impact tax base for LGUs or shift taxes to other payers

21 Helland, J. Conservation Easements. Information Brief. (2005). Minnesota House of Representative Research Department. 22 Hendrickson, V.L. What are the tax perks of donating land in the U.S.? Mansion Global. January 3, 2019. 23 The history of Colorado’s state income tax credit, as well as unintended consequences such as the fragmentation of property by landowners to maximize eligibility for the tax credit and the creation of pass through LLCs by non-Colorado residents for the sole purpose of qualifying for the credit, is described in: Jay, J. Changes to Colorado’s Conservation Income Tax Credit Law. Real Estate Law Newsletter. 2003. 32(2). 24 County Property Tax Credits. Maryland Environmental Trust Fund. September, 2015. http://dnr.maryland.gov/met/Documents/PDFs/County%20Tax%20Credit%20Embedded%20Links9.14.15.pdf

Appendix 3, Plan Research Highlights, Page 87 Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County

Adoption of

Considertion for

Draft

Revised

Appendix 3, Plan Research Highlights, Page 88

APPENDIX 4. PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS A. COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS 206 individuals, including residents of Dakota County or adjacent counties, wrote to express their support for the Land Conservation Plan. Support statements include open-comment letters and template letters developed by two environmental organizations, Conservation Minnesota and Friends of the Mississippi River.

Open Comments 47 people wrote open letters expressing support for the draft Land Conservation Plan, and of these, two commenters had questions about aspects of the draft Plan. Staff responses are included with these letters.

Name Comments Alexis Ludwig-Vogen, To the Dakota County Planning Commissioners, Mendota Heights I recently read through the Dakota Country Draft Land Conservation Plan and am very pleased with 5/24/20 the increased focus on restoration and conservation of the county's natural spaces. When my spouse and I were searching for a place to raise our family, the surrounding natural environment was a key deciding factor. We’ve now lived in Mendota Heights for fifteen years and have frequented Dakota County parks, trails, equipment rentals and events. Having access to see and explore those natural spaces greatly enriches our lives and makes us dedicated Dakota County residents. It's so important to make sure that conservation keeps pace with the rapid development expected in Dakota County. It's critical that all Dakota County residentsAdoption - whether now or in 50 years - have access to natural spaces. Equally critical is to ensureof that the natural resources - air, water, land - can sustain the growing population. I’ve always been proud of Dakota County and its bounty of natural space. Seeing this plan come to fruition will only deepen that pride. It's well worth the investment. Thank you, Amy Storbakken Friends and I regularly go to SpringConsidertion Lake Park to ski, bird watch, enjoy the view and prairie. It's a Saint Paul scenic drive and feels like gettingfor away. We usually eat out in Hastings afterward. Visiting parks is my 5/18/20 go-to activity with friends and family. There is always something to enjoy. In years past I worked Draftat Three Rivers Parks and at Itasca State Park. Visitors often commented that parks were the best thing done by government. People came on their anniversaries, for family reunions, and to enjoy a few last moments with a dying relative. Thanks for working on parks and open spaces.Revised Brian Huberty Hi Dakota County Planning, Marshan Township Overall the plan is good, but there are two major gaps. 4/29/20 As the report states: "Identify and prioritize significant natural areas and connecting corridors for voluntary protection and increased resource management, especially for wetland restoration and water retention on the land." 1) The plan should use the latest Minnesota version of the National Wetland Inventory for a base map https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/water-nat-wetlands-inv-2009-2014 PLUS the potential Restorable Wetland Inventory Map from the U of MN NRRI: https://mnatlas.org/ Not listing these sources under the Conservation Focus Areas discussion is a bit embarrassing. Both of these sources provide a finer scale of derived products. However, the plan does mention the lack of drain tile data which is very good! But there needs to be a plan on how to rectify this problem. Good luck with trying to make drain tile maps. Not trivial as you well know. 2) The other gap is Dakota County's position in the migratory bird flyway. Every year, I watch flocks of ducks, swans, geese detour around Minneapolis, St. Paul by heading west from Hastings to avoid the

Appendix 4, Public Review Comments, Page 89

Name Comments metro area. This is where the wetlands or lack thereof are needed as stop over points for migratory birds. This should be a major part of the plan. Staff Response Thank you for reviewing the draft Land Conservation Plan and for your comments. Our experience is that the National Wetland Inventory is always a good starting point, but often misses many wetland areas. We did review the Restorable Wetland Inventory in our first phase of our restorable wetland inventory. We used a very similar process, but fortunately have even better MLCCS data for the County. We also used an additional, innovative GIS tool developed by the DNR/BWSR/MN IT Services. We went through an intensive process by manually “burning in” all major culverts into the County’s one-meter resolution LiDAR digital elevation model to ensure water was routed properly. This is an important step since LiDAR data effectively shows all roadways as dams and therefore modeling water flow without manually entering culverts is problematic. We also removed man-made structures (e.g. roads, railroads, etc.) and smoothed out ditch features. We then ran the GIS process to systematically identify historic natural depressions and potentially drained wetlands across the County. Drain tile is still an unknown, but we can often assume where a property is in agricultural use and features hydric soils, drain tile is likely present and there is a restorable wetland opportunity. Currently, there are other GIS tools being developed to predict which fields are tiled. In the end, the largest projects in our inventory were quite similar to those we knew from the start - large tracts of currently cultivated parcels with underlying hydric soils.Adoption We certainly recognize that the County is located ofwithin this incredibly important flyway for all types of birds, including waterfowl. We’ll look for the right place in the Plan to highlight that fact. The Plan includes increasing biodiversity as one of our key goals and we believe that this can best be accomplished by protecting, restoring and improving connected habitat throughout the County. With regards to waterfowl, we believe the major emphasis that we are placing on restoring larger tracts of wetlands in the rural portions of theConsidertion County will create those important stop-over areas so important to migratory birds, as well as forproviding many other public and ecological benefits. This is going to be challenging work, but it is critical if we are going to successful. Please let me know if youDraft have additional questions or comments. We hope that you can support this Plan and also participate in some way during its implementation. Chris Erickson Thank you so much for your hard and thoughtful work on this Land Conservation Plan. When we first Dakota County moved intoRevised the County, there was still a lot of undeveloped land here. Now we are getting so big, 4/28/20 and we are afraid of losing the natural beauty that attracted us here. I am especially distraught about the new housing developments that clear-cut all the old trees. Even if they are replanted, it will take years and years to restore their value. Keep up the good work and help us to do a better job of caring for this beautiful gift of land. Chris Erickson I would like to see more emphasis on regenerative agriculture as a conservation measure for the Lakeville County's land use plan. Thank you. 5/13/20 David Hohle I continue to value the Mississippi River Regional Trail and frequent both South St Paul and Inver South St. Paul Grove sections. It's great to see how much usage it gets, and I enjoy being along the river and open 5/11/20 spaces. I've been an advocate for the river trail for years and support the co sections and amenities that continue to enhance the experience. I strongly support the continued funding and investment in the natural resources. Thank you for your work on behalf of all citizens, but especially the local people. Dawn Gaetke I write in support of the Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County. I believe that the proposed Inver Grove Heights CFAs are a necessary step to preserving water quality, both surface and ground water, in our

Appendix 4, Public Review Comments, Page 90

Name Comments 5/14/20 county. I also laud the partnering approach taken by the county in the plan. I believe that only county, state, and city agency cooperation with private land owners and citizens will give any plan a fighting chance. As a County plan this is an excellent base from which cities can enhance individual city plans should they so choose. Deborah Churchill Lebanon Hills is a treasure! I love the miles of natural trails for hiking, skiing and snowshoeing. The Burnsville open areas, lakes, trails, birds, visitor center, picnic shelters are all wonderful! Spending time in 4/28/20 nature is therapeutic -- and the open spaces are great habitats for animals. I strongly support continued funding and investment in our Dakota County parks. The parks are one of the main reasons I remain in Burnsville, rather than move to St. Paul. Thank you so much for your careful stewardship of these green spaces in our county. Denise Louis Dear Office of Planning, Apple Valley I was active in 4 years of information and planning and the campaign for the Dakota County land 6/25/20 preservation referendum in 2002. We were amazed not only for buy-in but people actually wanting to donate land. Protecting open space is very important to residents and more crucial now more than ever! PLEASE make the investment and act quickly to implement the Land Conservation Plan. I'm proud to live in our county and want to thank you all for doing a great job! Finding ways to protect the areas identified in the plan now will yield dividends for many years to come, helping to protect Dakota County's water resources, wildlife habitat and quality of life for our residents and others who make special trips to visit. I'm surprised how many in my Facebook groups visit our area because of these efforts (and no doubtAdoption spend money at local businesses). of Derek Nelson I love going to Lebanon Hills Park to immerse myself in the native prairie and oak savanna restoration Inver Grove Heights that has occurred. Such high-quality ecosystems are hard to find in the metro area. 5/18/20 The protection and conservation of natural areas has never been more urgent given accelerating habitat loss and climate change that threatens extinction of many species. Considertion I support continued investment in our natural areas and believe it will pay dividends for future enjoyment and health of Dakotafor County residents. Thank you for the opportunity to express my support for the continued funding of natural area conservation efforts in Dakota County. Draft Diane Horsager Please support the Dakota Co Land Draft Plan in preserving our parks and refuges and clean water. Lakeville These are among Minnesota’s most valued resources. I’m a Lakeville resident. 4/13/20 Gail Lewellan The Draft LandRevised Conservation Plan for Dakota County is comprehensive, ambitious, and professional Mendota Heights in its identification of the scope, challenges and goals for conservation in our county. I support its 5/22/20 adoption as a plan for Dakota County. Many thanks to the staff of Dakota County and all of the collaborators who worked to develop the Plan. As a citizen of Mendota Heights, I hope that our city will be out front in working with Dakota County within the framework of a City-County Conservation Collaborative. The presence of two Dakota County staff members on the Mendota Heights Pilot Knob/Oheyawahe Task Force is a good step in that direction. I am grateful to live in a County that conscientiously devotes resources to the stewardship of the land we occupy. These efforts will improve our health, our quality of life, and our legacy for future generations. Jamie Nicolai Dear Office of Planning, West St. Paul Within Dakota County, one of the natural areas that I especially value is Thompson County Park. 6/30/20 When I was working as a teacher in Independent School District 197, I had the opportunity to take kids to the lake to conduct water quality testing. It was such a powerful experience for both me and the students, putting them in a position in which they were citizen scientists, using their data to

Appendix 4, Public Review Comments, Page 91

Name Comments determine the health of the lake in order to make recommendations to better protect or maintain the quality of the water and aquatic habitat. Parks, greenways and natural areas are so vitally important to me. My husband and I have regularly commented that we are fortunate to live where we do in the cities, expressly because we have these green spaces in our community. It is a luxury that we have such ease of access to tracts of trees, ponds and wildlife. Having a place to go in which the noise of traffic disappears and is replaced by the sounds of birds and squirrels chatting as the breeze ripples through tall grasses and leaves, is an effective balm for soothing the stress of everyday life. As populations continue to rise, there has been an increased demand on property development. While in the short term it may appear more lucrative to use available land for new construction, it is in fact the preservation of green space or perhaps the conversion of empty lots to lush and natural spaces that add value to communities. As we continue to preserve and develop our green spaces, we increase the monetary value of existing properties. By striving to protect our parks and waterways, we also do our part to mitigate the ill effects of climate change. My hope is that while you are continuing to plan for the development of green space, you actively seek out reliable, sustainable sources for funding. It is not enough to plan, though careful deliberation is a necessary step, but you must also have an eye towards securing the funds to pay for these essential projects. While federal and state grants are a critical source of funding, please know that as a resident and tax payer in Dakota County, I am proud to have a portion of my taxes used on the betterment and protection of our natural spaces.Adoption I thank you for taking the time to read this letter andof allowing me the opportunity to share my thoughts. Your public service and commitment to our communities is greatly appreciated. Jayne Hager Dee Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County. 5/15/20 Of course, I am in favor of preserving quality natural resources in Dakota County. Of course, I am in

favor of protecting groundwater Considertionfor the future. And, of course, I am in favor of county, city and township collaborations to encouragefor the wise use of taxpayer funds. In concept, I am in favor of the Land Conservation Plan, but the elements of why new natural or agricultural areas wouldDraft be protected, who would be able to access these areas for public use and when is not clear. I have some questions and comments after reading the document: The impressionRevised given by some of the interested statewide conservation/environmental groups to the public is that this Plan will lead to more parks for recreation in Dakota County. I don't specifically see that in the Plan. If that is true, how will these parks be organized? How will they be prioritized? I see this Plan protecting or restoring natural areas, not creating recreational parkland. That then raises the question, are we looking at preserving this property for longer term preservation's sake? Or is there a Part II Plan coming that will specifically reveal the future uses for this preserved land? Will that include parks? If the Plan is to preserve property for a longer term vision without or limited public access for the near future, then the Plan should indicate that. How will this land be acquired? Before any land transfer is discussed, there must be willing landowners. Are there willing landowners within the Conservation Focus Areas? Most landowners are willing, if the price is right. Will there be differences in landowner compensation between Focus Areas? Are landowners already identified? How were they identified? Funds from the 2002 Dakota County Farmland and Natural Areas Protection Program have been spent. Where will funding for this program come from? Assuming that there is funding available, will access to the land be done through the use of easements?

Appendix 4, Public Review Comments, Page 92

Name Comments How would the county find willing landowners? Who would conduct the rural outreach? If a landowner wants to pursue an easement but the community and land use authority sees the easement as a detriment to long term planning, how will that be addressed? What activities could legally be conducted on these easements? The landowner still owns the land. Activities would be dependent upon what that landowner would allow. Would hunting be allowed? Could I fish on that little stream that runs along the edge of the easement? Could I hike on the land? Could I bring my dogs for a run? My husband and I own agricultural land in another state. Our land is posted "No Trespassing." Even with an easement, public use would not be permitted on our property. I don't think we are much different than a typical rural landowner in Dakota County. So, again, besides protecting these parcels of land, for what public use are they being protected? How does this Plan interface with the pending Groundwater Plan? In my mind, clean surface water, ground water and improving natural areas should be Dakota County's long-term priority. There are mechanisms (and existing county departments/organizations) to continue this work already in place. If Dakota County is looking to continue with a farmland and natural area easement program, it should be more clear on what the public purpose and public use will be for these easement areas. Staff response: The intent of this Plan is to protect existing, unprotected natural areas; additional areas that might connect, expand or buffer these lands and other lands that could provide other public benefits such as infiltrating/retaining surface water. The other primary focus is to improve natural resource restoration and management on public and protectedAdoption private land. There is also an intent to protect and expand multi-purpose corridors that may be theof site of planned, future regional greenways. While the plan focus is not to create new parks, there may be opportunities to work with cities to create expand existing parks or create new local parks. While some level of public access to newly protected private lands may be in the public interest, individual landowners will make those decisions which is not a condition of program participation. Language will be strengthened to reinforce this message. Considertion All land acquisition will be basedfor on decisions made by landowners who choose to voluntarily participate in the Land Conservation Program. Land protection will utilize the types of approaches the county has relied on for its efforts over nearly 20 years, as well as new options that may be more appealing to landowners.Draft Fee title acquisition by other public entities with assistance by the county or thought outright acquisition by the county will also be considered as it has in the past. Landowner compensation within and between CFAs will be based on appraisals conducted by individual appraisersRevised following accepted professional practices. The Plan also contemplates developing and applying consistent valuation formulas similar to what is used by the State Reinvest in Minnesota Program. Landowner information is readily available as part of the county’s tax parcel data. Contact information from this source will be used to conduct outreach to all landowners eligible for the Land Conservation Program, focusing on the new CFAs as a primary eligibility area. Program funding is anticipated to come from varied external and County sources, although financial implications of the COVID-19 pandemic to program funding are unknown at this time. Public access to any protected private will be discussed with every landowner during the initial and final stages of the land protection process. One such approach is to acquire an access easement where, for example, an angler could gain access to fish along a stream or river. Ultimately, any public access will only occur with the permission and approval of landowner. As mentioned previously, if any land acquired in fee by another public entity or the County public access would be provided according to individual jurisdictional rules and policies. Program staff will initiate landowner outreach efforts after Plan approval to gauge their interest in working with the County and other partners to explore conservation options. Initial CFA planning and

Appendix 4, Public Review Comments, Page 93

Name Comments individual land protection projects would be coordinated with the local governmental unit to minimize existing or future conflicts which, if they exist, require additional discussion. There is an extensive list of prohibited and allowed uses as part of every conservation easement that the landowner, family and guests must follow. This is designed to protect the conservation values while allowing the landowner to still use and enjoy the property. Public use is typically not welcomed by owners of protected private land except in special cases. Easements will accommodate the activities that the landowner wishes to allow within the easement requirements. Passive recreational activities such as fishing, wildlife observation and hiking would be the most common uses where landowners are willing to allow some level of public access. Although the majority of the important groundwater protection/ recharge areas identified in the Groundwater Plan are outside of the preliminary CFAs, there are some overlapping areas. The Land Conservation Program has experience and tools that could benefit the County’s efforts to protect groundwater, such as permanently protecting highly vulnerable or significant recharge areas, or funding larger scale, wetland restoration projects. The intent of this plan is to use a variety of conservation approaches with willing landowners to provide a wide range of public benefits which are described in the Plan. These potential goals and benefits, which can include enhance public access, will vary greatly between different areas of the county and different landowner objectives. The Plan is to more effectively continue the work that the County and others are doing in a more integrated and comprehensive manner with additional innovative approaches. Ultimately, since this is a voluntaryAdoption plan, the outcomes will depend on private and public landowner interest and participation. Planof language will be clarified and strengthened. Jean Zacharias Hello, Dakota County Planning Team! Apple Valley That is quite a document that you put together and I truly appreciate all of the time and effort that 6/2/20 went into it. The area that really caught my attention had to do with the Projected Groundwater Drawdown, which if memory serves me correctly at one time I read someplace that even places like California wanted to start taking someConsidertion of the water from Dakota County for their purposes, but I can't recall where I read that.for There are a few things that got me thinking about water in particular and it's understood that cities may balk at the idea ofDraft this purely from a revenue generating perspective, but I can't help but wonder how many water parks need to be within Dakota County and what type of water saving practices are already in use within pre-existing water parks. The other partRevised of water consumption that got me to think twice had to do with people watering their lawns, which is something that I've never done because I learned from my parents decades ago that not watering your lawn teaches the grass roots to truly go down to find water and not up; even if it goes dormant, it will come back. I have a vegetable garden and any watering that I do, which is actually quite rare is always done by hand. It seems that watering lawns especially needs to be something that needs to be rethought. Private in-ground pools are another story. I live in Apple Valley and my guess is that as accurate as the new water meters are that have been installed that there is no way to specifically figure out exactly how water is used within any given household-- unlike how they seem to be able to figure that out for natural gas usage. Exactly how water is used at any given address can't really be monitored, but if Dakota County could put a number to how many people and pets live/work at a particular address it may be possible to come up with a realistic water usage number based on that information and when excessive amounts are used that a household/organization pays a higher price for water usage above that amount. That may already be something that's done, so I apologize if that's the case, but I had to bring it up nonetheless. It's also known (since I've done storm drain stenciling before in my neighborhood) that a lot of people that have storm drains in front of their property don't properly clean the drains out on a regular basis, which leads to flooding and unwanted things beyond foliage and dirt going down those drains during storms. I wish that more people would take responsibility for said storm drains.

Appendix 4, Public Review Comments, Page 94

Name Comments Realistically, I don't know if I came up with any ideas and/or comments that you haven't already heard, but because I know that Dakota County means it when they ask for comments, I'm willing to share my comments even if they repeat anything you've already seen and/or thought of. Keep up the good work and know that the foresight that you're putting into the future of the County for generations to come is greatly appreciated. We all need to be good stewards on many levels for the present and future. JoAnn Pasternak Dear Commissioner Egan, Mendota Heights I just skimmed the draft of the County Land Conservation Plan and was very impressed with the 4/20/20 thought and research that went into preparing it. I am exceedingly concerned with the degradation of land and water quality in Dakota County and beyond. I feel that this plan will be a giant step forward to maintaining and/or restoring them. Please support the approval of this Plan to improve and preserve natural resources in our county. Everything we do here helps, in a small way, to protect and save the entire planet. Thank you. Joe Beattie I would like to thank you for all of your good and diligent work in protecting land throughout Dakota Hastings County. My students have been reading The Sixth Extinction by Elizabeth Kolbert during this school 5/11/20 year. They are coming to understand the plight of life on planet Earth and the need to put protections in place. I would like to encourage you to continue to protect special places in Dakota County and even expand the amount of land under protection. Adoption Reason no. 1 My field biology students have theof opportunity to study special places in the Hastings vicinity. They visit the white pine forest and black ash seepage swamp at Pine Bend Scientific and Natural Area, the alder thicket at Lebanon Hills Regional Park, the maple-basswood forest at Hastings SNA, and the floodplain forest at the Vermillion River bottoms. They survey fish and benthic macroinvertebrates in the Vermillion River. They monitor wetland quality at Lake Rebecca. I would offer that the chance for studentsConsidertion to immerse themselves in the study of unique and special places is invaluable. for Reason no. 2 My wife and I need time to disconnect from our chaotic and frenetic world. The Dakota County park and trail system offers opportunities to relax, decompress, and find precious Draft solitude. We look forward to the completion of the Mississippi River Trail and the expansion of protected corridors throughout the County. My wife and I have a grandson. In a time of climate change and loss of critical Reason no.Revised 3 habitat, we worry about what type of Earth our grandson will inherit. It is perhaps more important than ever to protect and manage the special places that remain in our degraded and mistreated Earth. It is my opinion that we need to act now. "Plants and insects are the fabric of this planet. We’re ripping it to shreds and we need to knit it back together.” Scott Black, The Xerxes Society Jon Kerr Dear Commissioner Slavik: Northfield I have reviewed the Dakota County Land Conservation Plan and strongly urge you to support the Plan 6/23/20 and the necessary funding to make the Plan a reality over the next decade. We need to invest in our future to help restore our farm soils, underground water and beautiful lands in Dakota County. A healthy environment will support healthy farms, healthy families and encourage more businesses to locate in a county where people commit to a better future for everyone. This plan provides an excellent and important way to protect water and critical habitat lands today and into the future. The Plan gives us the opportunity to come together as communities to support the county's 2040 Comp Plan and Strategic Goals that residents and businesses overwhelmingly support. Financing a plan like this is key to providing a true legacy for future generations of farmers, urban residents and local businesses and it deserves your support.

