VIRTUAL DAKOTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday, November 19, 2020 7:00 PM – 9:00 PM If you wish to speak at or view the November 19, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting, please notify Liz Hansen via email at [email protected] Emails must be received by 6:00pm Thursday, November 19, 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. School Zone Safety Study – Information (Kristi Sebastian – Transportation)
VII. Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resources Management Plan – Information (Tom Lewanski and Joe Walton – Parks)
VIII. Spring Lake Park Reserve Traditional Cultural Properties Survey – Information (Lil Leatham – Parks)
IX. Spring Lake Park Master Plan, Chapters 1-4, - Information (Lil Leatham – Planning)
X. Planning Manager Update and County Board Actions • 2021 Planning Commission and election of officers • Adopted Whitetail Woods Natural Resources Management Plan • Adopted River to River Greenway Natural Resources Management Plan • Released Transportation Plan and related Comprehensive Plan chapter for public review • Approved design plans for Thompson County Park • Approved design plans for Big Rivers Trailhead at overlook • Approved design for Bison range at Spring Lake Park Reserve • Adopted Land Conservation Plan
XI. Upcoming Public Meetings – Community Outreach Dakota County Comprehensive Public Hearing, January 19th, 9am, virtual and in-person format held Plan Amendment during County Board meeting. (Transportation Chapter) County Road 46 Study in Hastings TBD - Virtual Open House from late December through mid-January
County Road 30 (Diffley) TBD – Virtual Open House later January to early February School area improvements
XII. Planning Commissioner Announcements/Updates XIII. Topics for Next Meeting Location To Be Determined, Thursday, December 17, 2020. • Spring Lake Regional Park – Draft Master Plan
XIV. Adjourn DAKOTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Date AGENDA ITEM: Nov. 17,2020
Dakota County School Travel Safety Assessment
PURPOSE Provide Planning Commission: 1. Overview of the Study 2. Share study purpose, process and information for the upcoming virtual open house. 3. Share updates – Upcoming Public Engagement
BACKGROUND Dakota County has been partnering with MnDOT to proactively address safety for students traveling to and from schools, with a focus on safety for those who walk and bike to school. There are about 43 schools in Dakota County adjacent to the County and MnDOT highway systems. The assessments started earlier this year. The focus is on safety issues near the schools and recommendations for improvements. Dakota County is committed to providing a safe environment for all people who use the transportation system. School zones are a priority for safety since they involve younger pedestrians, bicyclists, and new drivers navigating County and State roadways. Through past work with schools and school districts, County staff has heard common themes including concerns for pedestrians, bicyclists, and younger drivers traveling along and across higher speed roadways. Dakota County has worked with several schools in the County to address safety concerns in school zones. However, a consistent and proactive approach is needed to review safety at all the schools on the County and MnDOT highway network.
The assessment is taking a systemic approach to safety within school zones to identify common challenges and recommended treatments that are appropriate to apply throughout the County. An advisory committee has been formed with representatives from these partner agencies, and the committee will meet throughout the study process to provide input on the safety assessments and recommendations. Public engagement was held during the summer to understand concerns related to travel to/from schools. The project team has evaluated each location and prepared draft recommendations which will now be shared with the public in a 2nd virtual public engagement in Late November – December.
Improvement recommendations focus on a comprehensive approach to safety including engineering, education, and enforcement. The recommendations developed as part of the study will take a comprehensive approach to improving safety by identifying solutions in engineering, education, and enforcement. The full study report summary is expected to be prepared in early 2021.
ATTACHMENTS School Safety Study Locations Updated Schedule
QUESTIONS The following questions are intended to help assist in review of the packet materials.
1. How is the study group working with the Advisory Team and sharing study information with the public? 2. When will recommendations for the school areas be shared? 3. Is there a time line for implementing recommendations?
Map Map School Name City School Name City ID ID HIGH SPEED, 4+ LANES HIGH SPEED, 2-3 LANES Inver Grove 1 Akin Road Elementary School Farmington 28 Berea Lutheran School Heights Burnsville Alternative High Mendota 2 Eagan 29 Convent of the Visitation School Heights 3 Burnsville High School Burnsville 30 Echo Park Elementary School Burnsville 4 Cedar Park Elementary School Apple Valley 31 Glory Academy Lakeville Mendota 5 Century Middle School Lakeville 32 Henry Sibley High School Heights Meadowview Elementary 6 Cyprus Classical Academy Burnsville 33 Farmington School 7 Dakota Hills Middle School Eagan 34 Pilot Knob Elementary School Eagan Robert Boeckman Middle 8 Dakota Ridge School Apple Valley 35 Farmington School Diamond Path Elementary 9 Apple Valley 36 Rosemount High School Rosemount School 10 Eagan High School Eagan 37 Rosemount Middle School Rosemount Inver Grove 11 East Lake Elementary School Lakeville 38 Salem Hills Elementary School Heights 12 Faithful Shepherd Eagan LOW SPEED Farmington Elementary 13 Falcon Ridge Middle School Apple Valley 39 Farmington School First Baptist Church and 14 Rosemount 40 Hastings Middle School Hastings School West Saint 15 Good Shepherd Lutheran Burnsville 41 Heritage STEM Middle School Paul Inver Grove Heights Middle Inver Grove 16 Highland Elementary Apple Valley 42 School Heights Randolph Elementary and 17 ISD 917 (Adjacent to DCTC) Rosemount 43 Randolph High School Inver Grove 18 Kenwood Trail Middle School Lakeville 44 Simley High School Heights Lake Marion Elementary Mendota 19 Lakeville 45 Somerset Elementary School Heights West Saint 20 Lakeville North High School Lakeville 46 St. Croix Lutheran Academy Paul St. John the Baptist Catholic 21 Levi P. Dodge Middle School Farmington 47 Vermillion School West Saint 22 North Trail Elementary School Lakeville 48 St. Joseph's Catholic School Paul 23 Northview Elementary School Eagan 24 Scott Highlands Middle School Apple Valley 25 Southview Christian School Burnsville 26 Trinity Lone Oak Lutheran Eagan 27 Vista View Elementary Burnsville 2020 Project Schedule MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER
Virtual Engagement
Advisory Committee Meetings
Stakeholder Interviews
Data Collection
Identify Focus Schools
Detailed School Evaluations
Develop Recommendations
Final Documentation
Implementation DAKOTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Date AGENDA ITEM: Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan and Natural Resources Management Plan (information)
PURPOSE Provide Planning Commission: 1. Opportunity to review and discuss the Public Review Draft Natural Resources Management Plan 2. Opportunity to review and discuss the first 4 chapters of the Public Review Draft Master Plan 3. Opportunity to review and discuss the Traditional Cultural Properties Survey Report
BACKGROUND At the July 23, 2020 meeting, the Planning Commission provided direction on the Spring Lake Park Reserve Long- Term and Ten-Year concepts and identified priorities for implementation within the next five years. The staff and consultant team began preparing the Draft Master Plan (MP) and Natural Resources Management Plan (MRMP) documents. The Public Review Draft NRMP and the first 4 chapters of the Public Review Draft MP have been prepared for review.
Concurrent with MP and NRMP document development, the Upper Sioux Community Tribal Historic Preservation Office completed a Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP) Survey for portions of the park that would be impacted by new recreation recommended in the Master Plan Concepts. The TCP Survey identified a higher concentration of TCP within the park than previously known, particularly within the Upper Park (Scharr’s Bluff and Mill areas). As a result, additional consultation is needed with the Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) from the Prairie Island Indian Community, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, Lower Sioux Indian Community, and the Upper Sioux Community. Discussion with the THPOs, which will take place in November 2020, will focus on best practices for protecting TCP and will help determine MP concept changes needed. Staff anticipates presenting the Public Review Draft Master Plan to the Planning Commission in January 2021 and seeking a recommendation to release the plans for public review.
ATTACHMENTS 1. Public Review Draft Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resources Management Plan 2. Chapters 1-4 of the Public Review Draft Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan, Draft Concept Plan 3. Spring Lake Park Reserve Traditional Cultural Properties Survey completed by the Upper Sioux Community Tribal Historic Preservation Office
The Draft Master Plan Appendices are not included in the packet but can be reviewed on the project webpage: https://www.co.dakota.mn.us/parks/About/ParkMasterPlans/Documents/SpringLakeParkMasterPlanAppendice sABC.pdf
QUESTIONS The following questions are intended to help assist in review of the packet materials.
1. Is the Draft Natural Resources Management Plan complete and ready for public review? 2. Do you have suggestions for refinements to the Draft NRMP or MP Chapters 1-4? 3. What are your thoughts about the findings from the Traditional Cultural Properties Survey?
Spring Lake Park Reserve
Natural Resources Management Plan
Prepared for Dakota County Parks
November 2020
DRAFT
4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com
DRAFT
4300 MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com
Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resources Management Plan
August 2020 Contents
Executive Summary ...... 1 1 Introduction...... 13 1.1 Location ...... 14 1.2 Precedent Planning Efforts ...... 17 2 Cultural and Historic Context ...... 20 3 Current Conditions ...... 25 3.1 Water Resources ...... 25 Mississippi River and Spring Lake ...... 25 Surface Water Flow in the Park ...... 29 Seeps and Springs ...... 29 3.2 Geology ...... 31 Bluffs ...... 31 Ravines, Slopes, and Terraces ...... 32 Soils ...... 34 3.3 Current Plant Communities ...... 37 Ecological Quality ...... 43 Observed Trends in Ecological Systems ...... 45 3.4 Wildlife ...... 54 Historic Wildlife ...... 54 Wildlife Today ...... 54 Birds ...... 55 Mammals ...... 56 iii Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Amphibians and Reptiles ...... 58 Insects ...... 58 Bison ...... 58 Rare Wildlife Species ...... 59 4 Natural Resources Issues and Opportunities/Recommendations ...... 65 4.1 History of Post-Settlement Human Disturbance ...... 65 4.2 Habitat Fragmentation and the Loss in the Variation within the Ecosystem of the Park ...... 66 4.3 Loss or Curtailment of Ecological Services in the Region ...... 68 4.4 Loss of key park ecological processes ...... 69 4.5 Reduced Native Plant Diversity ...... 70 4.6 Invasive Species...... 72 4.7 Ravine Erosion ...... 73 4.8 Deer Abundance ...... 74 4.9 Earthworms ...... 74 4.10 Past Natural Resource Management ...... 75 4.11 Climate Change ...... 75 5 Vision & Goals ...... 77 5.1 Overall Park Natural Resources Management Goals ...... 77 5.2 Goals and Recommendations for Priority Features ...... 78 Forests and Woodlands ...... 78 Oak Savanna ...... 79 Prairies ...... 80 Ravines ...... 81 Cliffs & Bluffs ...... 81 Soils ...... 82 Regional Trail Corridor ...... 83 Wildlife ...... 83
iv Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
6 Implementation ...... 84 6.1 Native Plant Community Restoration ...... 84 Restoration Strategy...... 84 Adaptive Management Approach ...... 88 Target Plant Communities ...... 89 Restoration Process and Long-Term Maintenance ...... 93 Restoration phasing ...... 96 6.2 Wildlife Management ...... 97 Deer Management ...... 97 6.3 Soil Management ...... 98 6.4 Stormwater & Shoreline Management ...... 98 6.5 Monitoring Recommendations ...... 99 6.6 Native Plant Community Restoration & Maintenance Costs ...... 99 6.7 Wildlife Resources Projects and Cost Estimates ...... 100 6.8 Water Resources Projects and Cost Estimates ...... 101 6.9 Funding Sources ...... 103
v Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
List of Tables
Table 3-1 Species Captured on Trail Cameras ...... 57 Table 3-2 Species of Greatest Conservation Need determined from information provided for wildlife surveys within SLPR (2016 – 2019)...... 61 Table 3-3 2018 Bird Species List from the annual breeding bird survey...... 62 Table 6-1 Plant Community Restoration ...... 93 Table 6-2 Native Plant Community Restoration Cost ...... 99 Table 6-3 Native Plant Community Maintenance Cost ...... 99 Table 6-4 Maintenance and Restoration Combined Costs ...... 100 Table 6-5 Grant Funding Sources ...... 103
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Regional Natural Features ...... 15 Figure 1-2 Park Location ...... 16 Figure 1-3 Key natural and man-made features of the park ...... 19 Figure 2-1 1890 Mississippi River Commission Map ...... 22 Figure 2-2 Pre-Settlement vegetation in the Spring Lake Park Reserve area. Source: Marschner 1974 ...... 23 Figure 2-3 Post-Settlement Human Impact Zones ...... 24 Figure 3-1 Mississippi River and Spring Lake...... 26 Figure 3-2 Slope analysis exhibiting topographic changes across the site ...... 33 Figure 3-3 Soil textures found across the park ...... 35 Figure 3-4 Soils susceptibility to water erosion ...... 36 Figure 3-5 Natural Resource Inventory—Existing Ecological Communities ...... 39 Figure 3-6 Ecological Quality of Plant Communities ...... 44 Figure 3-7 The Prairie-Forest Continuum ...... 45 Figure 3-8 Ecological Observations of the Western Section of the Park ...... 49 Figure 3-9 Ecological Observations of the Central Ravine Area ...... 51 Figure 3-10 Ecological Observations of the Eastern Section of the Park ...... 53 Figure 6-1 Restoration Priorities ...... 85 Figure 6-2 Target Plant Communities ...... 86 Figure 6-3 Restoration Phasing by Work Unit ...... 87 Figure 6-4 Detailed Target Plant Communities—East ...... 90
vi Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Figure 6-5 Detailed Target Plant Communities—Central...... 91 Figure 6-6 Detailed Target Plant Communities—West ...... 92
vii Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Executive Summary
Spring Lake Park Reserve is a 1,097-acre reserve located in Nininger Township, just west of the City of Hastings. A park reserve has a higher degree of protection for natural resources than does a Regional Park, thus natural resources are a very important component of this site. Now inundated by the waters of the Mississippi River, due to the Lock and Dam No. 2 that was constructed in the 1930’s, historically, “Spring Lake” was once a diverse mix of river floodplain, marsh, slough, and scattered oak savanna. The resulting shallow lake, which is actually outside the boundaries of the park reserve, is the most prominent natural feature of the area. Interestingly, very few water resources or wetlands occur on the park proper, with the exception of a black ash seepage swamp located at the lower end of a large ravine in the middle east section of the park.
Other prominent features include river terraces and steep, north- as well as west-facing limestone and sandstone bluffs, and ravines that support natural communities that are rare in the region. For instance, Canada yew occurs as a disjunct population (otherwise found in northern Minnesota) and grows commonly on the steeper north-facing slopes. Other shady slopes contain a diverse array of spring ephemeral wildflowers beneath their forest canopies. Remnant bedrock bluff prairies occur sporadically across the bluff, especially in the middle and eastern sections. The tops of the bluffs were historically dominated by prairie, but in the latter part of the 19th and early part of the 20th centuries, were converted to agricultural fields. The area between the bluff tops and the steep bluff slopes is occupied by moderate slopes and relatively flat terraces dominated by oak forest (towards the shadier end of the moisture gradient), and oak woodland and oak savanna (at the drier end of the moisture gradient). The flatter parts of the site, toward the tops of the bluffs, are degraded due to past agricultural practices. Moderately steep slopes adjacent to the upper ag fields were often grazed by domestic livestock and thus became somewhat degraded and less diverse. The steeper areas were mostly spared from overgrazing and cropping, therefore today these areas are in the best condition, ecologically. Much of the central and eastern portions of the park were ranked as having “high biodiversity significance” by the Minnesota Biological Survey in the 1990’s, and a large area in the western portion of the park was ranked as “moderate” biodiversity.
Archaeological discoveries made by the Science Museum of Minnesota during the 1950’s demonstrated that indigenous societies have used the area for some 8,000 years. Several mounds (Bremer Mound) and some small caves (Lee Mill Cave) near the old mill site were identified and artifacts were described and removed. Also habitation and/or hunting sites were identified, for example the Ranelius site and Bremer Village site in the middle of the park, and the Sorg Site at the east end of the park near Schaar’s Bluff. In updating the park’s Master Plan in 2020, the Upper Sioux Community Tribal Historic Preservation Office conducted a Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP) Survey in the Park Reserve, the purpose of which was to provide needed information that will assist in planning, park management, and consultation. It also provides preliminary recommendations to the County on best practices for preservation and protection of cultural resources. In addition to the already known Cultural Areas, the Survey found that the park is rich in cultural resources, including TCPs and Culturally Sensitive Areas. Eight focus areas that intersect
1 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
proposed development areas in the Master Plan were identified and described: New Cabin Area at existing Retreat Center, Camping Area, Interpretive Center Area, River Landing Use Area, Natural Surface Train in center of park, Mill Site and trail along shoreline, Trail/Stair Connection between Schaar’s Bluff and Mill Site, and Picnic-Play Area improvements/New Parking Area. Significant cultural features such as these, in addition to significant natural resource features, will help inform and guide the future development of the park.
Wildlife of the park is varied and rich, including large mammals such as whitetail deer, fisher, and badger; small mammals such as shrews and mice; several species of bats in the caves that occur throughout the bluffs, and reptiles and amphibians such as red-bellied snakes, and tree frogs. Being located along the Mississippi River, an international migration corridor, the park provides critical habitat for untold numbers of migrating birds. The County is currently planning to reintroduce bison to the prairies located in the western section of the park. Bison, a keystone prairie species, would be a huge benefit to the site’s grassland ecosystems, as well as a boon for park visitorship.
Recently, a regional trail was built through the middle of the park, and provides great access and viewing spots for visitors, but it came at a cost to the site’s natural resources, by disturbing and bisecting habitat, opening up forests, and placing barriers for animal movement. The trail also can act as a conduit for invasive species. It will be an ongoing challenge and goal to manage the park so that these disruptions are minimized and lessened over time.
Select areas of the park have undergone ecological restoration, primarily old agricultural fields that have been taken out of production have been restored to upland prairie. The oldest prairie restoration in Dakota County parks, 11 acres done in 1995, is located next to the Youth Lodge in the western portion of the park. Since 2014, there have been three more large restoration projects added to the park (Mississippi Flyway, Plateau Prairie, and Archery Range Prairie). During the last two years, areas along most of the length of the Mississippi Greenway have been planted to prairie in lieu of eventually returning to woodland and savanna. All told, there have been approximately 300 acres restored in the park.