Appendix 4, Public Review Comments, Page 95

Name Comments Your support for the values expressed in the Land Conservation Plan will help Dakota County continue to be a leader in the state on soil and water protection. You have the power to keep our residents safe, and our lands and waters protected, by supporting this plan. Land stewardship and healthy farms and families are important to our family, and one of the main strengths we have found while living in Dakota County! The county has accomplished many great things for its residents and this Plan will continue that leadership. Now, more than ever, we need to adopt the Land Conservation Plan and provide the funding to continue our commitment to abundant clean water, natural lands and greenways. Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to call or contact me via email if you have questions or concerns. Judy and Jerry So proud of this plan, and its implications for our future. We’re behind it. Hoffman 4/17/20 Karen Humber Want to thank you for the plan. Read over it. A lot of info to digest. I live in Apple Valley and my main Apple Valley concern is overdevelopment and the impact it has on wildlife and plant life. Stop building and 4/9/20 expanding. Ask the cities in Dakota county to stop building. We need to limit human imprint. We don’t do that by continuing to clear land and erect buildings. It is really bad when you have a bald eagle foraging for food (dead animal in road) in a busy intersection. I used to like living in Apple Valley but not anymore. Too many people and roads. Preserving land doesn’t help if you don’t give animals a safe corridor to travel. Too many dead animalsAdoption on the road. I do hope your plan helps but I probably won’t be around to see it. As I said aboveof stop developing land. Go back into the cities and leave the land for plant life and wildlife. That is how we preserve our resources so we can have clean water and air. Thanks for allowing me to comment. Karen Schik I am especially fond of Spring Lake Park for the amazing vistas over the river, the diversity of habitat, Scandia and the abundance of migratory birds. I also love that the park is large enough, and long enough, 5/27/20 that it's not hard to get away fromConsidertion the more heavily visited areas and have a quiet nature experience. for The connection of Spring Lake Park to other natural areas is one of the reasons why it is so important. Greenway Draftcorridors are vital for the movement of plants and animals across the landscape. The ever increasing pressures that humans put on the landscape make it more important than ever to protect remainingRevised natural areas and expand on them. One of the most important ways to help reduce carbon in the atmosphere and offset the effects of the warming climate is by increasing the amount of plant cover. And native vegetation is especially vital for protecting the pollinators that help to supply us with food. Thank you for the leadership that Dakota County has shown in natural resource protection. Please continue by supporting the Dakota County Parks Plan. Karl Hochsprung Dear Office of Planning, South St. Paul Any natural area is especially valuable to me. My wife and I enjoy the Kaposia landing area since it's 6/30/20 close to our home but Lebanon hills is an incredible place to disconnect from the hectic world and reconnect with nature and I'd like to see more areas like that across the county. As more and more research is done we find out how incredibly valuable for our health it is to be in nature. Not only that but the more interconnected natural areas we can provide the more biodiversity we create to preserve all life for animals, birds, pollinators, etc. These natural areas are invaluable and we should be doing everything we can to preserve and restore them. I feel like preservation and restoration of natural areas is incredibly important for the future of the planet. To have these spaces is to remind people there is more to life than the typical work day. The more we can be reminded of this the more we can put thought into reimagining our world to make Appendix 4, Public Review Comments, Page 96

Name Comments the earth a healthier place. We also have an incredible duty to preserve wildlife for future generations and we cannot shirk that duty. Thank you for your ongoing service to the public and allowing this opportunity for the public to share our thoughts. Katherine Clayton Thompson Ravine as it is a wonderful place to walk and connects to many other wonderful parks. South St. Paul Thank you. 4/28/20 Kay Erickson I just read through your draft plan and would be curious to know what changes occur to it after the Lakeville public comment period. 5/5/20 It is a wonderful plan, and I thank those who certainly worked hard to put it together. My concern is increased public access/recreation. I would like to see most of the conserved land kept completely free of human activity. Whatever access is allowed/increased should be carefully evaluated. Thank you for listening. Kayla Williams Parks, greenways natural areas in general are extremely important to me. They make me feel St. Paul hopeful, provide a place to explore, and nature adds beauty to wherever it is placed. Spending time 5/11/20 outside and in the natural areas that are provided should be a right for all, not a privilege. Our planet is increasingly sending us signals that our time is up, and we must act soon. Global warming is going to disproportionately impact certain groups of people, and it is important for those who can fight to do so. Adoption I support continued funding and investment. Thankof you for the opportunity to share my thoughts and for all you are doing in your service to the public. Leslie Pilgrim Greetings: I am writing in enthusiastic support of the draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota Mendota Heights County. This long-needed plan is crucial for the vibrancy, viability, future, and integrity of our local 4/17/20 ecosystem as well as for future generations who will live in this county. We are at a crucial inflection point in our county (as well as ourConsidertion world) to move forward on plans to restore, manage, maintain, and improve our aquatic andfor terrestrial open spaces/natural resources. I also support a small tax increase for this endeavor. Note: while much of the focus of this plan is in the central and south of this county, please do Draftnot overlook the northern urban ring of the county, too. Lisa Weiberg We enjoy all the county parks, but the one we have probably spent the most time at is Lebanon Hills. South St. Paul Our family has done many activities there including cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, hiking, 5/19/20 swimming andRevised nature classes. Parks and natural areas are very important to me because they help me not only physically with the exercise I can get, but also mentally and emotionally. During this time of closings and quarantines due to the pandemic, I have realized even more how important it is to my well-being to be able to get outside in the natural areas. I enjoy seeing a variety of birds along the Mississippi River. It is important to keep enough natural areas, especially wetlands, for the birds and other wildlife in the area. I support continued funding and investment in the parks and natural areas of our county. Thank you for your time in considering the land conservation in Dakota County. Mary Ellen Nichols I support the Land Conservation Plan. We need to protect and improve our land. Thank you Eagan 5/16/20 Lucy Kennedy Dear Office of Planning, West St. Paul My family and I visit the Dakota County parks on a regular basis. Our favorite has always been 6/28/20 Lebanon Hills, where we love to go swimming, canoeing, and crosscountry skiing. We are so grateful to have the ability to enjoy being in Nature and teaching our grandchildren about wildlife and

Appendix 4, Public Review Comments, Page 97

Name Comments stewardship of unspoiled, undeveloped land. I recently saw an article about the draft conservation plan and wanted to offer my thoughts. Such lands- unspoiled, undeveloped, and open to the public, are crucial for a high-quality environment, and are thus worthy of continued investment. Dakota County has to date done a good job of protecting natural areas, but we can't afford to overlook the reality that it's also one of the fastest-growing counties in the state. Development of housing and commercial buildings is gobbling up natural areas at an alarming rate.We need to act quickly to implement the Land Conservation Plan. The last time Dakota County voted to invest in land conservation was back in 2002 - almost 20 years ago. I believe that it was very successful, because by January 2020, it had protected an impressive 11,536 acres! The new Land Conservation Plan lists over 40,000 acres in townships across the county that are ecologically valuable and need protecting. This is sbout 4 times the acreage goal set out in 2002. I strongly recommend that the Land Conservation Plan be implemented in order to protect the entirety of this acreage as quickly as possible. Protecting these identifed lands now, before they are lost to development, would help to preserve the water resources in our county, as well as wildlife habitat and beautiful, untouched natural areas that are so important to our quality of life. I believe that the Land Conservation Plan will help assure that Dakota County will continue to be the desirable place it is now for living and raising our children.Adoption Again, I strongly encourage you to implement the Land Conservation Plan. Thank you!of Mary Weber We love visiting Lebanon Hills in every season! It has vast and varied trails for hiking. We love to Mendota Heights meet our son and his family there. We have had so many adventures and made wonderful memories 5/26/20 there. We love cross country skiing and snow shoeing on the well groomed trails. It’s just a beautiful beautiful area. Many years ago, when we first moved here, we discovered Holland Lake. Our family spent countless hours floating aroundConsidertion on that lake, fishing, splashing around, making memories. 25 years later, it still comes to thefor forefront as the of best times. We value the natural world and are very aware of how important it is to our health and well being. We were drawn to liveDraft in this area because of access to its high quality and abundant wildlife areas. No matter what is going on in our individual lives, nature offers an antidote to stress and anxiety. There is solace and recreation and it is equally available to everyone. As housing Revisedand urban areas keep encroaching upon wild areas, it’s important to protect wilderness from development. We need access to wilderness because it feeds our souls. Being around its flora and fauna restores balance in our lives. Nature is an antidote to whatever ails our spirit. Dakota County parks are a priceless treasure. We applaud the foresight shown by the leadership, we support the resources given over to protect and expand natural areas, and we look forward to sustaining and enriching the great resources we have here. We happily support this plan with our voice and our tax dollars. It is worth every penny of taxpayer investment. Thank you for your dedication to this effort, for the hours spent in dry and at times boring meetings, reading reams of technical data, and standing up to those who want to downplay the value of parks and recreational areas. We really appreciate your service. Thank you for investing in the future. Michael Deeny I am glad to support more Dakota County parkland, but you need to stop over developing the Apple Valley parklands. The regional parks seem to be more of a gravy train for local construction than about 5/16/20 environmental protection. Michael Huber I've been a resident of Dakota County for 19 years, and I've worked within the county for 22. As I Eagan move toward retirement I now live within .1 miles of the entrance to Lebanon Hills Park, and my wife

Appendix 4, Public Review Comments, Page 98

Name Comments 5/9/20 and I plan to stay here as long as we can because we so treasure the park and other natural resources within Eagan and the county as-a-whole (specifically, Miesville Ravine, and Whitetail Woods ... but there are other treasures in the Mississippi valley that we enjoy visiting). Preservation of our natural resources (water, wetlands, woodlands, etc.), and the thoughtful designation of strategically located future natural areas will ensure the appeal of Dakota County as a destination and place of residence for people going forward. We wholeheartedly support the proposed Land Conservation Plan. Please make it happen. Patty Rutz I really love Spring Lake Park. Inver Grove Heights I am concerned we are over developing natural areas. Natural areas are disappearing and we need to 5/11/20 act quickly to implement the Land Conservation Plan. Paula O’Keefe Hello Al, Burnsville Thanks for re-sending the link to me. I read the plan and have included my comments below. I don't 5/22/20 have any concerns about the plan itself. It all sounds great, so I mostly just emphasized some aspects that jumped out at me that seemed vital. In general, this project sounds great and is very ambitious! Page 14, Goal #2 - Utilizing and encouraging agricultural practices is a very important component to improving water quality even though the survey ranked it last at 71%.

Page 17, Goal #5 A and B - I think this is very importantAdoption for the project's future! Get awareness and buy in from the citizens and that's half the battle forof success! Page 17, Goal #6 - Good to have recreation aspects and to encourage it because people will care more for an area that they can gain something from and experience. However, it's always important to keep that balance of recreation and conservation. Page 26 - I like the emphasis and the inclusion of groundwater protection in this project Considertion Page 29 - Good to see #4 - thefor invasive species section, esp. buckthorn. Management of these species is so critical. Page 33 - A 10-year planDraft and 2030 sounds so far away...but I know how fast it goes! Page 36, B. - Doing 1-3 pilot projects next year is a great idea. Page 37, C. - a typo: "example....that that" Revised Page 38 B. - The more partnerships the better, as long as one agency or entity is ultimately in charge to keep things moving and have authority for some decision making. Page 41- 50 - As I read this section, the costs seem overwhelming, but hopefully there will be enough support and opportunities for funding. The listings of possible sources looks very promising. Page 63 - Are there any answers or explanations as to why Dakota County residents use more groundwater per capita than any other metro county? I'm very curious about this. Is it because of agriculture? Specific industries? If so, then maybe include that as an explanation. If there are other reasons, then this is concerning...Some increased education definitely needs to done for our residents to conserve water. If we don't know why, then that has to be addressed also... Page 71 Chart - "38% Lack of information about what programs are available and appropriate" - this seems like a good place to start educating agricultural landowners and then maybe there would be more interest in these programs. Page 73 - I love the economics section! I was an Econ major along with Bio and Environmental Studies, so reading this section brought all that back. The economic value of environmental protection is not always highlighted or discussed, but it is so important.

Appendix 4, Public Review Comments, Page 99

Name Comments Page 74 - typo: last paragraph - "Comparative...in in" Page 75 - The biome chart is very interesting and helps make the case for the need to preserve wetlands. Thanks for sharing this draft plan. I enjoyed reading it and learning about the new initiatives. Good luck with all of it! I'm looking forward to hearing about and seeing the results of all of your hard work and efforts during the next 10 years! Phil Anderson I am a runner, so selfishly I love being able to run in green spaces. From a societal standpoint, having Burnsville green spaces to "escape to" from the busy urban environment allows us to "slow down and exhale" 5/11/20 from our daily lives. Green spaces are nature's mental health providers. Global warming makes caring for our green spaces all the more critical. Please continue the funding for our parks and natural areas. Thank you for taking the time to read this and know how important your actions on funding are to our societal health. Philip Vieth I visit Whitetail woods in the winter weekly at least because I love to X-country ski and love the Hastings options for skiing and snowshoeing. It keeps me active and provides a healthy pasttime. I also visit 5/11/20 Spring Lake park for hiking and skiing. These places have enough wild character that I can observe the natural world. I think everyone needs these areas to realize that it is the basis for life. Vegetation, water, wildlife, insects are all the foundation of our world and we need to appreciate andAdoption protect them for our health and the health of our surroundings, county, state, nation and ourof world. When I see trash in our rivers, on the landscape I realize we are not there yet as a society. When I see erosion from fields and sediment building in Spring Lake, I realize we are not there yet. We need the parks and wild places to provide us with a target to strive for more awareness by more people of the need to keep and improve our natural resources. Without wild places most of us have no way to measure the potential losses if weConsidertion don't do things right and make every decision based on preserving and improving on our natural world. We depend on the natural world for our lives. Parks and wild places are supremely importantfor to help us keep that in perspective.

increasing population Draftgrowth make the preservation of wild areas more important than ever. There are so many other concerns that many people are not aware of the importance of our natural world. Parks help people focus on the natural world and the importance of it to our well being.

I definitely feRevisedel that continued funding and investment for purchasing and preserving wild areas as being of the utmost importance. Rosemary Husbands I am so proud to be a resident of Dakota County. To have leaders that value our natural resources the Mendota Heights way this plan indicates is truly inspiring. 4/20/20 In many parts of my life, I worry, what will be left of the natural gifts we have been given for future generations. Here is a plan that attempts to answer that question and plan for its implementation. Please continue on the path to making this plan a reality and let me know how I can help. Russ Yttri Dear Office of Planning, St. Paul I ride the bike trail along the river and look forward to being able to ride all the way to Hastings from 5/26/20 St. Paul. Recently I have been visiting the prairie sights at Vermillion Highlands and love it. I love to be outside on foot or bicycle exploring the world around me and getting exercise. A big reason I chose to live in the metro is it's ready many bike trails and attention to our natural world. Corridors for human and other animal movement is important. Invasive species control is critical. I support advancing our Park system. I spend a lot of time volunteering in our natural areas.

Appendix 4, Public Review Comments, Page 100

Name Comments Thanks for recognizing how critical open space is and maintaining it. Also we have a severe shortage of public restrooms and waste containers. Litter is way too common and a human controlled problem. Sarah Norman Dear Office of Planning, Inver Grove Heights Pine Bend SNA in Inver Grove Heights, Spring Lake Regional Park in Hastings, Lebanon Hills, the 5/18/20 regional trail in Mendota Heights and Lilydale are important biodiversity stewards and provide critical habitat for resident and migrating species, especially species in peril like the monarch butterfly and certain species of woodpeckers with declining numbers. There are few undisturbed, quiet, serene areas left in the Twin Cities metro where one can take a walk and hear oneself think, and all four areas (Pine Bend, Lebanon Hills, Spring Lake Regional Park, the Mendota Heights/Lilydale paved trail) provide a rare degree of solitude. With the city parks in St. Paul and Minneapolis being dangerously overrun with people flouting hygiene and distancing recommendations, these natural areas and parks in Dakota County are especially important in helping with social distancing when folks venture outdoors right now. Natural areas, regional parks, county parks, and SNAs also encourage homeowners and apartment dwellers to become acquainted with native plant species which they may want to incorporate into their balcony plantings and home landscaping as alternatives to high-maintenance non-native flowers, annuals, and shrubs. As density increases in Dakota County, it is important to parcel out natural lands and parks while the opportunity still exists. With Dakota County having some of the lowest property taxes in the entire state, continued development in the county is inevitableAdoption and it is all the more important to parcel out appropriate acreage dedicated to native habitat forof people, plants, and animals. With so much local housing development in Dakota County being done in an unsustainable way that obliterates every remaining tree and blade of grass to create identical Levittowns devoid of native habitat, it can take years to repopulate even a portion of the pre-existing trees that were once in the neighborhood. Housing and commercial developers need to find efficient ways to both preserve and incorporate native habitat when they strip the land for more beige housing developments. 100+ year old oak trees were preserved on my streetConsidertion in Inver Grove Heights when the houses were built in the year 2000 - this type of thoughtfulfor and intelligent habitat preservation needs to happen more widely throughout Dakota County. Draft I support continued funding and investment in Dakota County parks and natural areas. Thank you for your continued thoughtful public service in these difficult and trying times. I appreciate the opportunity to provide input on the Dakota County parks system. Revised Susan Landberg Dear Dakota County Land Conservation Manager, Rosemount I support the full implementation of the Draft Land Conservation Plan and the focus on improving 4/24/20 and expanding parks, natural areas, and greenways. I have lived in Lakeville for 30 years, and have been very proud of how well Lakeville is run. In this time of global warming, I believe we all must do everything we can to support the planet and preserve nature. In this time of Covid 19, I believe we must do all we can to support people who are struggling with depression and the isolation of it. There is no better remedy than getting back to nature. Thank you for all your hard work on these objectives. Susan Light I am writing to voice my support of the Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County. Mendota Heights A compelling argument for adopting this Plan is made in the Executive Summary for Natural 5/24/20 Resources Conservation - only 3% of our county’s natural landscapes remain. The Land Conservation Plan Goals are important and achievable. Developing a City-County Conservation Collaborative is a good way to help the cities in Dakota County with goal setting and prioritizing. I live in Mendota Heights and volunteer with the city working on water quality, invasive species, community education and more. Small cities don’t have the resources and staff to pay attention to all that needs to be done.

Appendix 4, Public Review Comments, Page 101

Name Comments Goal # 4 is especially important to me. Biodiversity is restored and sustained. Working with cities in the county to establish wild life corridors is important. We know that managing habitat here and there doesn’t work if they are not connected. I support adding a 1.0 FTE Acquisition Specialist and 3.0 FTE Restoration Specialists. This is necessary because land protection must be accompanied by long term NR management. The operating principles on page 11 of the document are excellent. I am looking forward to seeing this plan adopted and appreciate the opportunity to share my comments of support. Tamara Will Dear Dakota County Board of Commissioners: Mendota Heights Thank you for your diligent and comprehensive work on the Land Conservation Plan. You have given 5/20/20 the topic the attention and respect it deserves. If only it could get the funding it deserves - that is my only concern as we do not have the luxury of an extended period of time. There are so many positives about this plan; therefore, I will highlight only a couple of my favorites. 1) Collaboration and shared resources - vital to get info to and help from as many as possible to create change - solutions not so daunting when there is a roadmap and help. 2) Love Goal 4, strategy C, tactic 2: “Partner with transportation and utilities to improve pollinator habitat within the right-of-way and corridors.” Turf grass is harmful to the environment in so many ways and has a significant impact that is tooAdoption often overlooked. Think about how many lawn mowers, weed whackers, and leaf blowersof you hear every day of the week. (see item 3 below) 3) Reading through the plan, there are a few things I would like to mention: a) Can the items covered in this plan be made mandatory at the city/township level - to include in their comprehensiveConsidertion plans? b) Agriculture: for i) Would like to see more attention given to crops/sustainable farming - growing crops that can Draftbe consumed locally (addressing food scarcity issues) and promoting personal vegetable gardening. ii) Goal 2 description (p 14) states, “To improve water quality in these areas, it will be Revisedimportant to work with willing landowners to improve agricultural management practices, potentially convert row crop agricultural lands to less impactful crops, or even restore natural areas.” I didn't see this addressed in the strategies and tactics portion. c) Replace turfgrass with native plants - checks all the boxes: water quality and supply, reduce GHGs, ecology, biodiversity, enhanced recreation, and addresses public concerns. i) It would be great to mandate that native plants rather than turfgrass be planted after construction projects on roadways, government buildings, and public lands (unless it is absolutely necessary for sports or other uses). And to have a phase-in plan for the remaining land and retire gas-powered equipment in favor of electric. ii) Labor and money saved from equipment purchase and maintenance, gas, and chemicals can be diverted to replacing with natives. Government serves as an example for residents and when natives are seen in our communities they become the new normal. – iii) Lawns are extremely costly in dollars spent, consequences of fertilizers and pesticides, watering, mowing. -- Some lawn-care facts and estimates*:

Appendix 4, Public Review Comments, Page 102

Name Comments (1) Standard grass lawns require more equipment, labor, fuel and use more agricultural toxins than industrial farming, therefore making them the largest agricultural sector in the US. (2) Use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer - nitrogen not used by plants is converted into nitrous oxide, a GHG 300 times more potent than CO2, leading to an estimated total equivalent of about 25 million tons of CO2 each year in the US (i.e. a 2.47-acre plot of lawn produces GHG equivalent to the amount produced by a flight more than halfway around the world). - damage soil by causing the loss of soil carbon and organic nitrogen leading to erosion and runoff. (3) Manufacturing of synthetic fertilizers - for every ton of fertilizers manufactured, two tons of carbon dioxide are produced. (4) Lawn chemicals tracked into our homes are dangerous to human health. (5) Water: A large amount of energy is used in purifying, transporting, and irrigating with water which is provided by local governments. Thus, our lawns are subsidized by the government. Much of that water is wasted as studies have found that twice as much water as lawns need is used on lawns. Most municipalities use 30 to 60% of their water on lawns. (6) The total estimation of GHG from lawn care, which includes fertilizer and pesticide production, watering, mowing, leafAdoption blowing and other lawn management practices, was found to be four times greaterof than the amount of carbon stored by grass. In other words, our lawns produce more CO2 than they absorb. (7) CO2 released in mowing: 16 billion to 41 billion pounds of CO2 every year - hour- for-hour, gasoline powered lawn mowers produce 11 times as much pollution as a new car. Considertion (8) Refilling lawnmowers spills 17 million gallons of gas annually (Exxon Valdez spilled 11 million gallons).for

(9) YardDraft waste makes up 20 to 50% of US landfills and produces methane, a GHG 21 times more potent than CO2. (10) Time-consuming and noise polluting - 2008 Consumer Reports study found that Revised58% of those polled do not enjoy mowing their lawns. * https://www.onlynaturalenergy.com/grass-lawns-are-an-ecological-catastrophe/ Very well done plan. I look forward to its implementation Thomas Sutton Dear Commissioners, Lilydale I am writing to express my support for a vigorous and active Land Conservation Plan for our County. I 5/10/20 am on the Lilydale Planning Commission, am the LMRWMO commissioner for Lilydale, am an MPCA lake monitor, and a member of the Friends of the Mississippi River. Water quality and conservation issues are very important to me and all of us. Tina Folch, Hello - City of Hastings I’ve reviewed the Dakota County Land Conservation Plan and write today to express my solid Councilmember support. We need to do more to protect natural resources, water, wildlife and open space as our 5/20/20 county continues to grow. As the Land Conservation Program has been a great success and I support full implementation of the draft updated plan, I strongly encourage you to find ways to fully fund this plan. The public supports strong investment in natural resources and parks that bring so many important benefits to our communities.

Appendix 4, Public Review Comments, Page 103

Name Comments Trilva Melbo I am writing to encourage your support for the land conservation plan. It is critical to endorse this Hampton plan to preserve our natural areas in Dakota County. Most residents have moved here with the hope 5/13/20 of living in a more natural area. If we wanted asphalt, we’d have moved to Minneapolis. Natural areas add unmeasurable benefits to our lives and health. With the current pandemic we realize how important for our mental and physical health to get outside and enjoy nature. With the increase in people visiting parks and other areas, the need for these areas is clearly evident. From hiking to dog walking to observing birds, flowers and animals to hunting, there is a plethora of ways to enjoy the outdoors. There certainly is something for everyone. With the efforts made to reclaim natural areas by the county and state, I see private land owners having more incentive to reclaim their own areas as well. There is great work being done by conservation groups to learn how best to combat invasive species and make our natural areas thrive. We need to save our natural areas so our descendants can appreciate and benefit from them as well. Once lost, they can never be regained. Please do your part to support our quality of life in Dakota County. Thank you for reading this appeal. Vicki O’Day Dear Liz, Dakota County Land Planning Commission, and Environmental Resources Team, et all, Burnsville Thank you for assembling a comprehensive conservation plan to care for the lands of our amazing 5/20/20 county! Adoption In these challenging times of COVID19 this draft planof creates a vision of necessity for the future of Dakota County. I am grateful for your thoughtful leadership and political will to fund and implement it in the coming years. I strongly support this plan as it rescues our beautiful home lands, agriculture, wildlife, and natural areas from further damage, degradation, and disappearance! As responsible stewards our land and water for future generations it is our civic duty to value land and water conservation as a TOP Considertionpriority. The vision and goals laid out in the plan must be implemented to live into creating a future where Dakota County is a premier place to live and work. for Thank you for all you do to partner in care for the lands and waters of Dakota County. Draft Walt Popp As a former biologist with the Minnesota DNR and a Dakota County resident, I would like to Hastings commend the County on what is an excellent and forward-thinking plan that will protect and 5/25/20 enhance the health and future of the County’s diverse natural resources. As our population increases inRevised the future it is vital to both restore and sustain the biodiversity our parklands and the quality of our surface and groundwater resources. Far too many of our native ecological communities have been impaired or destroyed by development. I applaud the County’s endeavors to work with private landowners to provide wise stewardship of remaining natural areas on non- public land and to partner with other private and governmental entities to leverage their resources. Having worked at a governmental agency for 31 years, I have seen and participated in a number of plans that were never implemented, but rather gathered dust on a shelf. After all of the time- consuming detail and thoughtful planning that went into this effort, it would be a shame and waste of resources if that were to be the fate of this plan. However, if the County follows through in implementing this conservation plan, it will greatly help stem the loss of our native forests, grasslands and wetlands, advance the conservation of our water resources, and provide a sustainable natural environment with vital ecosystem services for future generations.

Appendix 4, Public Review Comments, Page 104

Conservation Minnesota Letter The following 107 people signed the support letter developed by Conservation Minnesota, with four adding their own comments.

Dear Dakota County Land Conservation Manager, I support the full implementation of the Draft Land Conservation Plan and the focus on improving and expanding parks, natural areas, and greenways. The current plan will benefit every corner of the county and some of my most cherished places like the Cannon, Mississippi, and Minnesota Rivers, and Lebanon Hills, Whitetail Woods, Sand Coulee, and Chimney Rock.

Aaron Mainz, Hastings, 4/25/20 Karl Hochsprung, South St. Paul, 5/16/20 Agatha Smolecki, Eagan, 4/29/20 Kathryn Granados, South St. Paul, 5/16/20 Allen Lajiness, Farmington, 5/16/20 Kathryn Mosher, Eagan, 5/25/20 Amy Goerwitz, Northfield, 4/26/20 Kay Erickson, Lakeville, 4/30/20 Barb Mager, West St. Paul, 4/26/20 Kelley Erickson, Apple Valley, 4/25/20 Barb Zeches, Eagan, 5/16/20 Kevin Smith, Hastings, 4/25/20 Barbara Edson, Rosemount, 4/25/20 Laine Crump, Hastings, 4/28/20 Barbara Neal, Farmington, 5/16/20 Lisa Baldwin, Lakeville, 5/16/20 Barbara Olson, Eagan, 4/25/20 Lori Nagel, Prior Lake, 4/25/20 Brooke Asleson, Inver Grove Heights, 4/26/20 Marcia Bailey, South St. Paul, 5/8/20 Cathleen Harris, Eagan, 5/16/20 Mark Sanstead, Hastings, 4/30/20 Cathy Johnson, West St. Paul, 5/16/20 Martha Keil, Farmington, 5/7/20 Cecelia Fogarty, Rosemount, 5/16/20 Mary Johanns,Adoption Eagan, 4/28/20 Charlotte Svobodny, Inver Grove Heights, 5/16/20 Maryof Loven, Northfield, 5/16/20 Cheryl Downey, Burnsville, 5/1/20 Matthew Smith, Burnsville, 5/16/20 Christa Ragatz, Burnsville, 4/25/20 Megan Braun, Burnsville, 5/7/20 Christine Nelson, Apple Valley, 4/25/20 Michael Gofman, Rosemount, 4/30/20 Cole Williams, Cottage Grove, 4/28/20 Michael Oberle, Eagan, 5/17/20 Daniel Dummer, South St. Paul, 5/17/20 ConsidertionMike Farrell, Burnsville, 4/29/20 Darnell Barsness, Hastings, 4/25/20 Mike Foreman, Lakeville, 5/16/20 for Deborah Nelson, Lakeville, 4/25/20 Mike Fricke, Burnsville, 4/28/20 Denise Thomas, St. Paul, 4/25/20 Mike Slawin, Inver Grove Heights, 5/11/20 Dorothy Hammer, Northfield, 5/16/20 Draft Myrna Docherty, Apple Valley, 5/16/20 Douglas Moran, Rosemount, 4/25/20 Nancy Burns, Apple Valley, 4/29/20 Elsie Hafen, Lakeville, 4/28/20 Nora Ramirez-Pena, Eagan, 4/26/20 Emma Banks, Apple Valley, 4/25/20Revised Patricia Leaf, Hastings, 4/29/20 Emmett Horwath, West St. Paul, 5/7/20 Patricia Stevesand, Burnsville, 5/16/20 Franklin Nelson, St. Paul, 4/26/20 Patty Brown-Jaros, Eagan, 6/19/20 Gary Seibert, Hastings, 4/29/20 Peggy Roeske, White Bear Lake, 4/25/20 Greg Kruse, Burnsville, 5/16/20 Ray Kennedy, Hastings, 4/25/20 Hayden Clark, Inver Grove Heights, 4/25/20 Rebecca Lystig, Eagan, 4/25/20 Iris Condon, Eagan, 5/16/20 Renee Portillo, Burnsville, 5/18/20 James Kotz, Rosemount, 4/29/20 Robert Bryant, Eagan, 4/27/20 Jeanette Fordyce, West St. Paul, 5/16/20 Robert Wellemeyer, Hastings, 4/25/20 Jennifer Montano, Rosemount, 4/29/20 Roger Everhart, Apple Valley, 5/21/20 Jerry Nelson, Hastings, 4/27/20 Roxanne Flett, Eagan, 5/16/20 Jjohn Boubel, Burnsville, 5/17/20 Sally Nichols, Apple Valley, 4/30/20 Jodi Taylor, Cannon Falls, 5/9/20 Sally Smith, Eagan, 4/29/20 John Enblom, Hastings, 4/26/20 Sara Brice, Northfield, 5/16/20 John Fleming, Lakeville, 4/25/20 Shannon Darsow, Rosemount, 4/30/20 John Winslow, South St. Paul, 5/16/20 Shannon O’Connor, Farmington, 4/26/20 Jonathan Wilmshurst, Rosemount, 4/25/20 Sharon Bassett, Apple Valley, 4/25/20 Judith Urban, Eagan, 5/14/20 Shelley O’Neill, Apple Valley, 4/25/20 Julie Bresin, Eagan, 4/25/20 Stacy Camp, Rosemount, 4/27/20

Appendix 4, Public Review Comments, Page 105

Stacy Miller, Eagan, 4/25/20 Sue Kirchberg, Northfield, 5/3/20 Sue LeGros, Burnsville, 4/25/20 Sundae Morse, Northfield, 5/16/20 Susan Estill, Burnsville, 4/30/20 Susan Wehrenberg, Apple Valley, 4/26/20 Suzanne Hansen, South St. Paul, 5/16/20 T Mo, Inver Grove Heights, 4/26/20 Terri Tilotta, Lakeville, 5/16/20 Thomas Bullington, Hastings, 4/28/20 Tracy Morics, Eagan, 5/16/20 Val Jackson, Eagan, 5/19/20 Valerie Eastland, Apple Valley, 4/26/20 Virginia Knapp, Inver Grove Heights, 4/25/20 William Hodapp, Eagan, 4/25/20

Adoption of

Considertion for

Draft

Revised

Appendix 4, Public Review Comments, Page 106

Signer’s Name Comments Added to Letter Brenda Mickens In these times, these are more needed and used than ever before! Mendota Heights 5/16/20

Bill Middlecamp The unit of survival is the organism AND its environment. The natural world Apple Valley supports all life, and we spoil it at our peril. I grew up exploring Kaposia Park in 5/1/20 So. St. Paul, and developed a sense of awe and love for the natural environment. I want to see more restoration of the natural environment. Douglas Marsh Please take care of our wild lands and waters, which is always a challenge in our Eagan urban environment. 4/28/20 Ryan Ronchak I support all these conservation efforts and have been so impressed by Eagan’s Eagan park system!! Thank you for choosing to no longer use sprays on weeds in key 5/26/20 wildlife areas and switch to natural gentler methods. Please consider water catchment areas to catch excess runoff fertilizers with the use of plants such as cattails & grasses which continues to be a problem for our lakes. Increased rain garden areas are also so helpful with these things and help me. Please consider the possibility of implementingAdoption some food forest areas as a demonstration and place for communityof interaction with the abundance of healthy food that can be generated in a small space. Please support the profligate of diverse species of beautiful plants we have available in our local ecosystems & growth region. Feel free to call anytime. I study Permaculture, Horticulture and Conservation. THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR EFFORTS IN CREATINGConsidertion A HEALTHY BIOREGION for

Draft

Revised

Appendix 4, Public Review Comments, Page 107

Friends of the Mississippi River (FMR) Letter The following 52 individuals signed the FMR support letter, with 32 adding their own comments.

Dear Office of Planning, I saw an article about the draft conservation plan and wanted to weigh in. Parks, greenways and natural areas are important to me and worthy of continued investment. Dakota County has done a good job of protecting natural areas, but it's also one of the fastest-growing counties in the state. Natural areas are disappearing, and we need to act quickly to support and implement the Land Conservation Plan. The last time Dakota County voted to invest in land conservation was in 2002. The goal was to protect 5,000- 10,000 acres – and by January 2020, an impressive 11,536 acres were protected! It's time to build on that success. The new Land Conservation Plan identifies over 40,000 acres in townships across the county that are ecologically valuable and would benefit from protection. Finding ways to protect them now would yield dividends for years, helping to protect Dakota County's water resources, wildlife habitat and quality of life. Thank you!

Amanda Squires, Farmington, 6/13/20 Joey Pederson, Burnsville, 5/26/20 and 6/16/20 Ann Marie Sunderland, Apple Valley, 5/18/20 Katy Bauer, Eagan, 6/29/20 Carolyn Sanders, Burnsville, 5/21/20 Mary Feterl, Eagan, 6/29/20 CJ Bahan, Inver Grove Heights, 5/19/20 MaryJo Wiatrak, Minneapolis, 6/23/20 Debbie Nelson, Lakeville, 4/18/20 and 6/18/20 Michael Barrett, Minneapolis, 6/18/20 Denise Wilkens, Inver Grove Heights, 5/17/20 Nicki Weber, Farmington, 5/18/20 Eoghan O’Neill, St. Paul, 5/26/20 Scott Rockvam, Rosemount, 6/25/20 Heather Klein, Minneapolis, 6/18/20 ShirleyAdoption Bauer, Inver Grove Heights, 6/20/20 Iris Condon, Eagan, 5/16/20 Tameraof Miller, Hastings, 6/26/20 Jeanne Ronayne, St. Paul, 6/18/20 Tyler Swenson, South St. Paul, 6/15/20

Signer’s Name Comments Added to Letter Alex Reich I’m emailing you today because as a local Twin Cities resident who loves our Minneapolis natural spaces, I’d likeConsidertion to weigh in on the draft conservation plan. 6/24/20 for Barbara Andersen I often visit parks and woodlands and rivers in Dakota County with my friend, John Crystal MasengarbDraft who lives in West St. Paul. I am a Minnesota Master Naturalist and I 6/18/20 have documented species as we visit natural sites using iNaturalist app on the iPhone.

Brad Snyder RevisedAs a Science Teacher/Environmental Educator, Science/STEM Professional, and an Maple Grove Environmental/Biodiversity/Natural World Advocate, I wholeheartedly support 6/23/20 the development, restoring and conserving of parks, greenways and natural areas!! They are definitely important to me and worthy of continued investment!! Candace Hard I have volunteered with Friends of the Mississippi for several years. Keeping our Farmington County healthy is important to me. 4/19/20 Catherine Brown I am a recent transplant to Eagan , four years ago, and my family has deeply Eagan appreciated the wild places of Dakota County. 5/17/20 Cathleen Marquardt I have been participating in volunteer restoration work in the Vermillion River Eagan watershed and Lebanon Hills Park and want you to know how vitally important it 6/18/20 is to protect natural areas. Preservation of more public land for future generations is a top priority for me. Please continue this vital investment for your children to enjoy! Dakota County can be proud of this work to date and can continue to be a leader in land conservation.

Appendix 4, Public Review Comments, Page 108

Signer’s Name Comments Added to Letter Chris Johanns I regularly read the Friends of the Mississippi River newsletter and they recently Minneapolis posted some info about protecting natural areas in Dakota County and i wanted 6/18/20 to weigh in. Connie Thiewes Personally, life and my family’s well-being depend of the park systems that Apple Valley flourish in our community. YES!! Do continue to care and support our natural 5/23/20 resources, parks and habitat for everyone’s benefit! Eileen Darnell I saw an article about the draft conservation plan and wanted to weigh in, as I live Burnsville in Dakota County and spend a lot of time outdoors with my dogs. 6/28/20 Emilee Martell Although I am a Wisconsin resident, I frequently come to Dakota County for Somerset, WI recreation purposes and would love it if there were more green spaces there to 6/18/20 explore. Heidi Wojahn Even though I don't live in Dakota County, I still use and enjoy Dakota County Prior Lake parks. 6/28/20 Jean Abbott I am a long-time resident of Dakota County and value our natural areas, whether Lakeville parks, greenways, or other outdoors space. You can find us outdoors year-round, 5/17/20 enjoying the many natural areas our area offers. These are reasons we chose, and continue to choose, to live here. Adoption of Joseph Boyle As a concerned citizen, I found out today that Dakota County plans to protect Minneapolis more natural areas. It makes me proud to have forward thinking leaders. 6/22/20 Julia Bohnen In a handful of years down the road, when the county finds itself built up, citizens Bloomington from around the metro area will be grateful for the foresight of county leaders to 5/21/20 preserve land beforeConsidertion it was paved or built over. for Karen Lunde Hi, I live in Linden Hills in Minneapolis. To get out of the house, I walk around Lake Minneapolis Harriet. That's great that you plan to preserve some natural area! The little 6/22/20 animals canDraft live there. Maybe I can even hike through it! Karla McKenzie I saw an article about the draft conservation plan and wanted to weigh in. Our Apple Valley parks are a treasure. The tamaracks absolutely glow golden in the fall. The lakes 7/2/20 Revisedprovide recreation, fishing, swimming, etc. I have been volunteering a lot with Dakota County Parks in helping restore plant-life to pre-settlement conditions. It's a lot of work, but a labor of love. Laura Zanmiller Living in a first ring suburb, it is important to be able to get to nature quickly. West St. Paul Natural areas are special places for many people-helps to deal with stress, relax, 6/22/20 and excites curiosity. Lindsay Egge Greetings, Lakeville I am a proud Dakota County and Lakeville, MN resident. I love all the outdoor 6/24/20 space in this county that I have to choose from every day. As the population continues to grow, it is so important to protect natural areas. Lois Swanson I strongly support this plan. South St. Paul 6/19/20 Marilynn Torkelson Please protect the health of our soil, air, water and wildlife by protecting the Eden Prairie ecosystems that sustain us! 6/20/20

Appendix 4, Public Review Comments, Page 109

Signer’s Name Comments Added to Letter Maya Vellicolungara Minnesota's natural areas are the best thing about the state! Places like the Eagan boundary waters make it even more special. 5/26/20 Patricia Huberty I am deeply concerned about conservation and have been volunteering for many Mendota Heights years in restoration projects in the county. We have done a good job in the past 4/22/20 but can and should be doing more. As we continue through this time of the virus, our parks and open land are being used even more than before. I feel they are one of the best ways to spend our tax dollars. Patty Combs I love the Dakota County Parks and use them often. Minneapolis 7/1/20 Rae Phillips It is important that you hear people’s thoughts. Lakeville 6/26/20 Robert Kiner My name is Bob Kiner. I'm a resident in Eagan. I am an outdoor enthusiast and I Eagan am proud to be a Dakota County resident. You have done a super job of 4/29/20 establishing and maintaining greenways and parks in Dakota County. I hope you support the Land Conservation Plan. Sean Esslinger My name is Sean Esslinger and I am a 24-year old male. I want to see the Eagan conservation of this great state's wildlifeAdoption continue to thrive throughout. What 5/16/20 difference does it really make to youof where funding goes to??? It doesn't affect your family, life, job, retirement, at all. It would be a good idea to put more money towards the conservation efforts. I am concerned about the future of this plan and want my children to experience Minnesota in full one day.

Shirley Bauer I feel this is important!Considertion Inver Grove Heights 5/16/20 for Stacy Enzmann I saw an article about the draft conservation plan and wanted to share my Minneapolis thoughts.Draft Please grant me some of your valuable time. 6/18/20 Parks, greenways and natural areas are important to me, and are worthy of continued investment. As a Minnesotan, I can assuredly say that one of our state's Revisedbest aspects are the wild spaces that everyone can access. Our dedication to natural areas make this a state I am proud to live in, so please continue this mindset. Susan Simon I have lived in Dakota county for 15 years, being initially drawn in by the parks and West St. Paul natural spaces. I’ve also seen the demolition of some areas for development, 5/16/20 leaving large stark “lawnscape” where we had valuable, much needed breathing room. I feel strongly that our natural, wild spaces will create stronger, healthier communities. Quantity is important in this case. The more, the better! I will support any movement to keep up the good work! Tom White I have lived in Dakota County for over 30 years. Lakeville 6/24/20 Tom Wilkens My wife and I took part in the creation of the Farmland and Natural Area Plan in Inver Grove Heights 2000, 2001. Attended and spoke at a County Commissioners hearing on the Plan 4/18/20

Appendix 4, Public Review Comments, Page 110

Signer’s Name Comments Added to Letter and referendum, September 11, 2001. Later on worked informational tables at different events, lobbying citizens for its passage. Virginia Windschitl, I enjoy hiking in Dakota County parks seeing the wildlife and native flora. Farmington 5/17/20

Adoption of

Considertion for

Draft

Revised

Appendix 4, Public Review Comments, Page 111

B. AGENCY AND ORGANIZATION COMMENTS Comment letters were received from seven agencies and organizations during the public review period.

Chris Jenkins, City of Hastings Parks Director 4/16/20 Al – Thanks for the opportunity to review the draft plan. Certainly the City of Hastings would provide support for the plan and for future collaborative projects. If there is anything specific you are looking for with regard to support, please let me know. I look forward to seeing this plan implemented and the projects that will be included! There is a lot of work out there, this is a great plan to manage that work! Thanks.

The Empire Town Board is opposed to adoptionDraft of the plan, with the CFAs located as shown in Empire Township. IF these areas are placed in conservation easements, more than 47% of the land in the Township will be encumbered. This will have a detrimental impact on the Township’s ability to grow, and to the potential tax base. This will further impact our ability to provide a variety of services to our residents. We believe the goals and intent of the plan in this area can be accomplished through developmentRevised best practices, including stormwater management, and floodplain and wetland requirements. Terry Holmes, Empire Township Board Chair, 6/29/20 Dear Mr. Singer, The Dakota County Township Officers’ Association discussed the draft Land Conservation Plan on June 25, 2020. We also reviewed the additional information you provided in your email dated June 11, 2020. The DCTOA and the Empire Town Board continue to have serious concerns with this plan. In addition to the concerns expressed in our May 14, 2020 letter, additional concerns are summarized below. 1. Placing land that might otherwise be slated for development into conservation as shown on the proposed maps will create a scenario for leapfrog rather than orderly development. This is especially true in Empire Township. This type of development is inconsistent with Metropolitan Council policy and with the goals of our recently adopted 2040 comprehensive plans. 2. The plan does not have clearly stated goals for large portions of the land that may go into conservation in many of the townships. 3. The plan does not clearly identify the public benefit for putting this much rural land into conservation. Further, much of this land lacks public access so will not be of use to Dakota County residents.

Appendix 4, Public Review Comments, Page 112

4. The plan was developed with little, if any input from the Townships, which are most impacted by this plan. Outreach and discussion with the Townships would have provided a better understanding of the impacts on the rural Townships. 5. Land put into conservation will have long term impacts on the Townships. The plan must include a process for review and approval of placement of land into conservation, and how these impacts will be mitigated. Overall, out concern with the plan has not changed. If these areas identified as CFAs are placed in conservation easements, it will have a detrimental impact on the Township’s ability to grow, and to the potential tax base. This will further impact our ability to provide a variety of services to our residents. We continue to believe the goals and intent of the plan can be accomplished through development best practices, including stormwater management, and floodplain and wetland requirements. Joe Lynch, Administrator, City of Inver Grove Heights, 5/28/20 Thank you for allowing the City of Inver Grove heights to review and comments on the draft Land conservation Plan dated March 9, 2020. The City of Inver Grove Heights values a balance of developed and protected land and understands the importance of preserving open space. • We have reviewed the document on a staff level and have the following comments: • We request a GIS layer be created and provided to the city of the proposed Conservation Focus areas (CFAs) so we can determine more specifically the land proposed to be protected. It is likely that the City will not want some of the land in the proposed CFAs to be included because of its development potential. The City reserves the right to ask that the CFAs be modified based on more detailed review. Adoption • We request a GIS layer that shows the difference between land thatof may already have a conservation easement placed on it vs land that does not so it can be determined what is being added. • A conservation easement is shown on Marianna Ranch (Inver Grove Heights Park). A conservation easement over this park property cannot limit the city’s ability to develop the park for more active public park uses yet to be determined. • A conservation easement should not conflict withConsidertion Inver Grove Heights zoning/land use plans for and in the NW area and reserves the right to modify the CFA based on this review. for • Does the County propose to compensate the City for lost tax revenue for land placed in CFAs? • Do the CFAs conflict with future transportationDraft plans at a County level? The City will review GIS data provided to determine any conflict with City transportation planning and reserves the right to modify the CFAs based on this review. • The County proposes the programRevised will take millions of dollars to implement and suggests the County will invest 20- 25%. Given the demand on taxes and services the City would be challenged with investing resources into this program and suggests the County increase their investment. • The City requests a written response regarding the compensation for property(ies) lost to CFAs and the County’s responsibility for funding the program. Again, thanks for allowing the City to review the draft document and we appreciate the time and energy put into developing the draft. Angela Torres, Patrick Boylan, Metropolitan Council, May 26, 2020 Dear Mr. Singer: The Metropolitan Council received the Dakota County Land Conservation Plan (Plan) on April 10, 2020. The Plan is a shared vision for Dakota County, to be implemented with partners, to guide future land protection efforts, and to strengthen natural resource management on protected lands. Council staff review finds that the Plan is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and does not raise major issues of consistency with Council policies. The following comments are offered for your consideration.

Appendix 4, Public Review Comments, Page 113

Regional Parks and Trails (Colin Kelly, 651-602-1361) Dakota County references the regional parks and greenways in the County on multiple instances in the Plan, including in the sections on Conservation Focus Areas and funding. Generally, the Council does not have any specific concerns with regard to regional parks and trails; Staff applauds the work that Dakota County has done and continues to do with regard to natural resource protection and management. Council staff look forward to working with the County to implement the Plan. Stormwater & Natural Resources (Cameran J. Bailey, 651-602-1212) Council staff are pleased to highly commend the County on its progressive thinking in the development of this ambitious Plan and look forward to its implementation. Council staff encourage the County to seek opportunities to coordinate on projects at Council facilities applicable to the Plan as opportunities arise. This concludes the Council’s review of the Dakota County Land Conservation Plan. The Council will not take formal action on the Plan. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Patrick Boylan, Principal Reviewer, at 651-602-1438. Dan MacSwain, Natural Resources Coordinator, Washington County, May 28, 2020 1. Page 1-6: Consider shortening the Executive Summary to two pages. 2. Page 8: Consider adding or revising title to include “Progress on Protecting” to title 3, Farmland, Natural Areas and Land Conservation. 3. Page 14: A potential tactic to add under Goal #2 would be to identifyAdoption drainage tile networks through GIS to assist with restoring hydrology and identifying future Flowage Easements. Hereof is a great example of an effort to identify these areas in Wright County, Iowa. https://www.iowaview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Tutorial 3 TileMapping.pdf. 4. Page 16: Under Goal #3, Strategy B, consider adding a tactic on restoring natural processes. 5. Page 28: The text box on Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services was important to include. 6. Page 29: Under Natural Resource Management IssuesConsidertion and Opportunities, there is a great section on systemic changes that are contributing to the decline of nativefor species, ecosystems and water quality. Under 2, Removal of natural regulatory processes, grazing is mentioned, but only mentioned in background and under USFWS programs. Is this process something that the plan is going to try and restore? Currently, it is not discussed later in the plan. Draft 7. Page 49: The Flowage easement will be a great tool to help reduce the # of water quality impairments, and aid in downstream flood mitigation efforts. 8. Page 64: Related to the recommendationRevised on developing a City-County Conservation Collaborative. It was interesting to see that City Park Directors wanted assistance in managing natural areas. Did this recommendation originate from requests from the Cities? How many of the cities are supportive of this effort? Are they willing to contribute funds? Or is the County going to assist with management and stewardship efforts? Slightly more detail related to this collaborative may be helpful in understanding how it will function. Mark Zabel, Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization, 5/14/20 1. Page 2, Land Conservation in the County: This section speaks to the amount of land protected but says nothing about land management the County or landowners have performed to date and the direct benefits and outcomes derived from such efforts. If the plan is to focus on both protection and management, the management outcomes should also be listed. 2. Page 4, Restore Large Scale Wetlands and Assist in Implementing the New Dakota County Groundwater Plan: VRWJPO staff recommend the focus of this approach should be on restoring former wetlands and improving conditions of existing wetlands. Existing wetlands are already protected by laws that the Federal and State government implement