Because of the dramatic bluffs, the lush vegetation, and the adjacent lake and river, SLPR provides some of the most scenic views of any of the County parks, and offers some of the most interesting places to visit, too.
Natural Resource Management Plan
Although there have been Natural Resource Management and Stewardship Plans for Spring Lake Park Reserve in the past, they have always been embedded within the park’s Master Plans. This will be the first time that it will be a plan that stands on its own, which has certain advantages, including being able to provide a better blueprint for natural resources managers and staff and to provide more in-depth information and detail
2 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
concerning natural resources of the park and the region. That said, this Natural Resource Management Plan (NRMP) was not developed in a vacuum, so to speak, but rather was developed in conjunction with the Master Plan update during 2019-2020, and as such, the two plans informed and helped guide one another. This NRMP will lay the foundation for managing the natural resources of the park reserve both short-term (next five years) and long-term (for the next 20 years).
Purpose and Vision The purpose of protecting and restoring natural resources at Spring Lake Park Reserve is multifaceted and includes the following:
• Allow people to experience the natural heritage of the area and improve their experience in the park
• Provide habitat for native plants, birds, insects, mammals, amphibians and reptiles
• Demonstrate the native ecosystem regeneration process
• Foster and build a resilient, mature, and high-functioning ecosystem
• Collaborate and partner with adjacent landowners to achieve the best joint management of natural resources for the area • Conserve wildlife species of Conservation Need (MNDNR designation) • Mitigate impacts of climate change
• Achieve regionally outstanding ecological quality
History and Background
Pre-Settlement Ecology At the time of pre-European-American settlement, the site consisted of a mosaic of prairie, oak savanna, oak woodland, and hardwood forests on the north-facing bluff slopes and in the ravines (Figure ES-1). Soils of the site consist primarily of sandy loams, on which these plant communities thrive. Natural disturbance regimes, especially fire and grazing, were also very important in maintaining these communities. It is well known that oak savanna and prairie was perpetuated by Native Americans who deliberately set fires to provide productive hunting and gathering food sources. Given the diversity of habitat types at this site, it would have provided for a large diversity of wildlife, too. Prairie species such as bison, bull snakes, badger, ground squirrels, grassland birds, and many more would have been prevalent. Woodland and forest species such as elk, bear, mountain lion, and interior forest birds would also have been present. Today, some of those species have vanished from the site, while a few have managed to remain, including badger, which has been recently recorded on trail cameras in the park.
3 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Figure ES-1. Presettlement map of the Spring Lake Park Reserve Area, from Mississippi River Commission Survey of the 1890's.
The flooding of the Mississippi River in the 1930’s, including that of Spring Lake from Lock and Dam #2 at Hastings, radically changed the condition of the Spring Lake area, which used to contain a large freshwater, spring-fed lake and a variety of terrestrial communities including
4 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
floodplain forest, wetlands, and oak savanna. Today, it is a large, slack-water pool that fills with sediment and needs continual dredging to maintain an open navigation channel.
Other impacts since Euro-American settlement include land use changes such as farming and agriculture, which dramatically affected the natural communities by suppressing fire regimes, shifting grazing patterns from bison to domestic cattle, changing nutrient cycling such as nitrogen cycling, opening up vast areas of soil to erosion, and causing habitat loss and fragmentation. Another significant ecological disruption was the introduction of exotic species, many of which became invasive, including buckthorn and Tatarian honeysuckle in the savannas and woodlands, and smooth bromegrass, Canada thistle and other upland herbaceous weeds in the prairies and savannas. Notably, some other historical industries that occurred at the site were quarrying, along the limestone bluffs, and tourism, including a resort on the south end of Spring Lake, which also negatively impacted the natural communities and ecosystem processes.
Current Conditions The legacy of past impacts have left its mark on the park area. These have resulted in loss of key ecological processes such as lack of fire and grazing, .diminished biodiversity, degradation by invasive species. But more recently, regional and even global activities and processes, such as climate change, erosion/sedimentation from adjacent farm fields, and habitat fragmentation from regional trail projects, continue to impact the natural resources of the park. On the other hand, there have been significant efforts to protect and restore natural features and processes in the park, over the last 25 years, such as the discontinuation of farming and agriculture, the restoration of prairie and savanna plant communities, the control of invasive species, the reintroduction of fire and grazing (mowing), and the monitoring of wildlife populations.
Goals of this Natural Resource Management Plan There are several goals that have been formulated in this NRMP. If attained, these goals will help protect, conserve, and restore the native resources, ecological processes, and ecosystem services of the site in the face of historical, present, and predicted future disruptions and impacts. The goals include the following: • 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 and reintroduce extirpated animal species
• Minimize the invasive species cover
• Prevent new non-native species encroachment
• Reduce the impact of people, for example, by maintaining and establishing new sustainable trails that allow them to explore the park without adverse impacts.
5 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
• Reduce erosion and stabilize ravines
• Protect lake water and groundwater quality
• Adapt to climate change by facilitating the introduction of appropriate species native to northern Iowa, southwestern Wisconsin, and Southern Minnesota
Natural Resources Protection and Regeneration Strategies Native Plant Community Restoration The restoration of native plant communities within Spring Lake Park Reserve will begin within four nodes of highest ecological potential. Here an intense focus on invasive species removal will begin, with an aim of eliminating competition and protecting native plants and creating conditions for species diversity enhancement. The strategy is to first protect the highest ecological quality areas (areas of greatest native plant diversity) through invasive species eradication, and then to move restoration efforts out to lower diversity areas. Eventually the entire park may be restored and transition to the management phase where burning, supplemental planting, and other management activities will encourage native plant proliferation and discourage invasive plant establishment. A system of Target Plant Communities and Work Units were developed for each area of the park that will guide the restoration efforts (Figure ES-2).
6 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Figure ES-2. Target plant community classes for the center portion of the Park Reserve.
7 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Restoration can be phased, depending on priorities and available resources. The speed at which restoration is to be implemented will also depend upon funding (external and internal) and Dakota County staff capacity to oversee the process. Figure ES-3 shows the recommended phasing of restoration at the Park Reserve.
Figure ES-2. Recommended Phasing of Restoration in the Park Reserve.
8 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Wildlife Management The primary goal for SLPR wildlife management is to enhance habitat so that a diversity of wildlife species thrive. This is a ‘build it and they will come’ approach. Restoring a diversity of habitat types and a diversity of native plant species provides wildlife the food, shelter and space to reproduce and thrive in the park.
Species of Greatest Conservation Need (see Table 3-2) are priority species for habitat management in the Park Reserve. Restoring lost or uncommon plant communities such as prairie and savanna, will help to establish habitat that is vital to most of the species of greatest conservation concern, since the primary reason for their need is habitat loss and habitat fragmentation. Park managers will be considering reintroducing extirpated animals as opportunities arise. Bison is currently under consideration. Other species may include a variety of herps such as bull snake and rat snake, but many other species may be considered.
Deer management is a key to ecosystem restoration and management since deer have become far to overabundant and effect changes across the landscape, including over-browsing and grazing of certain plant species which leads to significant changes in plant community structure and an inability to successfully restore certain aspects of the system. Other species that have deleterious effects are earthworms, which are exotic and occur throughout the park and lead to degraded soil conditions that impact flora and fauna.
Soil and Stormwater Management When undertaking construction projects within the park it is important that sufficient budget and planning occur to implement soil regeneration within the construction disturbance zone. This may include importing topsoil or the incorporation of soil amendments. It will also involve the implementation and management of appropriate native plant communities. Therefore, the design of native plant communities around designed facilities will improve overall ecological quality.
Park managers should continue to work with neighboring property owners to manage stormwater running into the park from their properties. Options include seeking agricultural and natural area easements, offering to provide technical assistance to manage the natural communities on their properties, collaborating on projects that benefit the natural resources of the park reserve and possibly of the private properties too., For example, decreasing the volume and rate of stormwater runoff from surrounding properties will go a long way to stabilizing the ravines of the park. There are state and federal grant opportunities available to help fund these types of water quality projects.
Monitoring Recommendations
9 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
The monitoring of native plant communities and wildlife in Spring Lake Park Reserve can provide park managers with an understanding of populations and their condition. This information allows for informed management decisions. Furthermore, Adaptive Management, which includes monitoring as a key component, should be used for all restoration projects in the park reserve.
Native Plant Community Restoration and Maintenance Costs The tables below present projected costs for the restoration and management of native plant communities within Spring Lake Park Reserve. The costs reflect the phasing that was presented in the previous section, and are broken out into three phases: 1 (years 1-5), Phase 2 (years 6-10), and Phase 3 (years 11-15 to 20). They were developed from costs incurred from similar projects in the region, including County projects, for the years 2017-2019. External funding will be aggressively sought and in line with NRMSP goals of 80% of total project costs.