Appendix 4, Public Review Comments, Page 114

(Clean Water Act, Wetland Conservation Act), so spending money to protect existing wetlands that are already protected by existing laws would be better spent on protection and restoration of former wetlands or restoration of existing wetlands. 3. Page 5, Potential Outcomes and Estimated County Cost: The table provides reasonable estimates for protection and restoration costs, though they could be higher based on costs restoration work the VRWJPO has performed. The table assumes the County to provide approximately 5% of the cost of protection and 5% of the cost for restoration. The VRWJPO is not aware of funding sources that would pay 95% of protection or restoration costs, and fear the estimate is too low. We are of aware of some grant sources paying up to 90% of these costs, but other grant sources provide 50%-75% of the restoration cost. An estimate of the County contributing 10%-25% of the protection and restoration costs seems more reasonable. 4. Page 10, item 5.4: The 2040 Dakota County comprehensive Plan states that productive farmland and minerals (bedrock, sand, gravel aggregates) are considered a natural resource. However, in the context of this plan, these are potential sources of water and land degradation, contamination, or impairment and doesn’t seem to match the goals of this plan. While these may be identified as natural resources in the County’s Comprehensive Plan, sources of potential degradation should not be a preserved natural resource and it should be stated that this plan is not going to focus on protecting prime farmland or mining areas for the benefit of those systems continuing to operate as is. 5. Page 12. Restored Prairie, Miesville Ravine Park Reserve Picture. The caption doesn’t appear to match picture. The picture appears to be a soybean field, not a restored prairie. 6. Page 13, Goal 1, A: The VRWJPO disagrees that CFAs should be used as the framework for protecting and connecting natural areas and habitat. While these may indeed be areas of importance,Adoption this assumes that CFAs are already the highest priority lands for protection and restoration, which may notof be the case considering the goals of the plan and doesn’t provide for transparency on the process of prioritizing areas for projection and restoration. Rather than using CFAs as the framework, the VRWJPO suggests developing a new framework. The new framework would use stakeholder-developed criteria that would result in lands that achieve the various goals of the plan. These criteria would be applied to all potential lands within the County and land would be scored and ranked, and the resulting outcomes from the ranking would be a prioritized list of lands for protection and restoration. Considertion

for 7. Page 14, Goal 1, A, 8: We agree that tax modifications would be an incentive that would appeal to many landowners. It should be explained how the technical advisory group would help move forward the idea of tax modifications beyond activities that have been exploredDraft and performed to date. 8. Page 14, Goal 2: The VRWJPO would like more detail on how the Land Conservation Program will assist the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) with improving agricultural land management as the VRWJPO already has a well-establishedRevised funding and project partnership with the SWCD and policies or assistance provided by the Land Conservation Program could impact SWCD and VRWJPO program implementation. 9. Page 15, B, 2: The VRWJPO requests more detail on new cost share funding streams provided to the SWCD for BMPs. Please be specific on what these potential funding streams would be as some existing programs have requirements and funding streams that may conflict with the source of the new funding. As important as on-going maintenance is for ecological restoration, there is the same maintenance need for structural and ecological conservation projects implemented through the SWCD. Perhaps a funding stream to pay for landowner maintenance of the practices implemented through the SWCD should be considered (e.g. sediment cleanout of water and sediment control basins, native vegetation management, rain garden cleanouts, etc.). 10. Page 15 Goal 3: The last sentence of the last paragraph states: “Precedent research did not identify a County- affiliated entity for natural resource management of private lands.” Natural resource management through

Appendix 4, Public Review Comments, Page 115

conservation programs on private lands has traditionally been the role of SWCDs, often in partnership with state and federal agencies. 11. Page 16, A, 7: Please provide examples of relevant private funding entities that perform this type of work. Explain what the incentive is for a private entity and why they would have an interest in securing or disbursing private funds for natural resource work on other private lands. 12. Page 17 Goal 4, C: Pollinator habitat is good, but perhaps too narrow. Providing habitat that supports pollinators leverages creation of habitat that benefits native species in general if directed towards creation or enhancement of native landscapes. A pollinator focus may encourage importation of non-native species or varietals if not explicitly addressed. 13. Page 17, C. 2: From experience on projects associated with right-of-way, there are significant challenges in the knowledge of staff who maintain right-of way with regards to identification and management of native plants versus turf grass. We have found right-of-way areas that were seeded in native species and being mowed weekly or bi- weekly, which resulted in the death of the native plants and weeds taking over. We suggest incorporating some training opportunities into this list of tactics to increase the knowledge of those organizations performing right-of- way maintenance. We would also suggest working with right-of-way maintenance authorities on inventorying areas that require different kinds of maintenance and developing a maintenance plan for those areas. 14. Page 18, B, 1 & 2: The VRWJPO views public trails as an important resource for public use and recreation. However, staff have seen trails developed, specifically within greenways, that lack consideration or adequate funding for water quality and habitat improvement, do not consideration appropriate trail placement near sensitive resources, and only focus on the trail development and improvements. We suggest beingAdoption very clear that these items would only construct trails where it’s feasible and allowed within current regulations andof incorporates specific water quality and habitat improvements along the trail corridor. 15. Page 19, CFA Definition: The third paragraph indicates that for private lands already under permanent protection, this plan suggests greater outreach and collaboration with landowners on restoration, enhancement and long-term natural resource management. While the VRWJPO would like to see this happen, lands that are already protected have agreements established that dictate the expectationsConsidertion for those protected lands. Unless the County is willing to perform additional enhancement on these landsfor without any cost or contribution from the landowner, there is little to no incentive for a landowner to contribute voluntarily. 16. Page 22 CFAs: CFAs could be further refinedDraft using processes identified in the Ecological Classification System used by the Department of Interior nationally and by the Minnesota DNR to guide management of natural resources. Minnesota DNR has identified down through Land Type Associations (LTAs). Land Types and Land Type Phases below LTAs have been identified for specific purposes – Land Types in Chippewa National Forest and Land Type Phases for portions of that forest and Revisedin some State Parks. 17. Page 25 Marcott Lakes CFA: This profile describes the CFA, which illustrates what’s contained in the CFA. What this profile does not indicate are the highest priority areas for protection or restoration need within the CFA. Prioritization of areas within the CFAs is needed to focus resources on those most important within each CFA. 18. Page 26, 2, A: It’s unclear to the VRWJPO why significant aquifer recharge areas are not identified within the CFAs. The potential wetland restoration areas were included in the CFAs, but these recharge areas were not. While the recharge areas encompass a large area, the VRWJPO recommends these areas be included. Once included, prioritization of all CFAs can occur that uses stakeholder-developed criteria to identify the highest priority areas within CFAs for protection or restoration. 19. Page 27, B: The same comment mentioned above for the aquifer recharge areas should be applied for these other natural feature areas.

Appendix 4, Public Review Comments, Page 116

20. Page 28, D, 1. Third paragraph, second sentence: It appears this sentence is missing a word regarding the “measurable” economic benefit. If we were to guess, the word “is” would be inserted between “that” and “measurable.” 21. Page 29, 3: We recommend changing “drain tile” to “artificial drainage” to be a bit broader on types of drainage. We would also recommend changing the last sentence to state, “Water from streets and fields are capable of carrying various types of pollutants to lakes, streams, and wetlands. 22. Page 32, E: Why acquisition and restoration for regulatory buffers? (50’ and 16.5”) If considering stream buffers for natural resource protection, preservation, or restoration shouldn’t it be driven by underlying natural resource criteria such as soils, native vegetation, or wildlife. Acquisition and restoration of riparian buffers is appropriate as an action in and of itself without connection to a separate regulatory program. 23. Page 33, 1: The timeframes listed indicate a 2020 start. While not being completely familiar with the County Board’s budget, budgeting for a program before the plan is adopted is contrary to the Board’s normal planning and program implementation process. If a budget hasn’t yet been established for program implementation in 2020, we suggest shifting the timeframes to start in 2021, when and if the Board considers a budget that includes funding for this plan’s implementation. As mentioned in previous comments, the table is separating CFAs from wetland basins and groundwater recharge areas. The VRWJPO feels they should all be considered as one CFA with a prioritization strategy to identify those that are most important to protect and restore. 24. Page 34, Goal 3, B: There doesn’t appear to be a direct implementation activity with regards to restoration, enhancement, and maintenance of natural resources on public lands.Adoption We suggest something similar to item A, 3., where ongoing maintenance, management, and maintenance is aof tangible activity that can be accounted for. 25. Page 35, Goal 4, B. 2: We suggest adding in training for transportation and utilities’ staff to identify and properly manage native plant communities. 26. Page 35, Goal 4, B: Based on the tactics listed, right-of-way and smaller scale pollinator habitats would have tangible outcomes. We suggest adding large scale pollinatorConsidertion habitats so that pollinator enhancements within existing natural areas could also be something implemented for(e.g. increasing forb number and diversity within an existing native plant community). 27. Rather than just promoting SWCD’s ConservationDraft Landowner of the Year program, we suggest the County start a program of their own that recognizes landowners for their efforts toward items like pollinator habitat establishment/improvement, protection and restoration of wetlands, etc. 28. Page 36, 2: This method of Revisedprioritization assumes that landowners will still be submitting projects to the County for consideration of protection or enhancement. This model should be changed to a model where the evaluation and prioritization takes place across all CFAs, and the highest priority areas’ landowners are targeted for protection and implementation. 29. Page 36, 2, A: This section includes the statement: “CFAs with greater interest among landowners would move up in priority for convening the CFAs landscape conservation dialogues.” Shouldn’t the natural value of the resource be the primary consideration and drive the program prioritization over landowner interest? And shouldn’t there be more criteria to be considered beyond the size of the wetland as noted in the next paragraph in the document? 30. Page 36, 2, B: As mentioned in the previous comment, we suggest conducting outreach to the landowner’s who have the highest priority lands within CFAs as opposed to outreach to all landowners within CFAs. The bullets listed show additional consideration would be given to certain areas that have already been prioritized. We suggest the prioritization of CFAs to incorporate these additional consideration criteria so that the resulting ranking of prioritized projects already takes these benefits into account.

Appendix 4, Public Review Comments, Page 117

31. Page 37, C: If these areas outside of the existing CFA framework are important enough to be considered for protection or restoration, we suggest identifying these areas and incorporating them into the CFA framework and then prioritize CFA areas. 32. Page 37, D: Ninth bullet under Ecological identifies:” Reinstatement of hydrologic conditions”. This might be better described: “Mitigation of hydrologic changes to address habitat maintenance or improvement” 33. Page 38, B. 1: We think having a collaborative makes a lot of sense in getting work done. Keep in mind that groups often need an organization that takes the lead on many of the activities the collaborative plans and implements. We suggest specifying if Dakota County will be the lead organization or if it varies depending on the land in question. Regardless of who the lead organization is, it’s likely a leader will need to be identified for a collaborative to be successful. 34. Page 39, table: Why is there a division between the large group collaborative and project partnerships? 35. Page 42, Staffing: This section states that an additional 1.0 FTE will double the land protection capacity. It’s unclear to us how 4.0 FTE of existing staff are currently working on Land Conservation projects and an additional 1.0 FTE would double land protection capacity. We feel this section will need additional details to avoid scrutiny about the capacity of existing staff or the assumed capacity of an additional 1.0 FTE. The same can be said for an additional 3.0 FTE being able to quadruple the restoration work. 36. Page 47, Potential New County Funding Options: We realize the title of this section is trying to convey that funding for this program would need to be generated or “new,” but the title may lead the reader to believe these are revenue streams that haven’t been explored in the past. We suggest simply leaving the title as “Potential County Funding Options.” Adoption of 37. With regards to General Obligation Bonds and Capital Improvement Bonds, the revenue doesn’t appear to cover operations and maintenance, only capital costs. This should be specifically called out so that the reader knows that these types of bonds would also need some type of supplementary revenue to cover the costs of operations and maintenance. 38. Page 49, Agricultural Easement: The idea of protectingConsidertion a large tract of land with an agricultural easement seems unnecessary when the County is only interestedfor in the protection and restoration of the lands that provide ecological and recreational benefits. We suggest removing this option as the other types of easements listed can protect the specific areas of interest. Draft 39. Page 49, Buffer Easement: It appears the word “develop” should be “development.” 40. Page 50, Restoration Easement: It appears the primary upside to securing land in one of the easement types listed is the ability for the County orRevised its contractor to perform restoration, management, or maintenance at no cost to the landowner. However, most easements have restrictions on the ability of a landowner to use their land for their various wishes or needs. This particular type of easement appears to allow the County or its contractor to perform work without putting any perceived land restrictions or costs on the landowner. We’re unsure why this type of easement wouldn’t be used in most cases if it provides more freedom to a landowner regarding rights and restrictions on their property. 41. Page 50, Land Registry: This type of approach provides significant freedom to the landowner and wouldn’t cost nearly as much to implement compared to other protection measures. However, this approach doesn’t appear to establish restoration targets to be achieved, which seems contrary to the overall goals of the plan with regards to restoration. 42. Page 52 Property Tax Study Group: The table of example performance measures provided includes a measure for a property tax study group. Was this study group cited in the plan goals, strategies, or tactics? Brian Ross, The Great Plains Institute, May 28, 2020 The Great Plains Institute (GPI) is a 20-year old non-profit organization focused on transforming our energy systems to be beneficial to the economy and environment. GPI is a national leader in setting best practices and providing assistance to local government in the intersection of renewable energy development and land use regulation and programs. GPI has reviewed the draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County, and has identified a number of opportunities in the plan

Appendix 4, Public Review Comments, Page 118

where habitat-friendly solar energy development could leverage the County’s planned work in protecting natural resources, restoring eco-system services, and improving agricultural practices and economics. Minnesota is the national leader in developing habitat-friendly solar site designs that successfully co-locate eco-system restoration with solar energy development.25 The Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources (BWSR) administers the Minnesota Habitat Friendly Solar Program, which certifies solar developments that are designed and maintained to provide pollinator, songbird, and gamebird benefits.26 GPI is working with a national organizations, state agencies and local governments to further enhance local co-benefit opportunities by identifying siting and design standards that capture surface water, ground water, and agricultural diversification benefits that can be captured as part of solar development. Dakota County has already seen the rapidly growing development pressure associated with the burgeoning solar industry in MN. The County has over 60 community solar installations, almost 60 MW of solar capacity. The amount of solar deployment in MN is expected to increase four-fold over the next ten years, so the development pressure in the County’s rural areas will continue, adding to the housing and urban expansion pressure on the County’s natural systems, habitat, and watersheds. Solar Development for Conservation Co-Benefits Unlike most forms of development, solar development (particularly at the community scale) can be readily designed and sited to enhance or restore some eco-system functions. The critical point, however, is that purely market driven solar development will not achieve the Plan’s goals; a deliberate approach to guiding and designing solar development can not only help meet Plan goals, but accelerate opportunities and leverage funding and staff time to increase impact. Such solar development opportunities fit into the following Plan ownership scenarios:Adoption of 1) Publicly-owned conservation land within Preliminary CFAs. Solar development has limited opportunity to contribute to Plan goals in this scenario. Some individual opportunities may exist along the edge of such CFAs where solar development can provide an edge buffer to other forms of development. 2) Protected private lands within Preliminary CFAs. Similar to scenario 1, solar development has limited opportunity to contribute to Plan goals, and existing protectionsConsidertion will generally limit solar development from occurring. However, solar development is a potential tool in existing protected areas with limited or problematic funding or commitment to on-going maintenance (a necessary elementfor of conservation noted in the draft Plan). Both the lease provisions and the conditional use permit standards by the local government can stipulate management practices that meet natural resources goals. Draft 3) Non-protected private land with Preliminary CFAs. Appropriately sited and designed solar development has great potential in this scenario to leverage resources and accelerate protection and restoration efforts. The categories of protection or restoration, andRevised the siting priorities for solar in these areas are noted below: a. Removing all or most economic value from private lands for the purpose of eco-system protection of restoration can be a difficult and expensive proposition. Where solar development can be successfully co-located and managed consistent with the CFA conservation goal, solar development can provide an attractive revenue stream to the land owner, and ensure long-term protection of the site or project area. Solar development can also be used as a form of limited (conservation) development where a large area is permanently protected while a small area (10 acres) is developed under solar. b. CFA goals that can be compatible with solar include protection or restoration of grassland habitat and pollinator habitat. BWSR and DNR are learning from early habitat-friendly solar development to tailor the seed mixes and maintenance practices to maximize value for these habitat outcomes. Solar development that is designed

25 Center for Pollinators in Energy, https://fresh-energy.org/beeslovesolar/ 26 Minnesota Habitat Friendly Solar Program website, https://bwsr.state.mn.us/minnesota-habitat-friendly-solar- program

Appendix 4, Public Review Comments, Page 119

consistent with BWSR standards and designed to a specific goal are successfully restoring habitat or creating buffers to similar natural areas. c. Solar development can be designed as green infrastructure to mitigate surface water impairments or watersheds that are impacted by agricultural practices. GPI is currently working with national laboratories and stormwater regulators at the federal and state level to document the runoff co-efficients for solar development under specific soil conditions, topography, hydrologic regimes, and solar designs.27 Preliminary analysis shows that replacing agricultural uses in strategic areas with solar designed as green infrastructure can create water quality benefits.28 4) Non-protected private land outside Preliminary CFAs. Several categories of protection goals for land outside of Preliminary CFAs can be enhanced by planned and carefully designed solar development. The greatest opportunity is on parcels that meet the following protection categories and are currently in agricultural use: a. Creation of connected corridors for pollinators or some species of birds b. Conversion of cultivated lands in vulnerable or highly vulnerable DWSMAs or recharge areas. GPI is helping coordinate several projects that are assessing opportunities and conducting field tests to use solar development as groundwater protection in nitrate management areas. Particularly for higher value land in agricultural production, the cost of taking it out of production can be prohibitive, and some programmatic tools are of limited duration. Solar development provides an income stream to the land owner that is (currently) substantially higher than agricultural rents or returns on investment. A number of rural water suppliers are investigating how to leverage these returns to accelerate their programs to limit nitrate contamination for vulnerable recharge areas.

c. Solar as green infrastructure for surface water protection, as describedAdoption above. d. Providing a pathway for agricultural operators to improve managementof practices and convert marginal farmland to natural vegetation. Implementation The Plan describes a number of implementation priorities, partnerships, and funding options. Solar development as a plan strategy has clear viability to leverage County fundingConsidertion with private sector funding, to ensure long-term (25 years) management of the site particularly on private lands, and to meet Minnesota’s clean energy and GHG reduction goals as a co-benefit of protection and restoration. for However, using solar development as a strategy for meeting Plan goals is not an intuitive opportunity, particularly given Draft the perspective of many residents and decision-makers that solar development is an industrial land use, or at least is akin to grey infrastructure. And unless the solar development is deliberately sited and designed to function as green infrastructure or habitat for compatible species, the view of solar as a hardscape or infrastructure is a reasonable one. Dakota County can follow the leadRevised of a number of natural resource agencies and NGOs that are now acknowledging the opportunity to build solar as green infrastructure. BWSR and DNR29 are actively promoting these opportunities in guidance documents and programs. Organizations such as The Nature Conservancy are mapping out development and eco-system restoration opportunities for renewable energy.30 The Minnesota Rural Water Association is actively investigating solar as groundwater protection.

27 The Photo Voltaic Stormwater Management Research and Testing (PV-SMaRT) project is a Dept of Energy funded project managed by the National Renewable Energy Lab, with field test sites in five case study states across the nation, one of which is Minnesota. 28 Unpublished research by the University of Minnesota Energy Transition Lab (a partner on the PV-SMaRT project, stormwater modeling from multiple MN and WI sites comparing before and after stormwater impacts. 29 DNR Commercial Solar Siting Guidance, https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/ewr/commercial_solar_siting_guidance.pdf 30 https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/where-we-work/united-states/north-carolina/stories-in-north- carolina/making-solar-wildlife-friendly/, https://energynews.us/2020/05/18/southeast/conservation-group-plots- solar-potential-for-retired-appalachian-coal-mine-land/,

Appendix 4, Public Review Comments, Page 120

The Great Plains Institute is working with local governments and state agencies on the co-benefits approach to solar development, and would be able to offer some technical assistance to Dakota County to develop a programmatic approach to solar as green infrastructure. Funding for developing pilot initiatives for particular goals may be available, such as MN Department of Health innovation funding for drinking water protection.

Adoption of

Considertion for

Draft

Revised

Appendix 4, Public Review Comments, Page 121

Adoption of

Considertion for

Draft

Revised

Appendix 4, Public Review Comments, Page 122

APPENDIX 5. CAPITAL AND OPERATIONAL COST ANALYSIS This appendix provides more detailed analyses of costs for protection and restoration across four categories of land:

• Public conservation lands in preliminary CFAs • Protected private lands within preliminary CFAs • Non-protected private lands within preliminary CFAs • Additional lands outside of preliminary CFAs

A. COUNTY LAND PROTECTION: 2003-2019 Initial Protection Goal: 5,000 - 10,000 acres Completed, Non-Park/Greenway Projects: 137 (9.5 per year) Ongoing Non-Park/Greenway Projects: 17

Acres Protected: 11,536 (fee title/conservation easements)

County Funds: $20.6M (25%) Non-County Funds: $34.7M Landowner Donated Value: $26.3M Adoption $81.6M of Average cost per acre: $7,100

B. PRELIMINARY CONSERVATION FOCUS AREAS Protected Private Land Cover Public Total Percentage Private Land Land Floodplain - Natural vegetation 6,967 Considertion1,140 7,166 15,274 20 for Cultivated - Non-hydric 909 3,366 7,417 11,692 15 Draft Upland Forest/Woodland 3,975 367 6,367 10,771 14 Cultivated Wetlands 381 1,846 7,626 8,196 11 Grassland/Pasture Revised4,480 481 2,962 7,923 10 Floodplain - Cultivated 175 752 5,888 6,816 9 Open Water 2,345 140 5,936 8 Designated Wetlands 1,097 512 3,346 4,918 6 Artificial* 1,032 47 1,984 3,121 4 Transportation Right-of-Way 1,906 0 0 1,906 2 Designated 50- and 16.5-foot wide 65 21 354 452 1 Stream Buffers Totals 23,554 8,675 45,339 77,568 100

*Combination of vegetative and developed portions of floodplain, parks/trails, residential, commercial, and industrial properties.

Appendix 5, Capital and Operational Cost Analysis, Page 123

C. PUBLIC CONSERVATION LANDS IN PRELIMINARY CFAS County Other Acquisition Restoration Land Cover Acres Public Sub-Total Cost/Acre Cost/Acre Acres $1,000 Floodplain - Natural 444 6,523 $0 R: $1.0M (1,000 ac.) Cultivated - Non-hydric 0 909 $0 $2,000 R: $1.8M $4,000 Upland Forest/Woodland 2,215 1,760 $0 R: $12.8M (3,200 ac.) Cultivated Wetlands 0 381 $0 $3,000 R: $1.1M $1,000 Grassland 1,692 2,788 $0 R: $3.0M (3,000 ac.) Floodplain - Cultivated 0 176 $0 $2,000 R: $0.4M Open Water 344 2,001 $0 $0 $0 $1,500 Designated Wetlands 168 929 $0 R: $0.8M (500 ac.) $2,000 Artificial 369 662 $0 R: $2.1M Adoption (100 ac.) of $1,000 Transportation Right-of-Way 72 1,834 $0 R: $0.4M (200 ac.) Designated 50- and 16.5-foot 35 30 $0 $1,000 R: $0.1M wide Stream Buffers Totals 5,378 Considertion18,176 $0 $22.5M for Assumptions • Ten percent of floodplain is restorableDraft • Twenty percent of woodlands have already had some level of restoration • Thirty-three percent of grasslands have been restored • Fifty percent of designated wetlands will be restored Revised • Ten percent of artificial lands (turf) will be restored • Ten percent of public right-of-way will be restored • Eighty percent of public agencies willing to restore their land • Restoration funding ratio of 10% County, 80% State and 10% LGU/Agency • $0.4M of existing County funds

Estimated Potential Restoration Outcomes and Cost Acres Restored: 7,500 Additional County Cost: $22.5M x 80% x 10% minus $0.4M = $1.4M

Appendix 5, Capital and Operational Cost Analysis, Page 124

D. PROTECTED PRIVATE LANDS IN PRELIMINARY CFAS Protected “Acquisition” Restoration Land Cover Private Sub-Total Cost/Acre ** Cost/Acre Lands $1,000 Floodplain - Natural 1,140 $0 R: $0.1M (110 ac.) A: $16.8M Cultivated Land - Non-hydric 3,366 $5,000 $2,000 R: $6.7M Upland Forest/Woodland 367 $0 $4,000 R: $1.5M A: $11.1M Cultivated Wetlands 1,846 $6,000 $3,000 R: $5.5M A: $3.0M Floodplain - Cultivated 752 $4,000 $2,000 R: $1.5M A: $1.0M Grassland/Pasture 481 $2,000 $1,000 R: $0.5M Open Water 140 $0 $0 $0 Designated Wetlands 512 $0 $1,500 R: $0.8M Artificial 51 $0 $2,000 R: $0.1M Adoption Designated 50- and 16.5-foot 21 of$0 $1,000 R: $0.1M wide Stream Buffers A: $31.9M Sub-totals 8,675 R: $16.8M Total Cost $48.7M * Non-natural, vegetative portions of residential,Considertion commercial, and industrial lands ** Compensation for additional easement restrictionsfor

Assumptions Draft • Thirty percent of landowners willing to additionally protect and restore their land • Ten percent of floodplain is restorable • Funding ratio for additionalRevised protection: 25% County and 75% State • Restoration Funding ratio: 20% County, 70% State and 10% Landowner • $0.6M of existing County funds

Estimated Potential Land Protection Outcomes and Cost Acres: 2,600 Additional County Cost: $31.9M x 30% x 25% minus $0.3M = $2.1M

Estimated Potential Restoration Outcomes and Cost Acres: 2,600 Additional County Cost: $16.8M x 30% x 20% minus $0.3M = $0.7M

Appendix 5, Capital and Operational Cost Analysis, Page 125

E. NON-PROTECTED PRIVATE LAND IN PRELIMINARY CFAS Land Cover Non-Protected Additional Restoration Sub-Total Private Lands Protection Cost/Acre Cost/Acre*** $2,000 $1,000 A: $1.4M Floodplain - Natural 7,167 (720 ac.) (720 ac.) R: $0.7M A: $29.7M Cultivated Land - Non-hydric 7,417 $4,000 $2,000 R: $14.8M A: $19.1M Upland Forest/Woodland 6,370 $3,000 $4,000 R: $25.5M A: $35.8M Cultivated Wetlands 5,969 $6,000 $3,000 R: $17.9M A: $23.6M Floodplain – Cultivated 5,888 $4,000 $2,000 R: $11.8M A: $12.3M Grassland/Pasture 3,070 $4,000 $1,000 R: $3.0M Open Water 3,451 $0 $0 $0 A: $3.3M Designated Wetlands 3,308 $1,000 $1,500 R: $5.0M Adoption A: $7.0M Artificial 2,331 $3,000of $2,000 R: $4.7M Designated 50- and 16.5- A: $0.4M 367 $1,000 $1,000 foot wide Stream Buffers R: $0.4M A: $133M Sub-totals 45,339 Considertion R: $83.8M Total Cost for $216.8M *** Estimated average cost for easement or fee title acquisition Draft Assumptions • Twenty percent of landowners willing to protect their land • Ten percent of floodplain is restorable Revised • Sixty percent of newly protected land is initially restored • Acquisition funding ratio: 25% County and 75% State • Restoration funding ratio: 20% County, 70% State and 10% Landowner • $0.4M of existing County funds

Estimated Potential Acquisition Outcomes and Cost Acres: 3,500 Additional County Cost: $133M x 20% x 25% minus $0.2M = $6.5M

Estimated Potential Restoration Outcomes and Cost Acres: 2,100 Additional County Cost: $83.8M x 20% x 60% x 20% minus $0.2M = $3.2M

Appendix 5, Capital and Operational Cost Analysis, Page 126

F. NON-PROTECTED PRIVATE LAND OUTSIDE OF CFAS Acres Acquisition Restoration Sub-Total Cost/Acre*** Cost/Acre A: $7.2M Forest/Woodlands 1,800 $4,000 $4,000 R: $7.2M A: $3.2M Cultivated Wetlands 400 $8,000 $3,000 R: $1.2M Regional Greenway A: $4.0M 100 $40,000 $3,000 Corridors R: $0.3M A: $3.0M Other Locally Significant 100 $30,000 $3,000 R: $0.3M A: $17.4M Sub-total 2,400 R: $9M Total Cost $26.4M *** Estimated average cost for possible easement or fee title acquisition

Assumptions • Twenty percent of landowners willing to protect and restore their land • Eighty percent of newly protected land is restored Adoption • Acquisition funding ratio: 25% County, 75% State of • Restoration funding ratio: 20% County, 70% State and 10% Landowner

Estimated Potential Acquisition Outcomes and Cost Acres: 480 Additional County Cost: $17.4M x 20% x 25% = Considertion $0.9M

Estimated Potential Restoration Outcomes andfor Cost Acres: 400 Additional County Cost $9M x 20% x 80%Draft x 20% = $0.2M

G. TOTAL ESTIMATED COST Restoration of Public Land in RevisedCFAs: $22.5M Additional Protection and Restoration of Protected Private Lands in CFAs: $48.7M Protection and Restoration of Non-Protected Private Lands in CFAs: $216.8M Protection and Restoration of Non-Protected Private Lands outside of CFAs: $26.4M $314.4M H. TOTAL ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL COUNTY FUNDING REQUIRED Restoration of Public Land $1.4M Additional Protection and Restoration of Protected Private Lands in CFAs: $2.8M Protection and Restoration of Non-Protected Private Lands in CFAs: $9.7M Protection and Restoration of Non-Protected Private Lands outside of CFAs: $1.1M $15M

Appendix 5, Capital and Operational Cost Analysis, Page 127

I. OPERATIONAL FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS

• Typical acquisition projects require 18 to 24 months • Typical restoration projects require three or more years

The majority of past land protection projects consisted of large tracts of agricultural easements. This resulted in: • Lower average acreage per project • Lower average cost per acre and lower total cost per project • Less complexity and reliance on partners requiring less average time per project • Initially no natural resource restoration requirements

Based on past performance and going forward, anticipated land protection projects and associated restoration will likely result in: • Lower average number of acres per project • Higher average cost per project • Greater complexity and reliance on partners, including adjacent landowners, and required natural resource management will require more staff time per project and a longer duration

Estimated Potential Ten-Year Land Protection Outcomes: Adoption6,600 acres Estimated Potential Ten-Year Restoration Outcomes: of 12,600 acres

Current Staffing • Ten acquisition projects/year x 25 acres = 250 acres or an estimated 2,500 acres in ten years • Ten restoration projects/year x 40 acres = 400 acres or an estimated 4,000 acres in ten years. Considertion

Additional Staffing for • 1.0 FTE Acquisition Specialist could increase land protection from an estimated 2,500 acres in ten years to an estimated 5,000 acres in ten yearsDraft @$110K/year

• 2.0 FTE Restoration Specialists could increase restoration from an estimated 4,000 acres in ten years to an estimated 12,000 acresRevised in ten years @$230K/year

Appendix 5, Capital and Operational Cost Analysis, Page 128

Adoption of

Considertion for

Draft

Revised

Pine Bend Bluffs State Scientific and Natural Area, protected with assistance from Dakota County

Revised Draft for Considertion of Adoption Attachment 2 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT LAND CONSERVATION PLAN FOR DAKOTA COUNTY JULY 13, 2020

A. COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS 206 individuals, including residents of Dakota County or adjacent counties, wrote to express their support for the Land Conservation Plan. Support statements include open-comment letters and template letters developed by two environmental organizations, Conservation Minnesota and Friends of the Mississippi River.

Name Comments Alexis Ludwig-Vogen, To the Dakota County Planning Commissioners, Mendota Heights I recently read through the Dakota Country Draft Land Conservation Plan and am very pleased with 5/24/20 the increased focus on restoration and conservation of the county's natural spaces. When my spouse and I were searching for a place to raise our family, the surrounding natural environment was a key deciding factor. We’ve now lived in Mendota Heights for fifteen years and have frequented Dakota County parks, trails, equipment rentals and events. Having access to see and explore those natural spaces greatly enriches our lives and makes us dedicated Dakota County residents. It's so important to make sure that conservation keeps pace with the rapid development expected in Dakota County. It's critical that all Dakota County residents - whether now or in 50 years - have access to natural spaces. Equally critical is to ensure that the natural resources - air, water, land - can sustain the growing population. I’ve always been proud of Dakota County and its bounty of natural space. Seeing this plan come to fruition will only deepen that pride. It's well worth the investment. Thank you, Amy Storbakken Friends and I regularly go to Spring Lake Park to ski, bird watch, enjoy the view and prairie. It's a Saint Paul scenic drive and feels like getting away. We usually eat out in Hastings afterward. Visiting parks is my 5/18/20 go-to activity with friends and family. There is always something to enjoy. In years past I worked at Three Rivers Parks and at Itasca State Park. Visitors often commented that parks were the best thing done by government. People came on their anniversaries, for family reunions, and to enjoy a few last moments with a dying relative. Thanks for working on parks and open spaces. Brian Huberty Hi Dakota County Planning, Marshan Township Overall the plan is good, but there are two major gaps. 4/29/20 As the report states: "Identify and prioritize significant natural areas and connecting corridors for voluntary protection and increased resource management, especially for wetland restoration and water retention on the land." 1) The plan should use the latest Minnesota version of the National Wetland Inventory for a base map https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/water-nat-wetlands-inv-2009-2014 PLUS the potential Restorable Wetland Inventory Map from the U of MN NRRI: https://mnatlas.org/ Not listing these sources under the Conservation Focus Areas discussion is a bit embarrassing. Both of these sources provide a finer scale of derived products. However, the plan does mention the lack of drain tile data which is very good! But there needs to be a plan on how to rectify this problem. Good luck with trying to make drain tile maps. Not trivial as you well know.

Attachment 2 Name Comments 2) The other gap is Dakota County's position in the migratory bird flyway. Every year, I watch flocks of ducks, swans, geese detour around Minneapolis, St. Paul by heading west from Hastings to avoid the metro area. This is where the wetlands or lack thereof are needed as stop over points for migratory birds. This should be a major part of the plan. Staff Response Thank you for reviewing the draft Land Conservation Plan and for your comments. Our experience is that the National Wetland Inventory is always a good starting point, but often misses many wetland areas. We did review the Restorable Wetland Inventory in our first phase of our restorable wetland inventory. We used a very similar process, but fortunately have even better MLCCS data for the County. We also used an additional, innovative GIS tool developed by the DNR/BWSR/MN IT Services. We went through an intensive process by manually “burning in” all major culverts into the County’s one-meter resolution LiDAR digital elevation model to ensure water was routed properly. This is an important step since LiDAR data effectively shows all roadways as dams and therefore modeling water flow without manually entering culverts is problematic. We also removed man-made structures (e.g. roads, railroads, etc.) and smoothed out ditch features. We then ran the GIS process to systematically identify historic natural depressions and potentially drained wetlands across the County. Drain tile is still an unknown, but we can often assume where a property is in agricultural use and features hydric soils, drain tile is likely present and there is a restorable wetland opportunity. Currently, there are other GIS tools being developed to predict which fields are tiled. In the end, the largest projects in our inventory were quite similar to those we knew from the start - large tracts of currently cultivated parcels with underlying hydric soils. We certainly recognize that the County is located within this incredibly important flyway for all types of birds, including waterfowl. We’ll look for the right place in the Plan to highlight that fact. The Plan includes increasing biodiversity as one of our key goals and we believe that this can best be accomplished by protecting, restoring and improving connected habitat throughout the County. With regards to waterfowl, we believe the major emphasis that we are placing on restoring larger tracts of wetlands in the rural portions of the County will create those important stop-over areas so important to migratory birds, as well as providing many other public and ecological benefits. This is going to be challenging work, but it is critical if we are going to successful. Please let me know if you have additional questions or comments. We hope that you can support this Plan and also participate in some way during its implementation. Chris Erickson Thank you so much for your hard and thoughtful work on this Land Conservation Plan. When we first Dakota County moved into the County, there was still a lot of undeveloped land here. Now we are getting so big, 4/28/20 and we are afraid of losing the natural beauty that attracted us here. I am especially distraught about the new housing developments that clear-cut all the old trees. Even if they are replanted, it will take years and years to restore their value. Keep up the good work and help us to do a better job of caring for this beautiful gift of land. Chris Erickson I would like to see more emphasis on regenerative agriculture as a conservation measure for the Lakeville County's land use plan. Thank you. 5/13/20 David Hohle I continue to value the Mississippi River Regional Trail and frequent both South St Paul and Inver South St. Paul Grove sections. It's great to see how much usage it gets, and I enjoy being along the river and open 5/11/20 spaces. I've been an advocate for the river trail for years and support the co sections and amenities that continue to enhance the experience. I strongly support the continued funding and investment in the natural resources. Thank you for your work on behalf of all citizens, but especially the local people.

Attachment 2 Name Comments Dawn Gaetke I write in support of the Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County. I believe that the proposed Inver Grove Heights CFAs are a necessary step to preserving water quality, both surface and ground water, in our 5/14/20 county. I also laud the partnering approach taken by the county in the plan. I believe that only county, state, and city agency cooperation with private land owners and citizens will give any plan a fighting chance. As a County plan this is an excellent base from which cities can enhance individual city plans should they so choose. Deborah Churchill Lebanon Hills is a treasure! I love the miles of natural trails for hiking, skiing and snowshoeing. The Burnsville open areas, lakes, trails, birds, visitor center, picnic shelters are all wonderful! Spending time in 4/28/20 nature is therapeutic -- and the open spaces are great habitats for animals. I strongly support continued funding and investment in our Dakota County parks. The parks are one of the main reasons I remain in Burnsville, rather than move to St. Paul. Thank you so much for your careful stewardship of these green spaces in our county. Denise Louis Dear Office of Planning, Apple Valley I was active in 4 years of information and planning and the campaign for the Dakota County land 6/25/20 preservation referendum in 2002. We were amazed not only for buy-in but people actually wanting to donate land. Protecting open space is very important to residents and more crucial now more than ever! PLEASE make the investment and act quickly to implement the Land Conservation Plan. I'm proud to live in our county and want to thank you all for doing a great job! Finding ways to protect the areas identified in the plan now will yield dividends for many years to come, helping to protect Dakota County's water resources, wildlife habitat and quality of life for our residents and others who make special trips to visit. I'm surprised how many in my Facebook groups visit our area because of these efforts (and no doubt spend money at local businesses). Derek Nelson I love going to Lebanon Hills Park to immerse myself in the native prairie and oak savanna restoration Inver Grove Heights that has occurred. Such high-quality ecosystems are hard to find in the metro area. 5/18/20 The protection and conservation of natural areas has never been more urgent given accelerating habitat loss and climate change that threatens extinction of many species. I support continued investment in our natural areas and believe it will pay dividends for future enjoyment and health of Dakota County residents. Thank you for the opportunity to express my support for the continued funding of natural area conservation efforts in Dakota County. Diane Horsager Please support the Dakota Co Land Draft Plan in preserving our parks and refuges and clean water. Lakeville These are among Minnesota’s most valued resources. I’m a Lakeville resident. 4/13/20 Gail Lewellan The Draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County is comprehensive, ambitious, and professional Mendota Heights in its identification of the scope, challenges and goals for conservation in our county. I support its 5/22/20 adoption as a plan for Dakota County. Many thanks to the staff of Dakota County and all of the collaborators who worked to develop the Plan. As a citizen of Mendota Heights, I hope that our city will be out front in working with Dakota County within the framework of a City-County Conservation Collaborative. The presence of two Dakota County staff members on the Mendota Heights Pilot Knob/Oheyawahe Task Force is a good step in that direction. I am grateful to live in a County that conscientiously devotes resources to the stewardship of the land we occupy. These efforts will improve our health, our quality of life, and our legacy for future generations. Jamie Nicolai Dear Office of Planning, West St. Paul Within Dakota County, one of the natural areas that I especially value is Thompson County Park. 6/30/20 When I was working as a teacher in Independent School District 197, I had the opportunity to take kids to the lake to conduct water quality testing. It was such a powerful experience for both me and 3

Attachment 2 Name Comments the students, putting them in a position in which they were citizen scientists, using their data to determine the health of the lake in order to make recommendations to better protect or maintain the quality of the water and aquatic habitat. Parks, greenways and natural areas are so vitally important to me. My husband and I have regularly commented that we are fortunate to live where we do in the cities, expressly because we have these green spaces in our community. It is a luxury that we have such ease of access to tracts of trees, ponds and wildlife. Having a place to go in which the noise of traffic disappears and is replaced by the sounds of birds and squirrels chatting as the breeze ripples through tall grasses and leaves, is an effective balm for soothing the stress of everyday life. As populations continue to rise, there has been an increased demand on property development. While in the short term it may appear more lucrative to use available land for new construction, it is in fact the preservation of green space or perhaps the conversion of empty lots to lush and natural spaces that add value to communities. As we continue to preserve and develop our green spaces, we increase the monetary value of existing properties. By striving to protect our parks and waterways, we also do our part to mitigate the ill effects of climate change. My hope is that while you are continuing to plan for the development of green space, you actively seek out reliable, sustainable sources for funding. It is not enough to plan, though careful deliberation is a necessary step, but you must also have an eye towards securing the funds to pay for these essential projects. While federal and state grants are a critical source of funding, please know that as a resident and tax payer in Dakota County, I am proud to have a portion of my taxes used on the betterment and protection of our natural spaces. I thank you for taking the time to read this letter and allowing me the opportunity to share my thoughts. Your public service and commitment to our communities is greatly appreciated. Jayne Hager Dee Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County. 5/15/20 Of course, I am in favor of preserving quality natural resources in Dakota County. Of course, I am in

favor of protecting groundwater for the future. And, of course, I am in favor of county, city and township collaborations to encourage the wise use of taxpayer funds. In concept, I am in favor of the Land Conservation Plan, but the elements of why new natural or agricultural areas would be protected, who would be able to access these areas for public use and when is not clear. I have some questions and comments after reading the document: The impression given by some of the interested statewide conservation/environmental groups to the public is that this Plan will lead to more parks for recreation in Dakota County. I don't specifically see that in the Plan. If that is true, how will these parks be organized? How will they be prioritized? I see this Plan protecting or restoring natural areas, not creating recreational parkland. That then raises the question, are we looking at preserving this property for longer term preservation's sake? Or is there a Part II Plan coming that will specifically reveal the future uses for this preserved land? Will that include parks? If the Plan is to preserve property for a longer term vision without or limited public access for the near future, then the Plan should indicate that. How will this land be acquired? Before any land transfer is discussed, there must be willing landowners. Are there willing landowners within the Conservation Focus Areas? Most landowners are willing, if the price is right. Will there be differences in landowner compensation between Focus Areas? Are landowners already identified? How were they identified? Funds from the 2002 Dakota County Farmland and Natural Areas Protection Program have been spent. Where will funding for this program come from? Assuming that there is funding available, will access to the land be done through the use of easements?

Attachment 2 Name Comments How would the county find willing landowners? Who would conduct the rural outreach? If a landowner wants to pursue an easement but the community and land use authority sees the easement as a detriment to long term planning, how will that be addressed? What activities could legally be conducted on these easements? The landowner still owns the land. Activities would be dependent upon what that landowner would allow. Would hunting be allowed? Could I fish on that little stream that runs along the edge of the easement? Could I hike on the land? Could I bring my dogs for a run? My husband and I own agricultural land in another state. Our land is posted "No Trespassing." Even with an easement, public use would not be permitted on our property. I don't think we are much different than a typical rural landowner in Dakota County. So, again, besides protecting these parcels of land, for what public use are they being protected? How does this Plan interface with the pending Groundwater Plan? In my mind, clean surface water, ground water and improving natural areas should be Dakota County's long-term priority. There are mechanisms (and existing county departments/organizations) to continue this work already in place. If Dakota County is looking to continue with a farmland and natural area easement program, it should be more clear on what the public purpose and public use will be for these easement areas. Staff response: The intent of this Plan is to protect existing, unprotected natural areas; additional areas that might connect, expand or buffer these lands and other lands that could provide other public benefits such as infiltrating/retaining surface water. The other primary focus is to improve natural resource restoration and management on public and protected private land. There is also an intent to protect and expand multi-purpose corridors that may be the site of planned, future regional greenways. While the plan focus is not to create new parks, there may be opportunities to work with cities to create expand existing parks or create new local parks. While some level of public access to newly protected private lands may be in the public interest, individual landowners will make those decisions which is not a condition of program participation. Language will be strengthened to reinforce this message. All land acquisition will be based on decisions made by landowners who choose to voluntarily participate in the Land Conservation Program. Land protection will utilize the types of approaches the county has relied on for its efforts over nearly 20 years, as well as new options that may be more appealing to landowners. Fee title acquisition by other public entities with assistance by the county or thought outright acquisition by the county will also be considered as it has in the past. Landowner compensation within and between CFAs will be based on appraisals conducted by individual appraisers following accepted professional practices. The Plan also contemplates developing and applying consistent valuation formulas similar to what is used by the State Reinvest in Minnesota Program. Landowner information is readily available as part of the county’s tax parcel data. Contact information from this source will be used to conduct outreach to all landowners eligible for the Land Conservation Program, focusing on the new CFAs as a primary eligibility area. Program funding is anticipated to come from varied external and County sources, although financial implications of the COVID-19 pandemic to program funding are unknown at this time. Public access to any protected private will be discussed with every landowner during the initial and final stages of the land protection process. One such approach is to acquire an access easement where, for example, an angler could gain access to fish along a stream or river. Ultimately, any public access will only occur with the permission and approval of landowner. As mentioned previously, if any land acquired in fee by another public entity or the County public access would be provided according to individual jurisdictional rules and policies. Program staff will initiate landowner outreach efforts after Plan approval to gauge their interest in working with the County and other partners to explore conservation options. Initial CFA planning and

Attachment 2 Name Comments individual land protection projects would be coordinated with the local governmental unit to minimize existing or future conflicts which, if they exist, require additional discussion. There is an extensive list of prohibited and allowed uses as part of every conservation easement that the landowner, family and guests must follow. This is designed to protect the conservation values while allowing the landowner to still use and enjoy the property. Public use is typically not welcomed by owners of protected private land except in special cases. Easements will accommodate the activities that the landowner wishes to allow within the easement requirements. Passive recreational activities such as fishing, wildlife observation and hiking would be the most common uses where landowners are willing to allow some level of public access. Although the majority of the important groundwater protection/ recharge areas identified in the Groundwater Plan are outside of the preliminary CFAs, there are some overlapping areas. The Land Conservation Program has experience and tools that could benefit the County’s efforts to protect groundwater, such as permanently protecting highly vulnerable or significant recharge areas, or funding larger scale, wetland restoration projects. The intent of this plan is to use a variety of conservation approaches with willing landowners to provide a wide range of public benefits which are described in the Plan. These potential goals and benefits, which can include enhance public access, will vary greatly between different areas of the county and different landowner objectives. The Plan is to more effectively continue the work that the County and others are doing in a more integrated and comprehensive manner with additional innovative approaches. Ultimately, since this is a voluntary plan, the outcomes will depend on private and public landowner interest and participation. Plan language will be clarified and strengthened. Jean Zacharias Hello, Dakota County Planning Team! Apple Valley That is quite a document that you put together and I truly appreciate all of the time and effort that 6/2/20 went into it. The area that really caught my attention had to do with the Projected Groundwater Drawdown, which if memory serves me correctly at one time I read someplace that even places like California wanted to start taking some of the water from Dakota County for their purposes, but I can't recall where I read that. There are a few things that got me thinking about water in particular and it's understood that cities may balk at the idea of this purely from a revenue generating perspective, but I can't help but wonder how many water parks need to be within Dakota County and what type of water saving practices are already in use within pre-existing water parks. The other part of water consumption that got me to think twice had to do with people watering their lawns, which is something that I've never done because I learned from my parents decades ago that not watering your lawn teaches the grass roots to truly go down to find water and not up; even if it goes dormant, it will come back. I have a vegetable garden and any watering that I do, which is actually quite rare is always done by hand. It seems that watering lawns especially needs to be something that needs to be rethought. Private in-ground pools are another story. I live in Apple Valley and my guess is that as accurate as the new water meters are that have been installed that there is no way to specifically figure out exactly how water is used within any given household-- unlike how they seem to be able to figure that out for natural gas usage. Exactly how water is used at any given address can't really be monitored, but if Dakota County could put a number to how many people and pets live/work at a particular address it may be possible to come up with a realistic water usage number based on that information and when excessive amounts are used that a household/organization pays a higher price for water usage above that amount. That may already be something that's done, so I apologize if that's the case, but I had to bring it up nonetheless. It's also known (since I've done storm drain stenciling before in my neighborhood) that a lot of people that have storm drains in front of their property don't properly clean the drains out on a regular basis, which leads to flooding and unwanted things beyond foliage and dirt going down those drains during storms. I wish that more people would take responsibility for said storm drains.