Table ES-1 Native Plant Community Restoration Cost
Cost to Restore per Phase Restoration Total Acres to Cost Estimate Phase Restore 1, Yrs. 1-5 294 $1,024,000 2, Yrs. 6-10 310 $1,389,000 3, Yrs. 11-15 208 $716,000 Total 811 $3,129,000
Table ES-2 Native Plant Community Maintenance Cost
Cost to Maintain per Phase Existing and Restoration Newly Restored Cost Estimate Phase Acres to Maintain 1, Yrs. 1-5 462 $1,005,000 2, Yrs. 6-10 819 $1,571,000 3, Yrs. 11-15 1037 $1,659,000 Total $4,235,000
10 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Table ES-3 Native Plant Community Maintenance and Restoration Combined Costs
Restoration Acres to Restore Cost Estimate Phase and Maintain 1, Yrs. 1-5 462 $2,029,000 2, Yrs. 6-10 819 $2,960,000 3, Yrs. 11-15 1037 $2,375,000 Total $7,364,000
Wildlife Resources Projects and Cost Estimates Each species has different habitat requirements, and these should be given consideration during vegetation management. Managing for the community, i.e., managing for a general plant community type is what is typically done, and what is recommended here; but staff must also be mindful of the specific conservation requirements of rare and declining species, so that species diversity is maximized. To date, the biggest potential wildlife project that is being planned for the Park Reserve is the re-introduction of bison. This project has advanced to the point of producing a draft proposal for Board review. The cost estimate for that project is approximately $1.2 million, of which approximately $160,000 will be needed for match, provided by the County.
The NRMSP allocated approximately $300,000 the first five years for wildlife management for each County park, including SLPR. The costs for specific projects will be determined when they are identified and implemented. Some grant money can be used to enhance the vegetation for specific wildlife habitat improvement needs.
Water Resources Projects and Cost Estimates The recommended water resources projects and associated cost estimates are the following:
11 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Table ES-4 Water Resources Projects and Associated Estimated Costs
Project Name Timing and Cost Estimate External Funding Estimate County Funding Years Estimate
Ravine 1 and 2 2020-2021 $20,000 to None $20,000 to Stabilization Design $30,000 $30,000
Ravine 1 and 2 2021-2024 Approximately Approximately $450,000 to Approximately Stabilization $600,000 to $600,000 $150,000 to Implementation $800,000 $200,000
Trail Erosion Stabilization Completed Completed Completed Completed Design
Trail Erosion Stabilization 2021-2022 Approximately None Approximately Implementation for four $150,000 $150,000 sites
Habitat Islands in Spring TBD TBD USACE Habitat Restoration 35% cost share to Lake (potential partner Grants provide 65% cost share be provided by with USACE) (up to $10M) for approved the sponsor projects
Enhance the Black Ash 2022-2025 $50,000 $40,000 $10,000 Seepage Swamp
Funding There are a variety of funding sources available for ecological restoration activities, which provide grants that require match, including Minnesota DNR, US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Army Corps of Engineers, Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. These are listed in the plan in Section 6.7.
12 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
1 Introduction
Spring Lake Park Reserve displays an impressive assemblage of natural landscape features, ranging from dramatic views of the Mississippi River and Spring Lake, to unique natural landscapes internal to the park. A significant portion of the park consists of north-facing limestone bluffs, steep slopes, and ravines that compose an ecosystem that has become rare in the region. Bottomland and upland terraces, remnants of the former glacial river, are also prevalent. The site offers a fascinating diversity of landscape with its limestone bluffs, forests, prairies, shoreline, and ravines. Figure 1-1 shows key natural features in the park. The innate natural qualities of the park provide a strong foundation for public enjoyment and enrichment. These same qualities also provide a unique opportunity to protect a natural environment for its intrinsic values, such as biodiversity, preservation of our natural heritage, open space, scenery, and respite from the built environment.
13 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
This document provides a vision for the future and a framework for restoring and managing the natural resources within Spring Lake Park Reserve. The term management in this Natural Resources Management Plan refers to the thoughtful care of the park’s natural resources, is of paramount importance to preserving and protecting its intrinsic values.
The vision for Dakota Count Parks, as written in the 2017 Dakota County Natural Resources Management Systems Plan:
The water, vegetation, and wildlife of Dakota County parks, greenways, and easements, will be management to conserve biodiversity, restore native habitats, improve public benefits, and achieve resilience and regionally outstanding quality, now and for future generations.
This Management Plan incorporates the goals developed in the Natural Resources Management System Plan for Spring Lake Park Reserve.
1.1 Location Spring Lake Park comprises an ecosystem that has become rare in the region due to extensive urbanization and agriculture in the region. The park sits within the Mississippi Flyway; a major migratory route linking central Canada and the Gulf of Mexico and hosts a diversity of waterfowl that feed in Spring Lake. The south of the park mostly borders agricultural land with privately owned woodlands and homesteads. Looking down from 10,000 feet, the park is a jewel of habitat anchored along the Mississippi River, while set in a developed landscape near the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Figure 1-1 shows other significant natural areas of the region and Figure 1-2 shows the location of the park. Figure 1-3 focuses in on the park and highlights the parks key natural and man-made features.
14 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Figure 1-1 Regional Natural Features
15 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Figure 1-2 Park Location
16 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
1.2 Precedent Planning Efforts This plan has been preceded by plans that have brought the park to where it is today and helps direct the current planning efforts of the park. These plans include:
The Natural Resources Management System Plan: Dakota County developed the Natural Resource Management System Plan to guide natural resources management of its parks, conservation easements and greenways. It is updated every five years. The plan includes a long-term vision (for the next 20 years) as well as outline more specific implementation steps over the next 5 years.
The Visitor Services Plan: Dakota County developed a Parks Visitor Services Plan to improve services that enrich the overall parks experience, including events, outdoor education, volunteerism, rentals, customer service and community outreach and awareness. The plan includes:
1. A contemporary understanding of residents’ expectations for County Parks services
2. An inclusive vision that:
• builds a stronger park system identity based on unique park characteristics and features • continues to offer what current park visitors like • offers opportunities for residents who aren’t using County parks
3 .A responsive overall approach for providing recreation services, including steps to achieve the vision
2003 Spring Lake Park Reserve Master and Stewardship Plan: Developed by Brauer and Associates and Barr Engineering Co. and Applied Ecological Services, this Master Plan contained the first natural resource management plan for the park, which included a natural resources inventory, and identified natural resource impacts and offered strategies to mitigate for these impacts. The County has a tradition of developing natural resource management plans with master plans, with the intent of informing the master plan and protecting the resources as much as possible.
The County is developing an updated master plan for the park reserve with the current NRMP. One of the new approaches will be to focus on highly used areas to naturalize them as much as possible while making them aesthetically pleasing and functional to the park user. Examples would include the Schaar’s Bluff area, along the Mississippi River Greenway, and the area near the archery range.
17 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Land Conservation Plan for Dakota County: Developed by the County, and in final draft form as of 2020, the Land Conservation Plan (LCP) represents a comprehensive approach to conserving, protecting, and in some instances to managing land throughout Dakota County. The LCP has designated “Conservation Focus Areas” throughout the County, one of which is the “Mississippi River Conservation Focus Area”, which includes Spring Lake Park Reserve. The LCP and the SLPR NRMP could potentially work together to help protect the resources of the park. For instance, in some cases, the County could work with adjacent landowners to determine if they are interested in selling a natural area conservation easement on their property for the primary purpose of preventing future residential development next to the park reserve and making them eligible for use of public funds for natural resource restoration and enhancement.
18 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Figure 1-3 Key natural and man-made features of the park
19 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
2 Cultural and Historic Context
Beginning in the 1850s, the landscape underwent a dramatic transition from oak savanna, prairie, mesic forest, and floodplain wetlands to plowed crop land. Early Euroamerican farmsteads within the study area were typically planted in grains, including wheat, oats, and corn. These family farms were typically supported by small numbers of livestock and a vegetable plot to support limited farm income.
Agriculture continued as the dominant land use within the study area during this period. Primary agricultural production shifted from grain to livestock in the 1930s and 1940s with the expansion of dairy farming and turkey growing.82 Other industries within the study area during this time period included quarrying along the limestone bluffs and a resort near the south end of Spring Lake.83
The land that is today Spring Lake Park Reserve has formed over millennia from geologic and biological forces, but has also been altered through time by humans and their activities and development. Prior to European settlement, a mosaic of prairie and oak savanna biotic communities covered the park with the exception of the bluffs, shoreline and steep ravines where oak forest thrived. The vegetation of oak savannas are described as consisting of scattered trees and groves of scrubby-form oaks with some shrub thickets, all within a matrix of grasses and wildflowers. This community thrived well on the predominantly sandy loam soils of the park. A key natural disturbance that helped produce and maintain grassland systems in the region is fire. Fires are often ignited naturally, for instance by lightning strikes. It is also well known that oak savannas and prairies were perpetuated by Native Americans who deliberately set fires to provide productive hunting and gathering food sources. The 1890 Mississippi River Commission map Figure 2-1 shows some of the land cover in Typical Oak Savanna the park just after European settlement. It gives clues as to what the first settlers found when they came on the scene (as described above). The map also shows the condition of the Mississippi River floodplain and Spring Lake before the construction of Lock and Dam#2 at Hastings, Minnesota in 1930.
20 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Beginning in the 1850s, the landscape underwent a dramatic transition from oak savanna, prairie, mesic forest, and floodplain wetlands to plowed crop land. Early Euroamerican farmsteads within the area were typically planted in grains, including wheat, oats, and corn. These family farms were typically supported by small numbers of livestock and a vegetable plot to support limited farm income.