Attachment 2 Name Comments Realistically, I don't know if I came up with any ideas and/or comments that you haven't already heard, but because I know that Dakota County means it when they ask for comments, I'm willing to share my comments even if they repeat anything you've already seen and/or thought of. Keep up the good work and know that the foresight that you're putting into the future of the County for generations to come is greatly appreciated. We all need to be good stewards on many levels for the present and future. JoAnn Pasternak Dear Commissioner Egan, Mendota Heights I just skimmed the draft of the County Land Conservation Plan and was very impressed with the 4/20/20 thought and research that went into preparing it. I am exceedingly concerned with the degradation of land and water quality in Dakota County and beyond. I feel that this plan will be a giant step forward to maintaining and/or restoring them. Please support the approval of this Plan to improve and preserve natural resources in our county. Everything we do here helps, in a small way, to protect and save the entire planet. Thank you. Joe Beattie I would like to thank you for all of your good and diligent work in protecting land throughout Dakota Hastings County. My students have been reading The Sixth Extinction by Elizabeth Kolbert during this school 5/11/20 year. They are coming to understand the plight of life on planet Earth and the need to put protections in place. I would like to encourage you to continue to protect special places in Dakota County and even expand the amount of land under protection. Reason no. 1 My field biology students have the opportunity to study special places in the Hastings vicinity. They visit the white pine forest and black ash seepage swamp at Pine Bend Scientific and Natural Area, the alder thicket at Lebanon Hills Regional Park, the maple-basswood forest at Hastings SNA, and the floodplain forest at the Vermillion River bottoms. They survey fish and benthic macroinvertebrates in the Vermillion River. They monitor wetland quality at Lake Rebecca. I would offer that the chance for students to immerse themselves in the study of unique and special places is invaluable. Reason no. 2 My wife and I need time to disconnect from our chaotic and frenetic world. The Dakota County park and trail system offers opportunities to relax, decompress, and find precious solitude. We look forward to the completion of the Mississippi River Trail and the expansion of protected corridors throughout the County. Reason no. 3 My wife and I have a grandson. In a time of climate change and loss of critical habitat, we worry about what type of Earth our grandson will inherit. It is perhaps more important than ever to protect and manage the special places that remain in our degraded and mistreated Earth. It is my opinion that we need to act now. "Plants and insects are the fabric of this planet. We’re ripping it to shreds and we need to knit it back together.” Scott Black, The Xerxes Society Jon Kerr Dear Commissioner Slavik: Northfield I have reviewed the Dakota County Land Conservation Plan and strongly urge you to support the Plan 6/23/20 and the necessary funding to make the Plan a reality over the next decade. We need to invest in our future to help restore our farm soils, underground water and beautiful lands in Dakota County. A healthy environment will support healthy farms, healthy families and encourage more businesses to locate in a county where people commit to a better future for everyone. This plan provides an excellent and important way to protect water and critical habitat lands today and into the future. The Plan gives us the opportunity to come together as communities to support the county's 2040 Comp Plan and Strategic Goals that residents and businesses overwhelmingly support. Financing a plan like this is key to providing a true legacy for future generations of farmers, urban residents and local businesses and it deserves your support.

Attachment 2 Name Comments Your support for the values expressed in the Land Conservation Plan will help Dakota County continue to be a leader in the state on soil and water protection. You have the power to keep our residents safe, and our lands and waters protected, by supporting this plan. Land stewardship and healthy farms and families are important to our family, and one of the main strengths we have found while living in Dakota County! The county has accomplished many great things for its residents and this Plan will continue that leadership. Now, more than ever, we need to adopt the Land Conservation Plan and provide the funding to continue our commitment to abundant clean water, natural lands and greenways. Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to call or contact me via email if you have questions or concerns. Judy and Jerry So proud of this plan, and its implications for our future. We’re behind it. Hoffman 4/17/20 Karen Humber Want to thank you for the plan. Read over it. A lot of info to digest. I live in Apple Valley and my main Apple Valley concern is overdevelopment and the impact it has on wildlife and plant life. Stop building and 4/9/20 expanding. Ask the cities in Dakota county to stop building. We need to limit human imprint. We don’t do that by continuing to clear land and erect buildings. It is really bad when you have a bald eagle foraging for food (dead animal in road) in a busy intersection. I used to like living in Apple Valley but not anymore. Too many people and roads. Preserving land doesn’t help if you don’t give animals a safe corridor to travel. Too many dead animals on the road. I do hope your plan helps but I probably won’t be around to see it. As I said above stop developing land. Go back into the cities and leave the land for plant life and wildlife. That is how we preserve our resources so we can have clean water and air. Thanks for allowing me to comment. Karen Schik I am especially fond of Spring Lake Park for the amazing vistas over the river, the diversity of habitat, Scandia and the abundance of migratory birds. I also love that the park is large enough, and long enough, 5/27/20 that it's not hard to get away from the more heavily visited areas and have a quiet nature experience. The connection of Spring Lake Park to other natural areas is one of the reasons why it is so important. Greenway corridors are vital for the movement of plants and animals across the landscape. The ever increasing pressures that humans put on the landscape make it more important than ever to protect remaining natural areas and expand on them. One of the most important ways to help reduce carbon in the atmosphere and offset the effects of the warming climate is by increasing the amount of plant cover. And native vegetation is especially vital for protecting the pollinators that help to supply us with food. Thank you for the leadership that Dakota County has shown in natural resource protection. Please continue by supporting the Dakota County Parks Plan. Karl Hochsprung Dear Office of Planning, South St. Paul Any natural area is especially valuable to me. My wife and I enjoy the Kaposia landing area since it's 6/30/20 close to our home but Lebanon hills is an incredible place to disconnect from the hectic world and reconnect with nature and I'd like to see more areas like that across the county. As more and more research is done we find out how incredibly valuable for our health it is to be in nature. Not only that but the more interconnected natural areas we can provide the more biodiversity we create to preserve all life for animals, birds, pollinators, etc. These natural areas are invaluable and we should be doing everything we can to preserve and restore them. I feel like preservation and restoration of natural areas is incredibly important for the future of the planet. To have these spaces is to remind people there is more to life than the typical work day. The more we can be reminded of this the more we can put thought into reimagining our world to make 8

Attachment 2 Name Comments the earth a healthier place. We also have an incredible duty to preserve wildlife for future generations and we cannot shirk that duty. Thank you for your ongoing service to the public and allowing this opportunity for the public to share our thoughts. Katherine Clayton Thompson Ravine as it is a wonderful place to walk and connects to many other wonderful parks. South St. Paul Thank you. 4/28/20 Kay Erickson I just read through your draft plan and would be curious to know what changes occur to it after the Lakeville public comment period. 5/5/20 It is a wonderful plan, and I thank those who certainly worked hard to put it together. My concern is increased public access/recreation. I would like to see most of the conserved land kept completely free of human activity. Whatever access is allowed/increased should be carefully evaluated. Thank you for listening. Kayla Williams Parks, greenways natural areas in general are extremely important to me. They make me feel St. Paul hopeful, provide a place to explore, and nature adds beauty to wherever it is placed. Spending time 5/11/20 outside and in the natural areas that are provided should be a right for all, not a privilege. Our planet is increasingly sending us signals that our time is up, and we must act soon. Global warming is going to disproportionately impact certain groups of people, and it is important for those who can fight to do so. I support continued funding and investment. Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts and for all you are doing in your service to the public. Leslie Pilgrim Greetings: I am writing in enthusiastic support of the draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota Mendota Heights County. This long-needed plan is crucial for the vibrancy, viability, future, and integrity of our local 4/17/20 ecosystem as well as for future generations who will live in this county. We are at a crucial inflection point in our county (as well as our world) to move forward on plans to restore, manage, maintain, and improve our aquatic and terrestrial open spaces/natural resources. I also support a small tax increase for this endeavor. Note: while much of the focus of this plan is in the central and south of this county, please do not overlook the northern urban ring of the county, too. Lisa Weiberg We enjoy all the county parks, but the one we have probably spent the most time at is Lebanon Hills. South St. Paul Our family has done many activities there including cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, hiking, 5/19/20 swimming and nature classes. Parks and natural areas are very important to me because they help me not only physically with the exercise I can get, but also mentally and emotionally. During this time of closings and quarantines due to the pandemic, I have realized even more how important it is to my well-being to be able to get outside in the natural areas. I enjoy seeing a variety of birds along the Mississippi River. It is important to keep enough natural areas, especially wetlands, for the birds and other wildlife in the area. I support continued funding and investment in the parks and natural areas of our county. Thank you for your time in considering the land conservation in Dakota County. Mary Ellen Nichols I support the Land Conservation Plan. We need to protect and improve our land. Thank you Eagan 5/16/20 Lucy Kennedy Dear Office of Planning, West St. Paul My family and I visit the Dakota County parks on a regular basis. Our favorite has always been 6/28/20 Lebanon Hills, where we love to go swimming, canoeing, and crosscountry skiing. We are so grateful to have the ability to enjoy being in Nature and teaching our grandchildren about wildlife and

Attachment 2 Name Comments stewardship of unspoiled, undeveloped land. I recently saw an article about the draft conservation plan and wanted to offer my thoughts. Such lands- unspoiled, undeveloped, and open to the public, are crucial for a high-quality environment, and are thus worthy of continued investment. Dakota County has to date done a good job of protecting natural areas, but we can't afford to overlook the reality that it's also one of the fastest-growing counties in the state. Development of housing and commercial buildings is gobbling up natural areas at an alarming rate.We need to act quickly to implement the Land Conservation Plan. The last time Dakota County voted to invest in land conservation was back in 2002 - almost 20 years ago. I believe that it was very successful, because by January 2020, it had protected an impressive 11,536 acres! The new Land Conservation Plan lists over 40,000 acres in townships across the county that are ecologically valuable and need protecting. This is sbout 4 times the acreage goal set out in 2002. I strongly recommend that the Land Conservation Plan be implemented in order to protect the entirety of this acreage as quickly as possible. Protecting these identifed lands now, before they are lost to development, would help to preserve the water resources in our county, as well as wildlife habitat and beautiful, untouched natural areas that are so important to our quality of life. I believe that the Land Conservation Plan will help assure that Dakota County will continue to be the desirable place it is now for living and raising our children. Again, I strongly encourage you to implement the Land Conservation Plan. Thank you! Mary Weber We love visiting Lebanon Hills in every season! It has vast and varied trails for hiking. We love to Mendota Heights meet our son and his family there. We have had so many adventures and made wonderful memories 5/26/20 there. We love cross country skiing and snow shoeing on the well groomed trails. It’s just a beautiful beautiful area. Many years ago, when we first moved here, we discovered Holland Lake. Our family spent countless hours floating around on that lake, fishing, splashing around, making memories. 25 years later, it still comes to the forefront as the of best times. We value the natural world and are very aware of how important it is to our health and well being. We were drawn to live in this area because of access to its high quality and abundant wildlife areas. No matter what is going on in our individual lives, nature offers an antidote to stress and anxiety. There is solace and recreation and it is equally available to everyone. As housing and urban areas keep encroaching upon wild areas, it’s important to protect wilderness from development. We need access to wilderness because it feeds our souls. Being around its flora and fauna restores balance in our lives. Nature is an antidote to whatever ails our spirit. Dakota County parks are a priceless treasure. We applaud the foresight shown by the leadership, we support the resources given over to protect and expand natural areas, and we look forward to sustaining and enriching the great resources we have here. We happily support this plan with our voice and our tax dollars. It is worth every penny of taxpayer investment. Thank you for your dedication to this effort, for the hours spent in dry and at times boring meetings, reading reams of technical data, and standing up to those who want to downplay the value of parks and recreational areas. We really appreciate your service. Thank you for investing in the future. Michael Deeny I am glad to support more Dakota County parkland, but you need to stop over developing the Apple Valley parklands. The regional parks seem to be more of a gravy train for local construction than about 5/16/20 environmental protection. Michael Huber I've been a resident of Dakota County for 19 years, and I've worked within the county for 22. As I Eagan move toward retirement I now live within .1 miles of the entrance to Lebanon Hills Park, and my wife

Attachment 2 Name Comments 5/9/20 and I plan to stay here as long as we can because we so treasure the park and other natural resources within Eagan and the county as-a-whole (specifically, Miesville Ravine, and Whitetail Woods ... but there are other treasures in the Mississippi valley that we enjoy visiting). Preservation of our natural resources (water, wetlands, woodlands, etc.), and the thoughtful designation of strategically located future natural areas will ensure the appeal of Dakota County as a destination and place of residence for people going forward. We wholeheartedly support the proposed Land Conservation Plan. Please make it happen. Patty Rutz I really love Spring Lake Park. Inver Grove Heights I am concerned we are over developing natural areas. Natural areas are disappearing and we need to 5/11/20 act quickly to implement the Land Conservation Plan. Paula O’Keefe Hello Al, Burnsville Thanks for re-sending the link to me. I read the plan and have included my comments below. I don't 5/22/20 have any concerns about the plan itself. It all sounds great, so I mostly just emphasized some aspects that jumped out at me that seemed vital. In general, this project sounds great and is very ambitious! Page 14, Goal #2 - Utilizing and encouraging agricultural practices is a very important component to improving water quality even though the survey ranked it last at 71%. Page 17, Goal #5 A and B - I think this is very important for the project's future! Get awareness and buy in from the citizens and that's half the battle for success! Page 17, Goal #6 - Good to have recreation aspects and to encourage it because people will care more for an area that they can gain something from and experience. However, it's always important to keep that balance of recreation and conservation. Page 26 - I like the emphasis and the inclusion of groundwater protection in this project Page 29 - Good to see #4 - the invasive species section, esp. buckthorn. Management of these species is so critical. Page 33 - A 10-year plan and 2030 sounds so far away...but I know how fast it goes! Page 36, B. - Doing 1-3 pilot projects next year is a great idea. Page 37, C. - a typo: "example....that that" Page 38 B. - The more partnerships the better, as long as one agency or entity is ultimately in charge to keep things moving and have authority for some decision making. Page 41- 50 - As I read this section, the costs seem overwhelming, but hopefully there will be enough support and opportunities for funding. The listings of possible sources looks very promising. Page 63 - Are there any answers or explanations as to why Dakota County residents use more groundwater per capita than any other metro county? I'm very curious about this. Is it because of agriculture? Specific industries? If so, then maybe include that as an explanation. If there are other reasons, then this is concerning...Some increased education definitely needs to done for our residents to conserve water. If we don't know why, then that has to be addressed also... Page 71 Chart - "38% Lack of information about what programs are available and appropriate" - this seems like a good place to start educating agricultural landowners and then maybe there would be more interest in these programs. Page 73 - I love the economics section! I was an Econ major along with Bio and Environmental Studies, so reading this section brought all that back. The economic value of environmental protection is not always highlighted or discussed, but it is so important.

Attachment 2 Name Comments Page 74 - typo: last paragraph - "Comparative...in in" Page 75 - The biome chart is very interesting and helps make the case for the need to preserve wetlands. Thanks for sharing this draft plan. I enjoyed reading it and learning about the new initiatives. Good luck with all of it! I'm looking forward to hearing about and seeing the results of all of your hard work and efforts during the next 10 years! Phil Anderson I am a runner, so selfishly I love being able to run in green spaces. From a societal standpoint, having Burnsville green spaces to "escape to" from the busy urban environment allows us to "slow down and exhale" 5/11/20 from our daily lives. Green spaces are nature's mental health providers. Global warming makes caring for our green spaces all the more critical. Please continue the funding for our parks and natural areas. Thank you for taking the time to read this and know how important your actions on funding are to our societal health. Philip Vieth I visit Whitetail woods in the winter weekly at least because I love to X-country ski and love the Hastings options for skiing and snowshoeing. It keeps me active and provides a healthy pasttime. I also visit 5/11/20 Spring Lake park for hiking and skiing. These places have enough wild character that I can observe the natural world. I think everyone needs these areas to realize that it is the basis for life. Vegetation, water, wildlife, insects are all the foundation of our world and we need to appreciate and protect them for our health and the health of our surroundings, county, state, nation and our world. When I see trash in our rivers, on the landscape I realize we are not there yet as a society. When I see erosion from fields and sediment building in Spring Lake, I realize we are not there yet. We need the parks and wild places to provide us with a target to strive for more awareness by more people of the need to keep and improve our natural resources. Without wild places most of us have no way to measure the potential losses if we don't do things right and make every decision based on preserving and improving on our natural world. We depend on the natural world for our lives. Parks and wild places are supremely important to help us keep that in perspective. increasing population growth make the preservation of wild areas more important than ever. There are so many other concerns that many people are not aware of the importance of our natural world. Parks help people focus on the natural world and the importance of it to our well being. I definitely feel that continued funding and investment for purchasing and preserving wild areas as being of the utmost importance. Rosemary Husbands I am so proud to be a resident of Dakota County. To have leaders that value our natural resources the Mendota Heights way this plan indicates is truly inspiring. 4/20/20 In many parts of my life, I worry, what will be left of the natural gifts we have been given for future generations. Here is a plan that attempts to answer that question and plan for its implementation. Please continue on the path to making this plan a reality and let me know how I can help. Russ Yttri Dear Office of Planning, St. Paul I ride the bike trail along the river and look forward to being able to ride all the way to Hastings from 5/26/20 St. Paul. Recently I have been visiting the prairie sights at Vermillion Highlands and love it. I love to be outside on foot or bicycle exploring the world around me and getting exercise. A big reason I chose to live in the metro is it's ready many bike trails and attention to our natural world. Corridors for human and other animal movement is important. Invasive species control is critical. I support advancing our Park system. I spend a lot of time volunteering in our natural areas.

Attachment 2 Name Comments Thanks for recognizing how critical open space is and maintaining it. Also we have a severe shortage of public restrooms and waste containers. Litter is way too common and a human controlled problem. Sarah Norman Dear Office of Planning, Inver Grove Heights Pine Bend SNA in Inver Grove Heights, Spring Lake Regional Park in Hastings, Lebanon Hills, the 5/18/20 regional trail in Mendota Heights and Lilydale are important biodiversity stewards and provide critical habitat for resident and migrating species, especially species in peril like the monarch butterfly and certain species of woodpeckers with declining numbers. There are few undisturbed, quiet, serene areas left in the Twin Cities metro where one can take a walk and hear oneself think, and all four areas (Pine Bend, Lebanon Hills, Spring Lake Regional Park, the Mendota Heights/Lilydale paved trail) provide a rare degree of solitude. With the city parks in St. Paul and Minneapolis being dangerously overrun with people flouting hygiene and distancing recommendations, these natural areas and parks in Dakota County are especially important in helping with social distancing when folks venture outdoors right now. Natural areas, regional parks, county parks, and SNAs also encourage homeowners and apartment dwellers to become acquainted with native plant species which they may want to incorporate into their balcony plantings and home landscaping as alternatives to high-maintenance non-native flowers, annuals, and shrubs. As density increases in Dakota County, it is important to parcel out natural lands and parks while the opportunity still exists. With Dakota County having some of the lowest property taxes in the entire state, continued development in the county is inevitable and it is all the more important to parcel out appropriate acreage dedicated to native habitat for people, plants, and animals. With so much local housing development in Dakota County being done in an unsustainable way that obliterates every remaining tree and blade of grass to create identical Levittowns devoid of native habitat, it can take years to repopulate even a portion of the pre-existing trees that were once in the neighborhood. Housing and commercial developers need to find efficient ways to both preserve and incorporate native habitat when they strip the land for more beige housing developments. 100+ year old oak trees were preserved on my street in Inver Grove Heights when the houses were built in the year 2000 - this type of thoughtful and intelligent habitat preservation needs to happen more widely throughout Dakota County.

I support continued funding and investment in Dakota County parks and natural areas. Thank you for your continued thoughtful public service in these difficult and trying times. I appreciate the opportunity to provide input on the Dakota County parks system. Susan Landberg Dear Dakota County Land Conservation Manager, Rosemount I support the full implementation of the Draft Land Conservation Plan and the focus on improving 4/24/20 and expanding parks, natural areas, and greenways. I have lived in Lakeville for 30 years, and have been very proud of how well Lakeville is run. In this time of global warming, I believe we all must do everything we can to support the planet and preserve nature. In this time of Covid 19, I believe we must do all we can to support people who are struggling with depression and the isolation of it. There is no better remedy than getting back to nature. Thank you for all your hard work on these objectives. Susan Light I am writing to voice my support of the Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County. Mendota Heights 5/24/20 A compelling argument for adopting this Plan is made in the Executive Summary for Natural Resources Conservation - only 3% of our county’s natural landscapes remain. The Land Conservation Plan Goals are important and achievable. Developing a City-County Conservation Collaborative is a good way to help the cities in Dakota County with goal setting and prioritizing. I live in Mendota Heights and volunteer with the city working on water quality, invasive species, community education and more. Small cities don’t have the resources and staff to pay attention to all that needs to be done.

Attachment 2 Name Comments Goal # 4 is especially important to me. Biodiversity is restored and sustained. Working with cities in the county to establish wild life corridors is important. We know that managing habitat here and there doesn’t work if they are not connected. I support adding a 1.0 FTE Acquisition Specialist and 3.0 FTE Restoration Specialists. This is necessary because land protection must be accompanied by long term NR management. The operating principles on page 11 of the document are excellent. I am looking forward to seeing this plan adopted and appreciate the opportunity to share my comments of support. Tamara Will Dear Dakota County Board of Commissioners: Mendota Heights Thank you for your diligent and comprehensive work on the Land Conservation Plan. You have given 5/20/20 the topic the attention and respect it deserves. If only it could get the funding it deserves - that is my only concern as we do not have the luxury of an extended period of time. There are so many positives about this plan; therefore, I will highlight only a couple of my favorites. 1) Collaboration and shared resources - vital to get info to and help from as many as possible to create change - solutions not so daunting when there is a roadmap and help. 2) Love Goal 4, strategy C, tactic 2: “Partner with transportation and utilities to improve pollinator habitat within the right-of-way and corridors.” Turf grass is harmful to the environment in so many ways and has a significant impact that is too often overlooked. Think about how many lawn mowers, weed whackers, and leaf blowers you hear every day of the week. (see item 3 below) 3) Reading through the plan, there are a few things I would like to mention: a) Can the items covered in this plan be made mandatory at the city/township level - to include in their comprehensive plans? b) Agriculture: i) Would like to see more attention given to crops/sustainable farming - growing crops that can be consumed locally (addressing food scarcity issues) and promoting personal vegetable gardening. ii) Goal 2 description (p 14) states, “To improve water quality in these areas, it will be important to work with willing landowners to improve agricultural management practices, potentially convert row crop agricultural lands to less impactful crops, or even restore natural areas.” I didn't see this addressed in the strategies and tactics portion. c) Replace turfgrass with native plants - checks all the boxes: water quality and supply, reduce GHGs, ecology, biodiversity, enhanced recreation, and addresses public concerns. i) It would be great to mandate that native plants rather than turfgrass be planted after construction projects on roadways, government buildings, and public lands (unless it is absolutely necessary for sports or other uses). And to have a phase-in plan for the remaining land and retire gas-powered equipment in favor of electric. ii) Labor and money saved from equipment purchase and maintenance, gas, and chemicals can be diverted to replacing with natives. Government serves as an example for residents and when natives are seen in our communities they become the new normal. – iii) Lawns are extremely costly in dollars spent, consequences of fertilizers and pesticides, watering, mowing. -- Some lawn-care facts and estimates*:

Attachment 2 Name Comments (1) Standard grass lawns require more equipment, labor, fuel and use more agricultural toxins than industrial farming, therefore making them the largest agricultural sector in the US. (2) Use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer - nitrogen not used by plants is converted into nitrous oxide, a GHG 300 times more potent than CO2, leading to an estimated total equivalent of about 25 million tons of CO2 each year in the US (i.e. a 2.47-acre plot of lawn produces GHG equivalent to the amount produced by a flight more than halfway around the world). - damage soil by causing the loss of soil carbon and organic nitrogen leading to erosion and runoff. (3) Manufacturing of synthetic fertilizers - for every ton of fertilizers manufactured, two tons of carbon dioxide are produced. (4) Lawn chemicals tracked into our homes are dangerous to human health. (5) Water: A large amount of energy is used in purifying, transporting, and irrigating with water which is provided by local governments. Thus, our lawns are subsidized by the government. Much of that water is wasted as studies have found that twice as much water as lawns need is used on lawns. Most municipalities use 30 to 60% of their water on lawns. (6) The total estimation of GHG from lawn care, which includes fertilizer and pesticide production, watering, mowing, leaf blowing and other lawn management practices, was found to be four times greater than the amount of carbon stored by grass. In other words, our lawns produce more CO2 than they absorb. (7) CO2 released in mowing: 16 billion to 41 billion pounds of CO2 every year - hour- for-hour, gasoline powered lawn mowers produce 11 times as much pollution as a new car. (8) Refilling lawnmowers spills 17 million gallons of gas annually (Exxon Valdez spilled 11 million gallons). (9) Yard waste makes up 20 to 50% of US landfills and produces methane, a GHG 21 times more potent than CO2. (10) Time-consuming and noise polluting - 2008 Consumer Reports study found that 58% of those polled do not enjoy mowing their lawns. * https://www.onlynaturalenergy.com/grass-lawns-are-an-ecological-catastrophe/ Very well done plan. I look forward to its implementation Thomas Sutton Dear Commissioners, Lilydale I am writing to express my support for a vigorous and active Land Conservation Plan for our County. I 5/10/20 am on the Lilydale Planning Commission, am the LMRWMO commissioner for Lilydale, am an MPCA lake monitor, and a member of the Friends of the Mississippi River. Water quality and conservation issues are very important to me and all of us. Tina Folch, Hello - City of Hastings I’ve reviewed the Dakota County Land Conservation Plan and write today to express my solid Councilmember support. We need to do more to protect natural resources, water, wildlife and open space as our 5/20/20 county continues to grow. As the Land Conservation Program has been a great success and I support full implementation of the draft updated plan, I strongly encourage you to find ways to fully fund this plan. The public supports strong investment in natural resources and parks that bring so many important benefits to our communities.

Attachment 2 Name Comments Trilva Melbo I am writing to encourage your support for the land conservation plan. It is critical to endorse this Hampton plan to preserve our natural areas in Dakota County. Most residents have moved here with the hope 5/13/20 of living in a more natural area. If we wanted asphalt, we’d have moved to Minneapolis. Natural areas add unmeasurable benefits to our lives and health. With the current pandemic we realize how important for our mental and physical health to get outside and enjoy nature. With the increase in people visiting parks and other areas, the need for these areas is clearly evident. From hiking to dog walking to observing birds, flowers and animals to hunting, there is a plethora of ways to enjoy the outdoors. There certainly is something for everyone. With the efforts made to reclaim natural areas by the county and state, I see private land owners having more incentive to reclaim their own areas as well. There is great work being done by conservation groups to learn how best to combat invasive species and make our natural areas thrive. We need to save our natural areas so our descendants can appreciate and benefit from them as well. Once lost, they can never be regained. Please do your part to support our quality of life in Dakota County. Thank you for reading this appeal. Vicki O’Day Dear Liz, Dakota County Land Planning Commission, and Environmental Resources Team, et all, Burnsville Thank you for assembling a comprehensive conservation plan to care for the lands of our amazing 5/20/20 county! In these challenging times of COVID19 this draft plan creates a vision of necessity for the future of Dakota County. I am grateful for your thoughtful leadership and political will to fund and implement it in the coming years. I strongly support this plan as it rescues our beautiful home lands, agriculture, wildlife, and natural areas from further damage, degradation, and disappearance! As responsible stewards our land and water for future generations it is our civic duty to value land and water conservation as a TOP priority. The vision and goals laid out in the plan must be implemented to live into creating a future where Dakota County is a premier place to live and work. Thank you for all you do to partner in care for the lands and waters of Dakota County. Walt Popp As a former biologist with the Minnesota DNR and a Dakota County resident, I would like to Hastings commend the County on what is an excellent and forward-thinking plan that will protect and 5/25/20 enhance the health and future of the County’s diverse natural resources. As our population increases in the future it is vital to both restore and sustain the biodiversity our parklands and the quality of our surface and groundwater resources. Far too many of our native ecological communities have been impaired or destroyed by development. I applaud the County’s endeavors to work with private landowners to provide wise stewardship of remaining natural areas on non- public land and to partner with other private and governmental entities to leverage their resources. Having worked at a governmental agency for 31 years, I have seen and participated in a number of plans that were never implemented, but rather gathered dust on a shelf. After all of the time- consuming detail and thoughtful planning that went into this effort, it would be a shame and waste of resources if that were to be the fate of this plan. However, if the County follows through in implementing this conservation plan, it will greatly help stem the loss of our native forests, grasslands and wetlands, advance the conservation of our water resources, and provide a sustainable natural environment with vital ecosystem services for future generations.

Attachment 2 Conservation Minnesota Letter The following 107 people signed the support letter developed by Conservation Minnesota, with four adding their own comments.

Aaron Mainz, Hastings, 4/25/20 Karl Hochsprung, South St. Paul, 5/16/20 Agatha Smolecki, Eagan, 4/29/20 Kathryn Granados, South St. Paul, 5/16/20 Allen Lajiness, Farmington, 5/16/20 Kathryn Mosher, Eagan, 5/25/20 Amy Goerwitz, Northfield, 4/26/20 Kay Erickson, Lakeville, 4/30/20 Barb Mager, West St. Paul, 4/26/20 Kelley Erickson, Apple Valley, 4/25/20 Barb Zeches, Eagan, 5/16/20 Kevin Smith, Hastings, 4/25/20 Barbara Edson, Rosemount, 4/25/20 Laine Crump, Hastings, 4/28/20 Barbara Neal, Farmington, 5/16/20 Lisa Baldwin, Lakeville, 5/16/20 Barbara Olson, Eagan, 4/25/20 Lori Nagel, Prior Lake, 4/25/20 Brooke Asleson, Inver Grove Heights, 4/26/20 Marcia Bailey, South St. Paul, 5/8/20 Cathleen Harris, Eagan, 5/16/20 Mark Sanstead, Hastings, 4/30/20 Cathy Johnson, West St. Paul, 5/16/20 Martha Keil, Farmington, 5/7/20 Cecelia Fogarty, Rosemount, 5/16/20 Mary Johanns, Eagan, 4/28/20 Charlotte Svobodny, Inver Grove Heights, 5/16/20 Mary Loven, Northfield, 5/16/20 Cheryl Downey, Burnsville, 5/1/20 Matthew Smith, Burnsville, 5/16/20 Christa Ragatz, Burnsville, 4/25/20 Megan Braun, Burnsville, 5/7/20 Christine Nelson, Apple Valley, 4/25/20 Michael Gofman, Rosemount, 4/30/20 Cole Williams, Cottage Grove, 4/28/20 Michael Oberle, Eagan, 5/17/20 Daniel Dummer, South St. Paul, 5/17/20 Mike Farrell, Burnsville, 4/29/20 Darnell Barsness, Hastings, 4/25/20 Mike Foreman, Lakeville, 5/16/20 Deborah Nelson, Lakeville, 4/25/20 Mike Fricke, Burnsville, 4/28/20 Denise Thomas, St. Paul, 4/25/20 Mike Slawin, Inver Grove Heights, 5/11/20 Dorothy Hammer, Northfield, 5/16/20 Myrna Docherty, Apple Valley, 5/16/20 Douglas Moran, Rosemount, 4/25/20 Nancy Burns, Apple Valley, 4/29/20 Elsie Hafen, Lakeville, 4/28/20 Nora Ramirez-Pena, Eagan, 4/26/20 Emma Banks, Apple Valley, 4/25/20 Patricia Leaf, Hastings, 4/29/20 Emmett Horwath, West St. Paul, 5/7/20 Patricia Stevesand, Burnsville, 5/16/20 Franklin Nelson, St. Paul, 4/26/20 Patty Brown-Jaros, Eagan, 6/19/20 Gary Seibert, Hastings, 4/29/20 Peggy Roeske, White Bear Lake, 4/25/20 Greg Kruse, Burnsville, 5/16/20 Ray Kennedy, Hastings, 4/25/20 Hayden Clark, Inver Grove Heights, 4/25/20 Rebecca Lystig, Eagan, 4/25/20 Iris Condon, Eagan, 5/16/20 Renee Portillo, Burnsville, 5/18/20 James Kotz, Rosemount, 4/29/20 Robert Bryant, Eagan, 4/27/20 Jeanette Fordyce, West St. Paul, 5/16/20 Robert Wellemeyer, Hastings, 4/25/20 Jennifer Montano, Rosemount, 4/29/20 Roger Everhart, Apple Valley, 5/21/20 Jerry Nelson, Hastings, 4/27/20 Roxanne Flett, Eagan, 5/16/20 Jjohn Boubel, Burnsville, 5/17/20 Sally Nichols, Apple Valley, 4/30/20 Jodi Taylor, Cannon Falls, 5/9/20 Sally Smith, Eagan, 4/29/20 John Enblom, Hastings, 4/26/20 Sara Brice, Northfield, 5/16/20 John Fleming, Lakeville, 4/25/20 Shannon Darsow, Rosemount, 4/30/20 John Winslow, South St. Paul, 5/16/20 Shannon O’Connor, Farmington, 4/26/20 Jonathan Wilmshurst, Rosemount, 4/25/20 Sharon Bassett, Apple Valley, 4/25/20 Judith Urban, Eagan, 5/14/20 Shelley O’Neill, Apple Valley, 4/25/20 Julie Bresin, Eagan, 4/25/20 Stacy Camp, Rosemount, 4/27/20

Attachment 2 Stacy Miller, Eagan, 4/25/20 Terri Tilotta, Lakeville, 5/16/20 Sue Kirchberg, Northfield, 5/3/20 Thomas Bullington, Hastings, 4/28/20 Sue LeGros, Burnsville, 4/25/20 Tracy Morics, Eagan, 5/16/20 Sundae Morse, Northfield, 5/16/20 Val Jackson, Eagan, 5/19/20 Susan Estill, Burnsville, 4/30/20 Valerie Eastland, Apple Valley, 4/26/20 Susan Wehrenberg, Apple Valley, 4/26/20 Virginia Knapp, Inver Grove Heights, 4/25/20 Suzanne Hansen, South St. Paul, 5/16/20 William Hodapp, Eagan, 4/25/20 T Mo, Inver Grove Heights, 4/26/20

Signer’s Name Comments Added to Letter Brenda Mickens In these times, these are more needed and used than ever before! Mendota Heights 5/16/20

Bill Middlecamp The unit of survival is the organism AND its environment. The natural world supports Apple Valley all life, and we spoil it at our peril. I grew up exploring Kaposia Park in So. St. Paul, and 5/1/20 developed a sense of awe and love for the natural environment. I want to see more restoration of the natural environment. Douglas Marsh Please take care of our wild lands and waters, which is always a challenge in our urban Eagan environment. 4/28/20 Ryan Ronchak I support all these conservation efforts and have been so impressed by Eagan’s park Eagan system!! Thank you for choosing to no longer use sprays on weeds in key wildlife areas 5/26/20 and switch to natural gentler methods. Please consider water catchment areas to catch excess runoff fertilizers with the use of plants such as cattails & grasses which continues to be a problem for our lakes. Increased rain garden areas are also so helpful with these things and help me. Please consider the possibility of implementing some food forest areas as a demonstration and place for community interaction with the abundance of healthy food that can be generated in a small space. Please support the profligate of diverse species of beautiful plants we have available in our local ecosystems & growth region. Feel free to call anytime. I study Permaculture, Horticulture and Conservation. THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR EFFORTS IN CREATING A HEALTHY BIOREGION

Attachment 2 Friends of the Mississippi River (FMR) Letter The following 52 individuals signed the FMR support letter, with 32 adding their own comments.

Dear Office of Planning, I saw an article about the draft conservation plan and wanted to weigh in. Parks, greenways and natural areas are important to me and worthy of continued investment. Dakota County has done a good job of protecting natural areas, but it's also one of the fastest-growing counties in the state. Natural areas are disappearing, and we need to act quickly to support and implement the Land Conservation Plan. The last time Dakota County voted to invest in land conservation was in 2002. The goal was to protect 5,000-10,000 acres – and by January 2020, an impressive 11,536 acres were protected! It's time to build on that success. The new Land Conservation Plan identifies over 40,000 acres in townships across the county that are ecologically valuable and would benefit from protection. Finding ways to protect them now would yield dividends for years, helping to protect Dakota County's water resources, wildlife habitat and quality of life. Thank you!

Amanda Squires, Farmington, 6/13/20 Joey Pederson, Burnsville, 5/26/20 and 6/16/20 Ann Marie Sunderland, Apple Valley, 5/18/20 Katy Bauer, Eagan, 6/29/20 Carolyn Sanders, Burnsville, 5/21/20 Mary Feterl, Eagan, 6/29/20 CJ Bahan, Inver Grove Heights, 5/19/20 MaryJo Wiatrak, Minneapolis, 6/23/20 Debbie Nelson, Lakeville, 4/18/20 and 6/18/20 Michael Barrett, Minneapolis, 6/18/20 Denise Wilkens, Inver Grove Heights, 5/17/20 Nicki Weber, Farmington, 5/18/20 Eoghan O’Neill, St. Paul, 5/26/20 Scott Rockvam, Rosemount, 6/25/20 Heather Klein, Minneapolis, 6/18/20 Shirley Bauer, Inver Grove Heights, 6/20/20 Iris Condon, Eagan, 5/16/20 Tamera Miller, Hastings, 6/26/20 Jeanne Ronayne, St. Paul, 6/18/20 Tyler Swenson, South St. Paul, 6/15/20

Signer’s Name Comments Added to Letter Alex Reich I’m emailing you today because as a local Twin Cities resident who loves our natural Minneapolis spaces, I’d like to weigh in on the draft conservation plan. 6/24/20 Barbara Andersen I often visit parks and woodlands and rivers in Dakota County with my friend, John Crystal Masengarb who lives in West St. Paul. I am a Minnesota Master Naturalist and I have 6/18/20 documented species as we visit natural sites using iNaturalist app on the iPhone. Brad Snyder As a Science Teacher/Environmental Educator, Science/STEM Professional, and an Maple Grove Environmental/Biodiversity/Natural World Advocate, I wholeheartedly support the 6/23/20 development, restoring and conserving of parks, greenways and natural areas!! They are definitely important to me and worthy of continued investment!! Candace Hard I have volunteered with Friends of the Mississippi for several years. Keeping our Farmington County healthy is important to me. 4/19/20 Catherine Brown I am a recent transplant to Eagan , four years ago, and my family has deeply Eagan appreciated the wild places of Dakota County. 5/17/20 Cathleen Marquardt I have been participating in volunteer restoration work in the Vermillion River Eagan watershed and Lebanon Hills Park and want you to know how vitally important it is to 6/18/20 protect natural areas. Preservation of more public land for future generations is a top priority for me. Please continue this vital investment for your children to enjoy! Dakota County can be proud of this work to date and can continue to be a leader in land conservation. Chris Johanns I regularly read the Friends of the Mississippi River newsletter and they recently Minneapolis posted some info about protecting natural areas in Dakota County and i wanted to 6/18/20 weigh in.

Attachment 2 Signer’s Name Comments Added to Letter Connie Thiewes Personally, life and my family’s well-being depend of the park systems that flourish in Apple Valley our community. YES!! Do continue to care and support our natural resources, parks 5/23/20 and habitat for everyone’s benefit! Eileen Darnell I saw an article about the draft conservation plan and wanted to weigh in, as I live in Burnsville Dakota County and spend a lot of time outdoors with my dogs. 6/28/20 Emilee Martell Although I am a Wisconsin resident, I frequently come to Dakota County for recreation Somerset, WI purposes and would love it if there were more green spaces there to explore. 6/18/20 Heidi Wojahn Even though I don't live in Dakota County, I still use and enjoy Dakota County parks. Prior Lake 6/28/20 Jean Abbott I am a long-time resident of Dakota County and value our natural areas, whether Lakeville parks, greenways, or other outdoors space. You can find us outdoors year-round, 5/17/20 enjoying the many natural areas our area offers. These are reasons we chose, and continue to choose, to live here. Joseph Boyle As a concerned citizen, I found out today that Dakota County plans to protect more Minneapolis natural areas. It makes me proud to have forward thinking leaders. 6/22/20 Julia Bohnen In a handful of years down the road, when the county finds itself built up, citizens from Bloomington around the metro area will be grateful for the foresight of county leaders to preserve 5/21/20 land before it was paved or built over. Karen Lunde Hi, I live in Linden Hills in Minneapolis. To get out of the house, I walk around Lake Minneapolis Harriet. That's great that you plan to preserve some natural area! The little animals 6/22/20 can live there. Maybe I can even hike through it! Karla McKenzie I saw an article about the draft conservation plan and wanted to weigh in. Our parks Apple Valley are a treasure. The tamaracks absolutely glow golden in the fall. The lakes provide 7/2/20 recreation, fishing, swimming, etc. I have been volunteering a lot with Dakota County Parks in helping restore plant-life to pre-settlement conditions. It's a lot of work, but a labor of love. Laura Zanmiller Living in a first ring suburb, it is important to be able to get to nature quickly. Natural West St. Paul areas are special places for many people-helps to deal with stress, relax, and excites 6/22/20 curiosity. Lindsay Egge Greetings, Lakeville I am a proud Dakota County and Lakeville, MN resident. I love all the outdoor space in 6/24/20 this county that I have to choose from every day. As the population continues to grow, it is so important to protect natural areas. Lois Swanson I strongly support this plan. South St. Paul 6/19/20 Marilynn Torkelson Please protect the health of our soil, air, water and wildlife by protecting the Eden Prairie ecosystems that sustain us! 6/20/20 Maya Vellicolungara Minnesota's natural areas are the best thing about the state! Places like the boundary Eagan waters make it even more special. 5/26/20 Patricia Huberty I am deeply concerned about conservation and have been volunteering for many years Mendota Heights in restoration projects in the county. We have done a good job in the past but can and 4/22/20 should be doing more. As we continue through this time of the virus, our parks and 20

Attachment 2 Signer’s Name Comments Added to Letter open land are being used even more than before. I feel they are one of the best ways to spend our tax dollars. Patty Combs I love the Dakota County Parks and use them often. Minneapolis 7/1/20 Rae Phillips It is important that you hear people’s thoughts. Lakeville 6/26/20 Robert Kiner My name is Bob Kiner. I'm a resident in Eagan. I am an outdoor enthusiast and I am Eagan proud to be a Dakota County resident. You have done a super job of establishing and 4/29/20 maintaining greenways and parks in Dakota County. I hope you support the Land Conservation Plan. Sean Esslinger My name is Sean Esslinger and I am a 24-year old male. I want to see the conservation Eagan of this great state's wildlife continue to thrive throughout. What difference does it 5/16/20 really make to you where funding goes to??? It doesn't affect your family, life, job, retirement, at all. It would be a good idea to put more money towards the conservation efforts. I am concerned about the future of this plan and want my children to experience Minnesota in full one day. Shirley Bauer I feel this is important! Inver Grove Heights 5/16/20 Stacy Enzmann I saw an article about the draft conservation plan and wanted to share my thoughts. Minneapolis Please grant me some of your valuable time. 6/18/20 Parks, greenways and natural areas are important to me, and are worthy of continued investment. As a Minnesotan, I can assuredly say that one of our state's best aspects are the wild spaces that everyone can access. Our dedication to natural areas make this a state I am proud to live in, so please continue this mindset. Susan Simon I have lived in Dakota county for 15 years, being initially drawn in by the parks and West St. Paul natural spaces. I’ve also seen the demolition of some areas for development, leaving 5/16/20 large stark “lawnscape” where we had valuable, much needed breathing room. I feel strongly that our natural, wild spaces will create stronger, healthier communities. Quantity is important in this case. The more, the better! I will support any movement to keep up the good work! Tom White I have lived in Dakota County for over 30 years. Lakeville 6/24/20 Tom Wilkens My wife and I took part in the creation of the Farmland and Natural Area Plan in 2000, Inver Grove Heights 2001. Attended and spoke at a County Commissioners hearing on the Plan and 4/18/20 referendum, September 11, 2001. Later on worked informational tables at different events, lobbying citizens for its passage. Virginia Windschitl, I enjoy hiking in Dakota County parks seeing the wildlife and native flora. Farmington 5/17/20

Attachment 2 B. AGENCY AND ORGANIZATION COMMENTS Comment letters were received from seven agencies and organizations during the public review period.

Terry Holmes, Empire Township Board Chair, 5/14/20 Dear Mr. Singer, Thank you for presenting the draft Land Conservation Plan to the Empire Town Board on May 12, 2020. While we appreciate the intent of this plan, the Town Board has serious concerns with it as it relates to Empire Township. Empire Township is currently home to 1,700 acres of UMore Park land, over 4,000 acres of wildlife Management Areas, 456 acres of Dakota County parks, and 460 acres of Metropolitan Council land for the wastewater treatment plant. In addition, over 850 acres of land in northern Empire Township are currently being mined. Together, these areas comprise more than 37% of the total land area in Empire Township. It should also be noted that the gravel mining operations are expected to expand, and remain in place for the next 20-30 years. The current draft of the Land Conservation Plan identified a large Conservation Focus Area (CFA) within Empire Township. More than 2,000 acres of the CFA is located south of County Highway 66, west of Ahern Boulevard, east of the Farmington city limits, and north of the Township line. While some of this area is wetland and floodplain, most of the area is upland and is currently farmed. The CFA is also land that could potentially be developed in the near future. The City of Farmington is expanding to the east, and development in Empire Township is a logical extension of this growth. Public sewer and water can be extended to serve this area. The Empire Town Board is opposed to adoption of the plan, with the CFAs located as shown in Empire Township. IF these areas are placed in conservation easements, more than 47% of the land in the Township will be encumbered. This will have a detrimental impact on the Township’s ability to grow, and to the potential tax base. This will further impact our ability to provide a variety of services to our residents. We believe the goals and intent of the plan in this area can be accomplished through development best practices, including stormwater management, and floodplain and wetland requirements. Terry Holmes, Empire Township Board Chair, 6/29/20 Dear Mr. Singer, The Dakota County Township Officers’ Association discussed the draft Land Conservation Plan on June 25, 2020. We also reviewed the additional information you provided in your email dated June 11, 2020. The DCTOA and the Empire Town Board continue to have serious concerns with this plan. In addition to the concerns expressed in our May 14, 2020 letter, additional concerns are summarized below. 1. Placing land that might otherwise be slated for development into conservation as shown on the proposed maps will create a scenario for leapfrog rather than orderly development. This is especially true in Empire Township. This type of development is inconsistent with Metropolitan Council policy and with the goals of our recently adopted 2040 comprehensive plans. 2. The plan does not have clearly stated goals for large portions of the land that may go into conservation in many of the townships. 3. The plan does not clearly identify the public benefit for putting this much rural land into conservation. Further, much of this land lacks public access so will not be of use to Dakota County residents. 4. The plan was developed with little, if any input from the Townships, which are most impacted by this plan. Outreach and discussion with the Townships would have provided a better understanding of the impacts on the rural Townships.

Attachment 2 5. Land put into conservation will have long term impacts on the Townships. The plan must include a process for review and approval of placement of land into conservation, and how these impacts will be mitigated. Overall, out concern with the plan has not changed. If these areas identified as CFAs are placed in conservation easements, it will have a detrimental impact on the Township’s ability to grow, and to the potential tax base. This will further impact our ability to provide a variety of services to our residents. We continue to believe the goals and intent of the plan can be accomplished through development best practices, including stormwater management, and floodplain and wetland requirements. Joe Lynch, Administrator, City of Inver Grove Heights, 5/28/20 Thank you for allowing the City of Inver Grove heights to review and comments on the draft Land conservation Plan dated March 9, 2020. The City of Inver Grove Heights values a balance of developed and protected land and understands the importance of preserving open space. • We have reviewed the document on a staff level and have the following comments: • We request a GIS layer be created and provided to the city of the proposed Conservation Focus areas (CFAs) so we can determine more specifically the land proposed to be protected. It is likely that the City will not want some of the land in the proposed CFAs to be included because of its development potential. The City reserves the right to ask that the CFAs be modified based on more detailed review. • We request a GIS layer that shows the difference between land that may already have a conservation easement placed on it vs land that does not so it can be determined what is being added. • A conservation easement is shown on Marianna Ranch (Inver Grove Heights Park). A conservation easement over this park property cannot limit the city’s ability to develop the park for more active public park uses yet to be determined. • A conservation easement should not conflict with Inver Grove Heights zoning/land use plans for and in the NW area and reserves the right to modify the CFA based on this review. • Does the County propose to compensate the City for lost tax revenue for land placed in CFAs? • Do the CFAs conflict with future transportation plans at a County level? The City will review GIS data provided to determine any conflict with City transportation planning and reserves the right to modify the CFAs based on this review. • The County proposes the program will take millions of dollars to implement and suggests the County will invest 20-25%. Given the demand on taxes and services the City would be challenged with investing resources into this program and suggests the County increase their investment. • The City requests a written response regarding the compensation for property(ies) lost to CFAs and the County’s responsibility for funding the program. Again, thanks for allowing the City to review the draft document and we appreciate the time and energy put into developing the draft. Angela Torres, Patrick Boylan, Metropolitan Council, May 26, 2020 Dear Mr. Singer: The Metropolitan Council received the Dakota County Land Conservation Plan (Plan) on April 10, 2020. The Plan is a shared vision for Dakota County, to be implemented with partners, to guide future land protection efforts, and to strengthen natural resource management on protected lands. Council staff review finds that the Plan is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and does not raise major issues of consistency with Council policies. The following comments are offered for your consideration. Regional Parks and Trails (Colin Kelly, 651-602-1361) Dakota County references the regional parks and greenways in the County on multiple instances in the Plan, including in the sections on Conservation Focus Areas and funding. Generally, the Council does not have any specific concerns with regard to regional parks and trails; Staff applauds the work that Dakota County has done and continues to do with regard to natural resource protection and management. Council staff look forward to working with the County to implement the Plan.