Agriculture continued as the dominant land use during this period. Primary agricultural production shifted from grain to livestock in the 1930s and
1940s with the expansion of dairy farming and turkey growing. Other industries within the study area during this time period included quarrying along the limestone bluffs and a resort near the south end of Spring Lake.
Farming eliminated two natural influences that has also altered the landscape; the suppression of fire and the extirpation of bison and elk that put a check on the growth of woody plants that prevented a natural succession to forest. By the time the aerial photo in 1951 (Figure 2-3) was taken most of the land of the park, except for the steepest slopes, had been impacted and ecosystem processes had been altered. Figure 2-3 is an interpellation that speculates the types of activities that altered the land. Farming gradually ceased as park property was purchased and managed by Dakota County Parks. The ecological integrity of the park continues to evolve under the influences of climate and people. Figure 3-7 shows the extent to which woodlands have established in the park with the suppression of fire.
Spring Lake Park Reserve was first proposed as a County park in the 1970 Dakota County Parks and Recreational Facilities Plan. Property acquisition for the new park began with the Carl and Dorothy Schaar property in 1973, and Park additions and boundary revisions continued through the 1970s and 1980s.
As the park has grown, the character of the landscape once again changed. Buildings and structures were removed, and extensive ecological restoration projects were undertaken to preserve and reintroduce approximately 200 acres of prairie and oak savanna in the park.
An in depth description of the cultural and historic landscape of the park can be found in the companion document to this plan, the 2020 Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan.
21 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Figure 2-1 1890 Mississippi River Commission Map
22 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Through the interpretation of original survey notes taken around 1847, James Marschner developed this map (compiled in 1930) of the approximate extent of plant communities at the time. Because it is based on information taken at the intersection of section markers (one mile apart), detail at this scale is lacking, but is still helpful to show large-scale vegetation patterns. The 1937 River Commission Map shows better detail of likely plant communities at the time.
Figure 2-2 Pre-Settlement vegetation in the Spring Lake Park Reserve area. Source: Marschner 1974
23 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Figure 2-3 Post-Settlement Human Impact Zones
24 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
3 Current Conditions
There are a number of dominant physical features of the park that make it unique. Proximity to the Mississippi River, unique geology (occurrence of river bluffs and terraces), high topographic relief, and high ecological diversity provide a compelling park setting that is uncommon and distinctive in the regional park system. The following provides an overview of these features.
3.1 Water Resources Mississippi River and Spring Lake The most compelling physical feature of the park is its location along the Mississippi River and adjacency to Spring Lake. Situated within the Mississippi Flyway, the river and lake provide essential stopovers for migratory waterfowl and habitat for an impressive variety of wildlife species.
As the third largest river in the world, the size and scale of the Mississippi naturally draws people to its scenic valley for observation of nature, water-based recreation, hunting, and fishing. Although not the boundaries of the park proper, the prominence of the river and lake is illustrated in Figure 3-1, which underscores the inherent value of these features to the park’s master plan.
25 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Figure 3-1 Mississippi River and Spring Lake
26 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Pool 2 of the Mississippi River, which includes Spring Lake, is an impoundment of the river resulting from the construction of Lock and Dam#2 at Hastings, Minnesota in 1930. Pool#2 includes the reach of river from Lock and Dam 1 (known as the Ford Dam) downstream 32 miles to Lock and Dam#2 and includes the Minnesota River from Savage, MN down to its confluence with the Mississippi River. The river from Lower Grey Cloud Island to Lock and Dam#2 is the portion of Pool#2 most affected by the 1930 impoundment. In pre-European times, it was a floodplain forest and marsh (Figure 2-1). Stumps of trees growing in the current area of Spring Lake are still found underwater today. Spring Lake is now a shallow water area swept by wind and battered by barge-generated waves that experiences high turbidity. The turbidity has led to the exclusion of aquatic plants (except for in the shallowest
waters and areas sheltered by islands), negatively The wave battered shoreline of Spring Lake is stabilized by naturally occurring rock. impacting fish and aquatic wildlife habitat.
Improvements in wastewater treatment over recent decades have improved much of this reach of the river to better support aquatic life, including an emerging game fishery and a rebounding mussel community, but much more improvement is needed. Although improvements to point source pollution has occurred, non-point source pollution is still a significant problem.
The Minnesota River has a profound effect on the Mississippi River and Pool 2, both on its size and water quality. Because it drains a watershed dense with agricultural fields, the Minnesota River contributes large sediment and nutrient loads to the Mississippi. When this sediment encounters the reach at Spring Lake, water movement slows and becomes still, which induces fine particles to drop out. Sediment accumulates here, especially at the mouth of Spring Lake (west end), which deters the growth of aquatic flora and fauna. Many of the islands in the lake have been formed
27 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
from accumulating sediment. Aquatic vegetation surveys completed by the EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, 2006-2008, documented the absence of submerged aquatic vegetation at the sites sampled in Spring Park.
State and federal water quality reports for Mississippi River Pool 2 (including Spring Lake) generally show improvement in the river’s health over the past decades. The river remains on state and federal lists of impaired waters. Impaired uses include fish consumption impairments due to mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) in the water. Additional impaired uses include aquatic life impairment due to high nutrient and total suspended solids, and impairment for recreation due to elevated fecal coliform numbers. Mercury and PCBs are persistent toxins that have been detected in Pool 2 sediments and in various fish species. The State of Minnesota has issued advisories recommending restricted consumption of eight species of fish caught in Pool 2.
Spring Lake supports a wide variety of fish species, including some game species such as walleye and channel catfish. Special regulations for Mississippi River Pool 2 allow only catch and release fishing for walleye, sauger, smallmouth bass and largemouth bass.
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) is an anthropogenic fluorosurfactant and global pollutant. PFOS was the key ingredient in Scotchgard. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) are industrial products used for such things as microscope oils, electrical insulators, capacitors, and electric appliances such as television sets or refrigerators
28 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Surface Water Flow in the Park Five large ravines have formed in the park. Ravine formation occurs over time as water moving from south of the park, downward towards the river, has etched its path into the geological formations of the park. These ravines are relatively stable, with the exception of the large, branched central ravine that is experiencing erosion and sediment deposition due to large volumes of water that occasionally enters the park from the agricultural land beyond its borders.
The eastern ravine, in which Hilary Path was constructed, is also badly eroding. A gully has repeatedly been repaired along Hilary Path. This will continue until the ravine is stabilized and stormwater can be held up stream. Since the park is entirely vegetated and has very limited impervious surface, the surface water quality within park boundaries is high. A great percentage of precipitation landing on the park infiltrates into its permeable soils, which is beneficial.
Seeps and Springs The geology of the park has resulted in water seepage through layers of limestone that emerge out the face of Schaar’s bluff. This has allowed for the formation of unique plant communities, especially on the north facing bluffs that benefit from a near continuous supply of calcareous water. A good place to see these seeps are in the area of Church’s Woods (Figure 1-3). A significant spring exists in Soil deposition at the base of Hilary the large central ravine just to the south of the new regional trail bridge (Figure 1-3). Groundwater Path flows to the surface in the ravine, yet just up the ravine it is dry. Here unique plant communities thrive: a lush wet meadow and a black ash seepage swamp. Other small or ephemeral seeps that may occur in spots that are too steep to access below the bluffs of the visitor center and Church’s woods.
29 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
The spring at the bottom of the central ravine continually supplies water to this diverse wet meadow. In the middle ground of the left photo are black ash trees. Note the brown color of the water in the right photo, which is caused from sediment that was loosed by eroding ravine heads due to run off from adjacent agricultural fields.
30 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
3.2 Geology Bluffs The park exhibits a dominant bedrock cliff, Schaar’s Bluff, which rises 150 feet from Spring Lake (as illustrated on graphic). This bluff is characteristic of the Upper Mississippi River basin, whose banks are flanked by iconic bedrock strata that were deposited in ancient beach and sea floor environments. Deposition and wave action along the shores of ancient Lake Ordovician about 440–460 million years ago produced Saint Peter Sandstone, a friable sandstone with extremely well-rounded white grains. As sea levels rose into the Devonian (fourth Peleozoic period 416 to 359 million years ago), the remains of organisms with carbonate shells were precipitated and lithified atop the Saint Peter, which was at the sea floor. These carbonate strata formed the fossiliferous Platteville Limestone layer visible in the park bluff.
31 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
The striking bluffs visible at Spring Lake Park are the direct result of the differing resistance to physical erosion between the friable Saint Peter Sandstone and the indurated and durable Platteville Limestone. The Platteville protects the Saint Peter from erosion from above, allowing the bluffs to stand high above the river valley. However, the weak foundation of the Saint Peter forms a base that is easily eroded by the lateral migration of the Mississippi and the stream power along its banks. This erosion undercuts the rigid cap of the Platteville producing evidence of geology in action in the form of limestone rock falls at the base of the bluffs. The cliff area is an exemplary location that captures the geologic history of the Upper Mississippi’s response to, and influence on, Minnesota geology. In addition to providing dramatic views of the river, lake, and surrounding landscape, the cliff area also harbors several unique plant communities such as the fern and Canada yew colonies near Church’s Woods. Possible animal species that occupy the bluff habitats in the park include cave and big brown bats. Birds that utilize the bluffs include red-shouldered hawk, red-tailed hawk, broad-winged hawk, bald eagles, turkey vultures, and also nesting birds such as swallows and swifts.