Attachment 2 Stormwater & Natural Resources (Cameran J. Bailey, 651-602-1212) Council staff are pleased to highly commend the County on its progressive thinking in the development of this ambitious Plan and look forward to its implementation. Council staff encourage the County to seek opportunities to coordinate on projects at Council facilities applicable to the Plan as opportunities arise. This concludes the Council’s review of the Dakota County Land Conservation Plan. The Council will not take formal action on the Plan. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Patrick Boylan, Principal Reviewer, at 651- 602-1438. Dan MacSwain, Natural Resources Coordinator, Washington County, May 28, 2020 1. Page 1-6: Consider shortening the Executive Summary to two pages. 2. Page 8: Consider adding or revising title to include “Progress on Protecting” to title 3, Farmland, Natural Areas and Land Conservation. 3. Page 14: A potential tactic to add under Goal #2 would be to identify drainage tile networks through GIS to assist with restoring hydrology and identifying future Flowage Easements. Here is a great example of an effort to identify these areas in Wright County, Iowa. https://www.iowaview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Tutorial 3 TileMapping.pdf. 4. Page 16: Under Goal #3, Strategy B, consider adding a tactic on restoring natural processes. 5. Page 28: The text box on Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services was important to include. 6. Page 29: Under Natural Resource Management Issues and Opportunities, there is a great section on systemic changes that are contributing to the decline of native species, ecosystems and water quality. Under 2, Removal of natural regulatory processes, grazing is mentioned, but only mentioned in background and under USFWS programs. Is this process something that the plan is going to try and restore? Currently, it is not discussed later in the plan. 7. Page 49: The Flowage easement will be a great tool to help reduce the # of water quality impairments, and aid in downstream flood mitigation efforts. 8. Page 64: Related to the recommendation on developing a City-County Conservation Collaborative. It was interesting to see that City Park Directors wanted assistance in managing natural areas. Did this recommendation originate from requests from the Cities? How many of the cities are supportive of this effort? Are they willing to contribute funds? Or is the County going to assist with management and stewardship efforts? Slightly more detail related to this collaborative may be helpful in understanding how it will function. Mark Zabel, Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization, 5/14/20 1. Page 2, Land Conservation in the County: This section speaks to the amount of land protected but says nothing about land management the County or landowners have performed to date and the direct benefits and outcomes derived from such efforts. If the plan is to focus on both protection and management, the management outcomes should also be listed. 2. Page 4, Restore Large Scale Wetlands and Assist in Implementing the New Dakota County Groundwater Plan: VRWJPO staff recommend the focus of this approach should be on restoring former wetlands and improving conditions of existing wetlands. Existing wetlands are already protected by laws that the Federal and State government implement (Clean Water Act, Wetland Conservation Act), so spending money to protect existing wetlands that are already protected by existing laws would be better spent on protection and restoration of former wetlands or restoration of existing wetlands. 3. Page 5, Potential Outcomes and Estimated County Cost: The table provides reasonable estimates for protection and restoration costs, though they could be higher based on costs restoration work the VRWJPO has performed. The table assumes the County to provide approximately 5% of the cost of protection and 5% of the cost for restoration. The VRWJPO is not aware of funding sources that would pay 95% of protection or restoration costs, and fear the estimate is

Attachment 2 too low. We are of aware of some grant sources paying up to 90% of these costs, but other grant sources provide 50%- 75% of the restoration cost. An estimate of the County contributing 10%-25% of the protection and restoration costs seems more reasonable. 4. Page 10, item 5.4: The 2040 Dakota County comprehensive Plan states that productive farmland and minerals (bedrock, sand, gravel aggregates) are considered a natural resource. However, in the context of this plan, these are potential sources of water and land degradation, contamination, or impairment and doesn’t seem to match the goals of this plan. While these may be identified as natural resources in the County’s Comprehensive Plan, sources of potential degradation should not be a preserved natural resource and it should be stated that this plan is not going to focus on protecting prime farmland or mining areas for the benefit of those systems continuing to operate as is. 5. Page 12. Restored Prairie, Miesville Ravine Park Reserve Picture. The caption doesn’t appear to match picture. The picture appears to be a soybean field, not a restored prairie. 6. Page 13, Goal 1, A: The VRWJPO disagrees that CFAs should be used as the framework for protecting and connecting natural areas and habitat. While these may indeed be areas of importance, this assumes that CFAs are already the highest priority lands for protection and restoration, which may not be the case considering the goals of the plan and doesn’t provide for transparency on the process of prioritizing areas for projection and restoration. Rather than using CFAs as the framework, the VRWJPO suggests developing a new framework. The new framework would use stakeholder- developed criteria that would result in lands that achieve the various goals of the plan. These criteria would be applied to all potential lands within the County and land would be scored and ranked, and the resulting outcomes from the ranking would be a prioritized list of lands for protection and restoration.

7. Page 14, Goal 1, A, 8: We agree that tax modifications would be an incentive that would appeal to many landowners. It should be explained how the technical advisory group would help move forward the idea of tax modifications beyond activities that have been explored and performed to date. 8. Page 14, Goal 2: The VRWJPO would like more detail on how the Land Conservation Program will assist the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) with improving agricultural land management as the VRWJPO already has a well-established funding and project partnership with the SWCD and policies or assistance provided by the Land Conservation Program could impact SWCD and VRWJPO program implementation. 9. Page 15, B, 2: The VRWJPO requests more detail on new cost share funding streams provided to the SWCD for BMPs. Please be specific on what these potential funding streams would be as some existing programs have requirements and funding streams that may conflict with the source of the new funding. As important as on-going maintenance is for ecological restoration, there is the same maintenance need for structural and ecological conservation projects implemented through the SWCD. Perhaps a funding stream to pay for landowner maintenance of the practices implemented through the SWCD should be considered (e.g. sediment cleanout of water and sediment control basins, native vegetation management, rain garden cleanouts, etc.). 10. Page 15 Goal 3: The last sentence of the last paragraph states: “Precedent research did not identify a County-affiliated entity for natural resource management of private lands.” Natural resource management through conservation programs on private lands has traditionally been the role of SWCDs, often in partnership with state and federal agencies. 11. Page 16, A, 7: Please provide examples of relevant private funding entities that perform this type of work. Explain what the incentive is for a private entity and why they would have an interest in securing or disbursing private funds for natural resource work on other private lands. 12. Page 17 Goal 4, C: Pollinator habitat is good, but perhaps too narrow. Providing habitat that supports pollinators leverages creation of habitat that benefits native species in general if directed towards creation or enhancement of native landscapes. A pollinator focus may encourage importation of non-native species or varietals if not explicitly addressed. 13. Page 17, C. 2: From experience on projects associated with right-of-way, there are significant challenges in the knowledge of staff who maintain right-of way with regards to identification and management of native plants versus turf grass. We have found right-of-way areas that were seeded in native species and being mowed weekly or bi-weekly,

Attachment 2 which resulted in the death of the native plants and weeds taking over. We suggest incorporating some training opportunities into this list of tactics to increase the knowledge of those organizations performing right-of-way maintenance. We would also suggest working with right-of-way maintenance authorities on inventorying areas that require different kinds of maintenance and developing a maintenance plan for those areas. 14. Page 18, B, 1 & 2: The VRWJPO views public trails as an important resource for public use and recreation. However, staff have seen trails developed, specifically within greenways, that lack consideration or adequate funding for water quality and habitat improvement, do not consideration appropriate trail placement near sensitive resources, and only focus on the trail development and improvements. We suggest being very clear that these items would only construct trails where it’s feasible and allowed within current regulations and incorporates specific water quality and habitat improvements along the trail corridor. 15. Page 19, CFA Definition: The third paragraph indicates that for private lands already under permanent protection, this plan suggests greater outreach and collaboration with landowners on restoration, enhancement and long-term natural resource management. While the VRWJPO would like to see this happen, lands that are already protected have agreements established that dictate the expectations for those protected lands. Unless the County is willing to perform additional enhancement on these lands without any cost or contribution from the landowner, there is little to no incentive for a landowner to contribute voluntarily. 16. Page 22 CFAs: CFAs could be further refined using processes identified in the Ecological Classification System used by the Department of Interior nationally and by the Minnesota DNR to guide management of natural resources. Minnesota DNR has identified down through Land Type Associations (LTAs). Land Types and Land Type Phases below LTAs have been identified for specific purposes – Land Types in Chippewa National Forest and Land Type Phases for portions of that forest and in some State Parks. 17. Page 25 Marcott Lakes CFA: This profile describes the CFA, which illustrates what’s contained in the CFA. What this profile does not indicate are the highest priority areas for protection or restoration need within the CFA. Prioritization of areas within the CFAs is needed to focus resources on those most important within each CFA. 18. Page 26, 2, A: It’s unclear to the VRWJPO why significant aquifer recharge areas are not identified within the CFAs. The potential wetland restoration areas were included in the CFAs, but these recharge areas were not. While the recharge areas encompass a large area, the VRWJPO recommends these areas be included. Once included, prioritization of all CFAs can occur that uses stakeholder-developed criteria to identify the highest priority areas within CFAs for protection or restoration. 19. Page 27, B: The same comment mentioned above for the aquifer recharge areas should be applied for these other natural feature areas. 20. Page 28, D, 1. Third paragraph, second sentence: It appears this sentence is missing a word regarding the “measurable” economic benefit. If we were to guess, the word “is” would be inserted between “that” and “measurable.” 21. Page 29, 3: We recommend changing “drain tile” to “artificial drainage” to be a bit broader on types of drainage. We would also recommend changing the last sentence to state, “Water from streets and fields are capable of carrying various types of pollutants to lakes, streams, and wetlands. 22. Page 32, E: Why acquisition and restoration for regulatory buffers? (50’ and 16.5”) If considering stream buffers for natural resource protection, preservation, or restoration shouldn’t it be driven by underlying natural resource criteria such as soils, native vegetation, or wildlife. Acquisition and restoration of riparian buffers is appropriate as an action in and of itself without connection to a separate regulatory program. 23. Page 33, 1: The timeframes listed indicate a 2020 start. While not being completely familiar with the County Board’s budget, budgeting for a program before the plan is adopted is contrary to the Board’s normal planning and program implementation process. If a budget hasn’t yet been established for program implementation in 2020, we suggest shifting the timeframes to start in 2021, when and if the Board considers a budget that includes funding for this plan’s implementation.

Attachment 2 As mentioned in previous comments, the table is separating CFAs from wetland basins and groundwater recharge areas. The VRWJPO feels they should all be considered as one CFA with a prioritization strategy to identify those that are most important to protect and restore. 24. Page 34, Goal 3, B: There doesn’t appear to be a direct implementation activity with regards to restoration, enhancement, and maintenance of natural resources on public lands. We suggest something similar to item A, 3., where ongoing maintenance, management, and maintenance is a tangible activity that can be accounted for. 25. Page 35, Goal 4, B. 2: We suggest adding in training for transportation and utilities’ staff to identify and properly manage native plant communities. 26. Page 35, Goal 4, B: Based on the tactics listed, right-of-way and smaller scale pollinator habitats would have tangible outcomes. We suggest adding large scale pollinator habitats so that pollinator enhancements within existing natural areas could also be something implemented (e.g. increasing forb number and diversity within an existing native plant community). 27. Rather than just promoting SWCD’s Conservation Landowner of the Year program, we suggest the County start a program of their own that recognizes landowners for their efforts toward items like pollinator habitat establishment/improvement, protection and restoration of wetlands, etc. 28. Page 36, 2: This method of prioritization assumes that landowners will still be submitting projects to the County for consideration of protection or enhancement. This model should be changed to a model where the evaluation and prioritization takes place across all CFAs, and the highest priority areas’ landowners are targeted for protection and implementation. 29. Page 36, 2, A: This section includes the statement: “CFAs with greater interest among landowners would move up in priority for convening the CFAs landscape conservation dialogues.” Shouldn’t the natural value of the resource be the primary consideration and drive the program prioritization over landowner interest? And shouldn’t there be more criteria to be considered beyond the size of the wetland as noted in the next paragraph in the document? 30. Page 36, 2, B: As mentioned in the previous comment, we suggest conducting outreach to the landowner’s who have the highest priority lands within CFAs as opposed to outreach to all landowners within CFAs. The bullets listed show additional consideration would be given to certain areas that have already been prioritized. We suggest the prioritization of CFAs to incorporate these additional consideration criteria so that the resulting ranking of prioritized projects already takes these benefits into account. 31. Page 37, C: If these areas outside of the existing CFA framework are important enough to be considered for protection or restoration, we suggest identifying these areas and incorporating them into the CFA framework and then prioritize CFA areas. 32. Page 37, D: Ninth bullet under Ecological identifies:” Reinstatement of hydrologic conditions”. This might be better described: “Mitigation of hydrologic changes to address habitat maintenance or improvement” 33. Page 38, B. 1: We think having a collaborative makes a lot of sense in getting work done. Keep in mind that groups often need an organization that takes the lead on many of the activities the collaborative plans and implements. We suggest specifying if Dakota County will be the lead organization or if it varies depending on the land in question. Regardless of who the lead organization is, it’s likely a leader will need to be identified for a collaborative to be successful. 34. Page 39, table: Why is there a division between the large group collaborative and project partnerships? 35. Page 42, Staffing: This section states that an additional 1.0 FTE will double the land protection capacity. It’s unclear to us how 4.0 FTE of existing staff are currently working on Land Conservation projects and an additional 1.0 FTE would double land protection capacity. We feel this section will need additional details to avoid scrutiny about the capacity of existing staff or the assumed capacity of an additional 1.0 FTE. The same can be said for an additional 3.0 FTE being able to quadruple the restoration work.

Attachment 2 36. Page 47, Potential New County Funding Options: We realize the title of this section is trying to convey that funding for this program would need to be generated or “new,” but the title may lead the reader to believe these are revenue streams that haven’t been explored in the past. We suggest simply leaving the title as “Potential County Funding Options.” 37. With regards to General Obligation Bonds and Capital Improvement Bonds, the revenue doesn’t appear to cover operations and maintenance, only capital costs. This should be specifically called out so that the reader knows that these types of bonds would also need some type of supplementary revenue to cover the costs of operations and maintenance. 38. Page 49, Agricultural Easement: The idea of protecting a large tract of land with an agricultural easement seems unnecessary when the County is only interested in the protection and restoration of the lands that provide ecological and recreational benefits. We suggest removing this option as the other types of easements listed can protect the specific areas of interest. 39. Page 49, Buffer Easement: It appears the word “develop” should be “development.” 40. Page 50, Restoration Easement: It appears the primary upside to securing land in one of the easement types listed is the ability for the County or its contractor to perform restoration, management, or maintenance at no cost to the landowner. However, most easements have restrictions on the ability of a landowner to use their land for their various wishes or needs. This particular type of easement appears to allow the County or its contractor to perform work without putting any perceived land restrictions or costs on the landowner. We’re unsure why this type of easement wouldn’t be used in most cases if it provides more freedom to a landowner regarding rights and restrictions on their property. 41. Page 50, Land Registry: This type of approach provides significant freedom to the landowner and wouldn’t cost nearly as much to implement compared to other protection measures. However, this approach doesn’t appear to establish restoration targets to be achieved, which seems contrary to the overall goals of the plan with regards to restoration. 42. Page 52 Property Tax Study Group: The table of example performance measures provided includes a measure for a property tax study group. Was this study group cited in the plan goals, strategies, or tactics? Brian Ross, The Great Plains Institute, May 28, 2020 The Great Plains Institute (GPI) is a 20-year old non-profit organization focused on transforming our energy systems to be beneficial to the economy and environment. GPI is a national leader in setting best practices and providing assistance to local government in the intersection of renewable energy development and land use regulation and programs. GPI has reviewed the draft Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County, and has identified a number of opportunities in the plan where habitat- friendly solar energy development could leverage the County’s planned work in protecting natural resources, restoring ecosystem services, and improving agricultural practices and economics. Minnesota is the national leader in developing habitat-friendly solar site designs that successfully co-locate eco-system restoration with solar energy development.1 The Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources (BWSR) administers the Minnesota Habitat Friendly Solar Program, which certifies solar developments that are designed and maintained to provide pollinator, songbird, and gamebird benefits.2 GPI is working with a national organizations, state agencies and local governments to further enhance local co-benefit opportunities by identifying siting and design standards that capture surface water, ground water, and agricultural diversification benefits that can be captured as part of solar development. Dakota County has already seen the rapidly growing development pressure associated with the burgeoning solar industry in MN. The County has over 60 community solar installations, almost 60 MW of solar capacity. The amount of solar deployment in MN is expected to increase four-fold over the next ten years, so the development pressure in the County’s rural areas will continue, adding to the housing and urban expansion pressure on the County’s natural systems, habitat, and watersheds. Solar Development for Conservation Co-Benefits Unlike most forms of development, solar development (particularly at the community scale) can be readily designed and sited to enhance or restore some eco-system functions. The critical point, however, is that purely market driven solar development will not achieve the Plan’s goals; a deliberate approach to guiding and designing solar development can not

1 Center for Pollinators in Energy, https://fresh-energy.org/beeslovesolar/ 2 Minnesota Habitat Friendly Solar Program website, https://bwsr.state.mn.us/minnesota-habitat-friendly-solar-program 28

Attachment 2 only help meet Plan goals, but accelerate opportunities and leverage funding and staff time to increase impact. Such solar development opportunities fit into the following Plan ownership scenarios: 1) Publicly-owned conservation land within Preliminary CFAs. Solar development has limited opportunity to contribute to Plan goals in this scenario. Some individual opportunities may exist along the edge of such CFAs where solar development can provide an edge buffer to other forms of development. 2) Protected private lands within Preliminary CFAs. Similar to scenario 1, solar development has limited opportunity to contribute to Plan goals, and existing protections will generally limit solar development from occurring. However, solar development is a potential tool in existing protected areas with limited or problematic funding or commitment to ongoing maintenance (a necessary element of conservation noted in the draft Plan). Both the lease provisions and the conditional use permit standards by the local government can stipulate management practices that meet natural resources goals. 3) Non-protected private land with Preliminary CFAs. Appropriately sited and designed solar development has great potential in this scenario to leverage resources and accelerate protection and restoration efforts. The categories of protection or restoration, and the siting priorities for solar in these areas are noted below: a. Removing all or most economic value from private lands for the purpose of eco-system protection of restoration can be a difficult and expensive proposition. Where solar development can be successfully co-located and managed consistent with the CFA conservation goal, solar development can provide an attractive revenue stream to the land owner, and ensure long-term protection of the site or project area. Solar development can also be used as a form of limited (conservation) development where a large area is permanently protected while a small area (10 acres) is developed under solar. b. CFA goals that can be compatible with solar include protection or restoration of grassland habitat and pollinator habitat. BWSR and DNR are learning from early habitat-friendly solar development to tailor the seed mixes and maintenance practices to maximize value for these habitat outcomes. Solar development that is designed consistent with BWSR standards and designed to a specific goal are successfully restoring habitat or creating buffers to similar natural areas. c. Solar development can be designed as green infrastructure to mitigate surface water impairments or watersheds that are impacted by agricultural practices. GPI is currently working with national laboratories and stormwater regulators at the federal and state level to document the runoff co-efficients for solar development under specific soil conditions, topography, hydrologic regimes, and solar designs.3 Preliminary analysis shows that replacing agricultural uses in strategic areas with solar designed as green infrastructure can create water quality benefits.4 4) Non-protected private land outside Preliminary CFAs. Several categories of protection goals for land outside of Preliminary CFAs can be enhanced by planned and carefully designed solar development. The greatest opportunity is on parcels that meet the following protection categories and are currently in agricultural use: a. Creation of connected corridors for pollinators or some species of birds b. Conversion of cultivated lands in vulnerable or highly vulnerable DWSMAs or recharge areas. GPI is helping coordinate several projects that are assessing opportunities and conducting field tests to use solar development as groundwater protection in nitrate management areas. Particularly for higher value land in agricultural production, the cost of taking it out of production can be prohibitive, and some programmatic tools are of limited duration. Solar development provides an income stream to the land owner that is (currently) substantially higher than agricultural rents or returns on investment. A number of rural water suppliers are investigating how to leverage these returns to accelerate their programs to limit nitrate contamination for vulnerable recharge areas. c. Solar as green infrastructure for surface water protection, as described above.

3 The Photo Voltaic Stormwater Management Research and Testing (PV-SMaRT) project is a Dept of Energy funded project managed by the National Renewable Energy Lab, with field test sites in five case study states across the nation, one of which is Minnesota. 4 Unpublished research by the University of Minnesota Energy Transition Lab (a partner on the PV-SMaRT project, stormwater modeling from multiple MN and WI sites comparing before and after stormwater impacts. 29

Attachment 2 d. Providing a pathway for agricultural operators to improve management practices and convert marginal farmland to natural vegetation. Implementation The Plan describes a number of implementation priorities, partnerships, and funding options. Solar development as a plan strategy has clear viability to leverage County funding with private sector funding, to ensure long-term (25 years) management of the site particularly on private lands, and to meet Minnesota’s clean energy and GHG reduction goals as a co- benefit of protection and restoration. However, using solar development as a strategy for meeting Plan goals is not an intuitive opportunity, particularly given the perspective of many residents and decision-makers that solar development is an industrial land use, or at least is akin to grey infrastructure. And unless the solar development is deliberately sited and designed to function as green infrastructure or habitat for compatible species, the view of solar as a hardscape or infrastructure is a reasonable one. Dakota County can follow the lead of a number of natural resource agencies and NGOs that are now acknowledging the opportunity to build solar as green infrastructure. BWSR and DNR5 are actively promoting these opportunities in guidance documents and programs. Organizations such as The Nature Conservancy are mapping out development and eco-system restoration opportunities for renewable energy.6 The Minnesota Rural Water Association is actively investigating solar as groundwater protection. The Great Plains Institute is working with local governments and state agencies on the co-benefits approach to solar development, and would be able to offer some technical assistance to Dakota County to develop a programmatic approach to solar as green infrastructure. Funding for developing pilot initiatives for particular goals may be available, such as MN Department of Health innovation funding for drinking water protection.

5 DNR Commercial Solar Siting Guidance, https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/ewr/commercial_solar_siting_guidance.pdf 6 https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/where-we-work/united-states/north-carolina/stories-in-north-carolina/making- solar-wildlife-friendly/, https://energynews.us/2020/05/18/southeast/conservation-group-plots-solar-potential-for-retired- appalachian-coal-mine-land/, 30

Land Conservation Plan Revisions, Based on Comments and County Board Direction

Maps and Figures:

Page Map or Figure Change Made Based on Comments or Board Direction 3, 20 Preliminary CFAs • Boundary update (exclude portion of Empire preliminary CFA in southwest • Recategorize or reduce agricultural land in preliminary CFAs 21 Pie chart of CFA protection status • Updated per boundary change 22 Preliminary CFAs and Wetland Restoration • Boundary update Basin Map 22 Land Cover Table • Updated per boundary change 26 CFAs compared to FNAP eligibility areas • New map added 27 CFAs and regional greenways • New map added 28 CFAs and recharge areas • Boundary and figures updated

Text Revisions:

Page Content Change Made Based on Comments or Board Direction 3 CFA Boundary and figures • Updated totals based on boundary update 4, 5 Cost Estimates and Targets • Targets and costs refined 14, 35 Partnership tactics • Added tactic for coordinating with townships on priorities and interests 14 Wetland restoration • Clarified that preference is for restoring cultivated basins • Also add to text on basin identification 16 Ecological qualities • Added reference to County location on Mississippi Flyway 17 Pollinator network • Eliminated smaller-scale reference for habitat sites 17 Recreational access • Emphasized that plan focus is protection and restoration. Compatible recreational access would be possible only when a landowner allows it 19 Plan protection intent • Clarified that plan focus is not protecting farmland but seeks large scale wetland restoration • Updated acreages based on boundary changes 21 Restorable wetland basins • Updated acreage within preliminary CFAs 29 Other areas • Added surface water corridors 34, 44 Cost estimates and targets • Updated based on boundary changes 38, 42 Avoiding and addressing • Added language on how convening CFA landowners and conflicts between local plans and local governments plan will help avoid and resolve CFA vision conflicting visions 45 Staffing levels and outcomes • Refined information on staffing and capacity 46-48 Federal and state funding • Added information on CRP, CREP, and CPL funds 53 Tools • Clarified that use of agricultural easements will be highly limited to specific circumstances 89 Review comments • Added Appendix 4 with public review comments 123 Cost Analyses • Added Appendix 5 with more detailed cost analyses