Ravines, Slopes, and Terraces In addition to its bluffs, Spring Lake Park Reserve also holds other dramatic landforms that add to its natural qualities. Following the recession of the glaciers, meltwater worked and reworked sediment and eroded rock to form, ravines and terraces that provide the basis for much of the topographic characteristics of the site. These features establish the framework upon which the biotic communities established and changed over time. Although not as readily observable from a specific point on the ground, these features nonetheless are integral to the unique experience that is offered by the park today.
As illustrated on Figure 3-2, the landforms along the river are characterized by steep slopes, relatively flat but rolling terraces and bluff lines; many slopes well in excess of thirty percent. A series of terraces occur from the river up to the bluff land. Specific to the park, three main terraces are carved in the Saint Peter Sandstone and form a contrast to the steep bluffs on the east end of the park. The contrast and formation of these terraces represent an area where the thick Platteville Limestone cap that protects the eastern bluffs was thinner and more readily eroded, allowing the river more freedom in its bedrock valley to planate the Saint Peter below. As base level for the Mississippi lowered over geologic time, the river bed was sequentially abandoned in three main episodes, leaving behind the three terraces characteristic of the park today. This lowering of the river water level in turn lowered the local base level for small tributary streams in the park. These streams have since carved small, steep sided ravines into the Saint Peter sandstone as they drop in elevation to the meet the base level of the Mississippi.
32 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Figure 3-2 Slope analysis exhibiting topographic changes across the site
33 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Soils
Figure 3-3 illustrates the major soil types found in the park. Much of the western end of the park is covered by a sand terrace, which transitions to a silty loam under a number of soil classifications in the eastern end of the park. These soils range from well-drained to excessively drained. There is also a loamy sand concentrated along the heads of major ravine branches. Silt loam covers much of the flat land above the bluff lines. Soils associated with the low areas near the river’s edge are seasonally inundated with water. The bluff lines and ravine sides are composed of steep, well drained soils and bedrock outcrops. From an ecological perspective, the plant communities that are to be restored in the park should match the characteristics of the soil. In other words, prairie and savanna floral communities would probably have been the dominant vegetation types of the dry, flat to rolling topography and soils of the southern part of the park, above the bluffs. On the steep, north-facing slopes along the river, oak forest would have been dominant and is best suited today. In between, plant communities would transition from forest on the bluff slopes to woodland and then to savanna on the upland plains, moving from north to south across the site.
Soil erodibility can limit park development (see Figure 3-4). A primary concern are soils with the propensity for erosion on steep slopes, especially in poorly vegetated areas, and adjacent to the newly created areas of hard surface where runoff can become concentrated. Particular attention to soils must be given to trail development and trail placement. In terms of erodibility, the ravines, steep slopes, and rocky bluffs inherently pose severe constraints on development; and for the most part, these areas are best left undisturbed. In general, existing development is located where the soils are reasonably conducive to supporting built structures. New facilities must only be proposed for areas where soils offer the least limitations on development. The placement of trails is likewise a very delicate matter, and should be very carefully Restored Prairie on the Hubbard Sand Terrace South of Bud’s Landing and thoughtfully designed so that soil erosion never gets a chance to occur, or at the very least is minimized and stabilized. Working with the contours of the site and keeping as much vegetation intact during and after construction is essential.
34 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Figure 3-3 Soil textures found across the park
35 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Figure 3-4 Soils susceptibility to water erosion
36 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
3.3 Current Plant Communities Section 2 described the historical vegetation of this site, including what it would have been at the time just before Euro-American settlement. Now this section describes what the currant plant communities look like on the site.
In the summer of 2019, several field investigations focusing on natural resources were conducted as part of this planning process. The goals of the field reconnaissance were to review the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) data, assess biome ecological quality, and inspect for other environmental issues such as erosion, soil degradation and invasive species.
Figure 3-5 highlights the ecological communities of the park as they exist today. The park has evolved from its oak savanna pre-settlement landscape to forest, aided by peoples’ suppression of fire and the elimination of elk and bison as well as overgrazing of domestic livestock and land use changes. Most of the original oak savanna has succeeded to forest.
One significant landscape change since 1995 is that over two hundred acres of agricultural fields have been restored to prairie. This land is being maintained through diligent work of park managers.
This former oak savanna on Schaar’s bluff is being shaded out by establishing trees.
Native ecosystem restoration projects since 1995:
• Plateau Prairie and Woodland Restoration. A 2015 CPL grant-funded project which includes restoring a 10-acre crop field and 8 acres of old fields into native prairie, as well as enhancing 31 acres of oak forest/woodland by removing invasive species. • Mississippi River Flyway Restoration. A 2014 CPL grant-funded project, which includes restoring 63 acres of old field to native prairie and 18 acres of degraded forest to oak savanna, as well as enhancing 32 acres of mixed forest, 12 acres of oak forest, and 13 acres of a walnut grove by removing invasive species and opening up some canopy gaps.
37 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
• Archery Range Restoration. An Outdoor Heritage grant-funded project completed by Friends of the Mississippi River (FMR) in 2014 and 2016, which includes restoring 33 acres of prairie and 2 acres of woodland. • Restored 24 acres of prairie close to the Maintenance Shop in 2012 • Managed woody invasive species in Church’s Woods in 2010-2011 by FMR. • Restored 8 acres of prairie south of the previously planted Youth Lodge prairie in 2010 • Restored 4 acres of prairie around the Gathering Center in 2009-2010 • Restored 20 acres of prairie east of the Youth Lodge off of Pine Bend Trail in 2003 • Restored 11 acres of prairie by the Youth Lodge in 1995
38 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Figure 3-5 Natural Resource Inventory—Existing Ecological Communities
39 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Land Classification Categories: The land cover categories defined in Figure 3-5 based on the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) developed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The categories as shown represent a simplification of these classifications for planning purposes. The following table provides a brief description of the most significant cover types that characterize the general condition of the park’s ecological communities.
Land Cover Type Characteristics Plant Communities Ecological Quality Wildlife Habitat Quality Cultural (Turf/Built Areas developed for Fescue lawns; pasture Low ecological quality in Low overall wildlife value Features) recreational uses, park lands include some oak most developed areas. Long- facilities, and trails. and other tree species. term use of lands for pastures Includes maintained lawn has degraded trees and areas, pastures, natural vegetation. Trees can maintenance facility be prone to being blown over grounds, picnic and in strong winds. playground areas. Conifer Plantation Single species stands of Monocultural conifer Very low ecological quality, Provides cover for birds, especially in winter. white or red pine planted stands. with low overall plant species Owls roost in this habitat. Provides habitat as conservation efforts diversity and little for fisher. Conifer plantations play an 30-50 years ago. regeneration of native important food source role, such as, seed Typically, no native species. production, needles, twigs, and even bark can herbaceous plant cover be used for food. This is especially important and a significant during the harsh winter months. It would be presence of invasive best to have multi species in the plantation, shrubs (primarily but otherwise it can still serve a purpose. buckthorn and honeysuckle).
40 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Land Cover Type Characteristics Plant Communities Ecological Quality Wildlife Habitat Quality Oak Savanna Very limited stands of Remnant oak systems Diminishing habitat value as invasive plant degraded (overgrown) with dry prairie ground Degrading ecological quality, species become more dominant. Important oak savanna remain cover. Mostly older age especially in terms of invasion mast species (heavy seed production) that of non-native invasive within the park. Small classes of trees with provides a food source for mammals and openings are being significant invasion of species. Virtually no birds. Many mature trees in oak savannas are steadily encroached upon buckthorn, cedar and regeneration of new oaks and sometimes used for nesting or denning. by red cedar, buckthorn other woody species. other desirable canopy trees. and sumac. Herbaceous species are Relatively recent restoration Cavity nesting for black-capped chickadee, steadily dying out. efforts have resulted in pileated woodpecker, and red-headed increased diversity and woodpecker to name a few birds. Due to the ecological quality (savanna encroachment of buckthorn and other near campground and oak invasive species, habitat quality for the above opening near Schaar’s Bluff have undergone woody mentioned species will likely decrease. species removal).
Forests (all types) Stands of trees with a Remnant oak systems, Degrading ecological quality, Diminishing habitat value as invasive plant closed canopy of 70 to with sugar maples, especially in terms of the species become more dominant. Large un- 100 percent cover. basswood, black cherry, invasion of non-native broken patches of forest have high habitat green ash and other understory invasive species. value potential for songbird species. species mixed in. Oak Limited regeneration of new system merging with oaks and other desirable other forest types due to canopy trees. Native ground lack of natural processes, cover also lacking due to especially fire, and active invasion by buckthorn. management. Altered Grassland – Areas dominated by Ranges from open Currently low ecological Ground cover provides some wildlife habitat Smooth Brome smooth brome grass and grasslands to shrub- quality but offers the value. Used for nesting and cover. But the Dominated other non-native, dominated plant opportunity for improvement lack of plant diversity limits wildlife species voluntary vegetation. communities. through a sound stewardship diversity. program.
41 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Land Cover Type Characteristics Plant Communities Ecological Quality Wildlife Habitat Quality Grassland – Prairies Restored prairie systems Fair diversity of tallgrass Restored prairie systems offer High value to wildlife when plant diversity is (Dry and Mesic) that have been prairie plant species, high ecological quality. robust. Large expanses of prairies create an established in recent including big bluestem, Current acreage of restored opportunity for bison grazing. Many years. switchgrass, wild prairie within the park grassland animal species use prairies for bergamot, blazing star. provides habitat for ground cover, nesting and forage (e.g., Henslow’s and nesting birds and as well as a grasshopper sparrow). Insects also need the diversity of pollinator species. diversity of the prairie to thrive (e.g., Dakota skipper). Structural heterogeneity can play a big role in prairie species diversity, vertical cover, and vertical patchiness (e.g., bison wallows). Meadow – Sedge Diversity of indigenous An excellent diversity of High quality plant Excellent habitat for a great diversity of and Seepage wet meadow species in native forbs, grasses and communities with an amphibians, insects, birds and fur-bearers. continually saturated sedges. Some shrubs excellent diversity of species. Northern map turtle and other turtle species organic soils such as willow and Water regime is fairly stable may be using these wet meadow seepages redtwig dogwood. Black except for occasional that are connected to the Mississippi River. ash on the drier fringe of inundations from extreme these wetlands. storm events. Some
sedimentation occurring up- ravine that threatens to spread down-ravine to the community. Floodplain Forest Tall arching native trees Canopy dominated by Good ecological quality for a Excellent songbird habitat for nesting and with sparse herbaceous silver maple and green floodplain forest which foraging. Larger and small raptors use the layer. No mid-story. ash. Mostly wood nettle typically are of lower floristic floodplain for nesting (especially mature in herb layer. diversity. cottonwoods) and foraging. Mammals feed here. Fur bearing species (e.g., beaver and otter) use habitat extensively for food and cover. Smaller mammals use heavier mast trees for food and cover.
42 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Ecological Quality The ecological quality of communities within the park have been assessed based on the definitions below. Figure 3-6 maps ecological quality in the park.
A. High Quality - Important to Protect and Preserve. Highest quality plant communities with less than five percent invasive plant species. There is little or no evidence of human disturbances such as logging, grazing, or soil compaction. These communities should be preserved, and disturbance such as placement of trails should be undertaken with extreme care. Monitor these areas for invasive species and control as they establish.
A (Restored). – Important to Protect and Preserve. High quality prairie restorations. These communities should be preserved, and disturbance such as placement of trails should be undertaken with extreme care. Monitor these areas for invasive species and control as they establish.
B. Degraded Remnant Native Plant Communities - Excellent Potential for Restoration to Enhance Biodiversity. Natural communities that show signs of disturbance since the time of Euro-American settlement but are still clearly recognizable as native plant communities. Invasive species encroachment is currently low (5-50%). Primary natural disturbances such as intentional use of fire and mob grazing by bison have been suppressed in recent times. These areas should be carefully managed to avoid further damage. Native plant community restoration is highly feasible.
C. Lowest Quality Native Plant Community - Require Aggressive Stewardship to Increase Plant Diversity, Wildlife, and Aesthetic Value. Sites that were highly disturbed by a previous land uses such as clearing and over grazing, and therefore plant species diversity is very low. The shrub and/or groundcover layers are dominated by invasive species (>50%), and these communities generally have a low diversity of native plant species. Natural processes have been altered by soil disturbance through tilling or compaction, fire suppression, or altered hydrology. The community may not resemble any naturally occurring community (one described by DNR Natural Heritage Database). In forested areas mid-story and ground layers consist primarily of invasive species. In grasslands they are dominated by non-native cool season grasses with minimal wildflower diversity and abundance. These communities are restorable, but a greater effort is required to restore native plant diversity. Depending on the soil types and slope steepness, these areas would probably be the most appropriate for trails and recreational features.
43 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Figure 3-6 Ecological Quality of Plant Communities
44 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Observed Trends in Ecological Systems As a result of disrupted ecological processes and loss of biological diversity, without proper management and conscientious stewardship, it is expected that the overall trend of the ecological systems within the park will be toward continued decline, as measured by biodiversity and general ecological health. Figure 3-7 graphically illustrates the current trend in a typical oak savanna system found in this and many other Midwestern regions.
Figure 3-7 The Prairie-Forest Continuum
45 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Due to lack of grazing and suppression of fire, open grasslands have been succeeding to forest, to varying degrees, throughout the park. Although some of the ecological degradation will have lasting effects, there are many opportunities to forestall further decline and make substantial progress toward achieving a more sustainable and healthier landscape for the future.
In addition to the inventory mapping, some general characterizations are worth noting to greater define the existing ecological conditions of the site:
Primary Ecological Systems: Upland oak forest, oak woodland, savanna, and prairie are the dominant park ecological systems. In most of the park, native savanna areas have succeeded to oak woodland and mesic oak forest that are somewhat degraded.
Other general observations include:
• Remnant prairie/savanna species occur in the remaining oak openings along Schaar’s bluff. Most are being crowded/shaded out by invasive honeysuckle and buckhorn.
• Restored prairies are relatively young and have low diversity compared to remnant, undisturbed prairies of the region.
• In most woodlands, herbaceous plant cover is sparse and diversity is low. Many forests within the park have a near monotypic Large monocultures of nettle occur in moist woodland areas. This may be stand of wood nettle on the ground plain. This low due to a lack of fire disturbance and because of earthworms. diversity indicates impact from past grazing. Interestingly, buckthorn and honeysuckle has not • Very little garlic mustard invasion in the park (except along the regional trail). invaded many areas. Common buckthorn and Tartarian honeysuckle invasion are significant in the western reaches of the park.
• Oaks are in low numbers throughout the park. This is likely due to extensive logging and their inability to regenerate in the shade of other trees. Green ash is expected to become infected with emerald ash borer within the park. It can be expected that most of the green ash in the park will not survive through the next ten years.
46 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
• Higher forest plant diversity occurs in the ravines, moist woodlands and seepages that were less likely to have been grazed by cattle in the past.
• The regional trail disturbed a considerable amount of land and created a significant habitat divide through the center of the park.
Ecological Observations of the Western Section of the Park (Figure 3-8): Includes a mix of mesic oak forest, restored prairies and a minor component of oak savanna. This area was most likely dominated by oak savanna and prairie in pre-settlement times (see Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2).
Most trees range from 80 to 100 years old and many have heart-rot. The poor condition of the trees is attributed to soil constraints (sandy with low fertility). Mid-story trees are between 35 and 45 years old, likely regenerating from a past period of intense grazing. The native groundcover systems (prairie and savanna) most likely collapsed due to shading and fire suppression. Invasive shrubs (honeysuckle and buckthorn) are common throughout. Stump sprouts from oaks near the Youth Lodge area indicate logging activity 75 or more years ago.
Other observations of the western section of the park include:
A. Large patches of prairie have been successfully restored on previously farmed land.
B. The most mature prairie restorations are located on the west side of the park near the day camp/youth lodge. These older prairies hold good plant diversity including cream gentian, meadow blazing star, leadplant and white wild indigo.
C. One brome field still occurs in the west central section of the park.
D. Black walnut is reproducing and encroaching into grassland areas near the day camp and Bur oaks emerging from a dense thicket of archery range. Black walnut is not native to the park. Sumac is becoming an issue in this area buckthorn near Cottonwood Point. This area as well. was likely oak savanna 100 years ago. E. The far western woodland portions of the park are much degraded. Large mature buckthorn shades out ground plane species resulting in bare soil.
47 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
F. Some of the best bur oak stands occur just east of the camp sites. Recent efforts have been completed to help oak saplings establish (deer protection fencing).
G. The largest patch of garlic mustard in the park has established in the area of the campground.
H. Large red oak, basswood, hackberry, bitternut hickory and maple trees grow on the slopes extending up from the lake. The 1937 aerial photographs show dense canopy in ravines and along these north-facing slopes. Honeysuckle and buckthorn are found throughout but generally comprise less than 20% of the understory.
48 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Figure 3-8 Ecological Observations of the Western Section of the Park
49 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Ecological observations of the Central Ravine Area (Figure 3-9):
The bluff prairies and savannas identified in the 2003 Park Stewardship Plan are now overgrown with honeysuckle, buckthorn and establishing trees. Native species are being lost; yet it is not too late for these communities to recover if properly managed. Stands of ironwood, above the large central ravine, and some nice oak stands just east of the park’s central ravine identified in the 2003 plan were eliminated by the construction of the regional trail. Oak wilt was noted in some areas. Coring tests found that trees on the slopes range in age from 140-300 years, with more in the 180-300-year range. Coring also demonstrated four fire scars. Understory trees range in age from 60-85 years and honeysuckle was 40-55 years old, perhaps it began growing after cattle were taken off the land and grazing pressure ceased.
Other observations of the central ravine area include:
A. Two small oak openings near south east portion of the central ravine have remnant dry prairie species. Anecdotally, these were habitat for kittentail but are being aggressively encroached upon by honeysuckle and red cedar.
B. Erosion is occurring in the central ravine where stormwater runoff from adjacent farmland. Some accumulation of sand and fine sediment is present in the bottom of the ravine.
C. The oak forests within and around the ravine are some of the best in the park with good diversity in both the canopy and ground plane. Canopy trees include ironwood, bitternut, basswood, maple, hackberry, red oak, elm, and green ash. Blue Sediment accumulation in the central ravine. cohosh, maidenhair fern, spotted touch me not, elderberry, Virginia waterleaf are present throughout. Wood nettle is dense through the bottom of the ravine with little plant diversity due to sediment accumulation.
D. A beautiful black ash seepage plant community and wet meadow occur from just south of the regional trail bridge to the mouth of the ravine where it meets Spring Lake.
E. The regional trail was cut through the bluff face just north of the central ravine bridge. This stark, newly created bluff face has no vegetation. Nor can vegetation establish at the base of the cut.
50 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Figure 3-9 Ecological Observations of the Central Ravine Area
51 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Ecological Observations of the Eastern Section of the Park (Figure 3-10): At the time of the 2003 Park Stewardship Plan, the west face of Schaar’s bluff had high quality oak savanna with red cedar. Today the area is thickly overgrown and the diversity of herbaceous species is rapidly declining. Restoring these savannas should be a high restoration priority for the park. County staff have begun some restoration work here. Tree ages around Schaar’s bluff were estimated to be between 145 to 300 years, with most between 160 and 185 years. The oldest trees are bur oaks and are generally are found on rocky or steep soils on the western side of the bluff.
Other observations of the eastern section of the park include:
A. A high quality, mixed deciduous forest exists on the northern slopes of Schaar’s bluff extending south towards the DNR boat launch. Ranging further east, the western arm of Church’s Woods has some of the best diversity of woodland plants in the park including Canada yews along top of bluff.
B. The far eastern portion of Church’s Woods is completely degraded with low diversity, probably due to grazing and logging. Large areas of bare soil have formed where earthworms Initial oak savanna restoration on Schaar’s bluff is releasing native occur. species that have been suppressed by shade from encroaching shrubs.
C. The large brome field east of the main park entrance demonstrates the effects of past agriculture, compaction, invasive species encroachment and lack of management. This is a prime site for prairie restoration.
D. Hilary Path is extremely eroded on the slopes leading down to the DNR boat launch. Water is deeply cutting the side of the road and sediment is accumulating in the riparian forest at the bottom of the hill.
E. A pine plantation is located just south of the park maintenance facility. Pines have not been properly thinned and there is very little groundcover. Buckthorn and other invasive species make up the majority of understory and mid-story species within these plantations.
52 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Figure 3-10 Ecological Observations of the Eastern Section of the Park
53 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
3.4 Wildlife Historic Wildlife Prior to European settlement, Spring Lake was not connected to the Mississippi River waterway, as it is at the present day. The spring-fed lake was comprised of marsh and shallow water habitat, which provided foraging and nesting areas for a large variety of shorebirds including sandpipers and yellowlegs. In addition, the area provided ample waterfowl habitat for a number of local breeding waterfowl species including ….. As part of the Mississippi Flyway, migratory waterfowl utilized the area during migration extensively for feeding and resting. A variety of amphibians, reptiles, mollusks and fish were found in abundance throughout the area. Although wildlife still use this area today, the species would have been different in the past, and the abundance and diversity of species would have been greater in the past.
The upland habitat within Dakota County was historically oak savanna and mesic prairie. These habitats were once rich with elk, bison and to a lesser extent whitetail deer. Small mammal species such as beavers, otters, muskrats, fishers and mink were abundant throughout the region. Predatory species such as bear, wolf and mountain lion existed in healthy populations throughout the county in the 18th and 19th centuries. The prairies and savannas were filled with a diverse array of bird species including red-headed woodpeckers, bobolinks, loggerhead shrike and lark sparrows. Snakes would have been abundant within the prairie including the now state-threatened timber rattlesnake.
Populations of many species declined with the onset of European settlement. Fur markets were a driving factor in the decline in furbearer populations. Species such as beaver, mink, otter, and muskrat decreased markedly. The decline in large ungulates was due in large part to market hunting in the 19th century and included elk and bison; extirpating them from the landscape.
European settlement fragmented the once complex and diverse habitat within the county. Fire suppression facilitated encroachment of trees and allowed savanna and prairie habitats to become forested. Wetlands were drained or tiled and used for agriculture. Additionally, some areas were converted to industrial, housing, and other urban uses. Much of the remnant prairies and savannas were converted to agriculture. The creation of Lock and Dam 2 elevated water levels in Spring Lake, causing it to be connected to the Mississippi River. This caused a loss in the shallow water habitat available, and seriously effecting animal and insect species of the area.
Wildlife Today The diversity and health of current wildlife populations found in the park are directly related to the quality and connectedness of the habitat within and outside of the park. The diminishing quality of the plant habitats in the park is discussed in detail above. Connectedness refers to the degree to which a habitat ‘patch’ (sometimes call an island - the park in this instance) is isolated from other habitats by developed lands. Landscape Ecologists describe habitat connectedness as the relationship between patches and corridors. The park has two habitat advantages – first, it is a
54 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
large patch (about 1,100 acres), and second it is connected with other patches by the forests and marshes along the Mississippi River. Beyond its southern boundary, however, the park ‘patch’ is separated from other habitats by agricultural fields and industrial land where many species including plants cannot exist or move across. Regardless of the quality of habitats in the park, they will only be able to support species to the extent that plants and animals can move in and out of the park.
Only general wildlife information is available for the park, since few wildlife surveys have been conducted to document wildlife species. Further study is recommended to fully understand the status of wildlife species in the park.
Birds SLPR provides feeding and nesting habitat to a great diversity of birds. Many migratory birds utilize Spring Lake as a stopover for feeding and resting including common loons, egrets, ducks, geese, swans, grebes, gulls, terns and pelicans. The prairie and forest of the park are home to a variety of migratory bird species including passerines (perching birds), raptors and owls. In 2018-2019 forty-seven avian species were counted in the annual breeding bird count conducted by County Staff. Eleven species of warblers were identified utilizing the park (2019 Minnesota Breeding Bird Atlas). Warblers such as the ovenbird, American redstart and common yellowthroat nest within the deciduous forests. Some of the birds found in the park are identified in the 2015-2025 MN DNR, Minnesota Wildlife Action Plan; Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) including Dickcissel, field sparrow, lark sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, eastern towhee, and brown thrasher.
Pelicans on Spring Lake
55 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
The park provides habitat for owls such as the northern saw-whet owl, great horned owl, and the long-eared owl which utilize the deciduous forest habitats for cover and the open grassland habitat for hunting. Red-tailed hawks within the park can be seen hunting the open prairie habitats or using the thermals produced from the bluffs for soaring. Eagles, vultures and other buteos (soaring birds) also utilize these thermals. Additional unique bird species found in SLPR include red-headed woodpecker and loggerhead shrike (state listed special concern), both species are listed under the SGCN and their populations are likely to decline due to habitat loss and fragmentation. These species rely on healthy habitats including open savanna, forest and grassland habitats.
Grassland birds have been in decline in Minnesota. With the restoration of over 200 acres of prairie in the park opportunities for nesting have been provided and species like dickcissel, grasshopper sparrow, lark sparrow, and field sparrow. Habitat for these species could be expanded in the park with the further restoration of prairie and the expansion of oak savanna.
SLPR has been designated as part of the Audubon Mississippi River Twin Cities Important Bird Area that includes the Mississippi River and its adjacent floodplain forest and uplands extending 38 river miles through four Minnesota counties from Minneapolis to Hastings. The Audubon Important Bird Area program helps Audubon, its partners and landowners identify and protect natural areas and landscapes that are critical to maintaining bird populations, diversity and habitat
Mammals Several bat species including northern long-eared bat (NLEB), tri-colored bat, big brown bat, little brown bat, evening bat, silver-haired bat, hoary bat, and red bat have recently been reported in Dakota County. In the park, a number of these species utilize the limestone bluffs and roost within the forested areas of the park. It is possible that hibernacula exist within the crevices and caves within SLPR; specifically cave dwelling bats including the NLEB. According to calling surveys conducted by park staff in 2017, an abundance of NLEB calls were detected within the park. Further surveys could be conducted to document trends in local populations, and measures taken to accommodate these species if possible. Suitability of hibernacula and habitat quality could be a focus, as well as any effects that white-nose syndrome might have on cave dwelling bats within the park. This could be an important focus for wildlife management in the park since many species of bat are in drastic decline in Minnesota.
Today a variety of four-legged mammals continue to utilize the park. SLPR provides suitable habitat within the forest, prairie and savanna habitats for small mammals including pocket gophers, ground squirrels, shrews, voles and mice which are prey for raptors and larger furbearers. Local prey abundance in close proximity to suitable resting/denning sites, is favorable for furbearers including fisher and badger. Fishers are indicators of quality habitat and have been identified through trail camera surveys within the park. They use structurally complex forest habitats with mature forest features, some of which are provided within SLPR.
56 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
A list of species captured on trail cameras in the park include:
Table 3-1 Species Captured on Trail Cameras Taxa Scientific Name Common Name Mammal American Badger Taxidea taxus Mammal American Red Squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Mammal Coyote Canis latrans Mammal Domestic Cat Felis catus Mammal Domestic Dog Canis lupus familiaris Mammal Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus Mammal Eastern Grey Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Mammal Fisher Martes pennanti Mammal Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger Mammal Mouse Peromyscus spp. Mammal Raccoon Procyon lotor Mammal Red Fox Vulpes vulpes Mammal Virginia Opossum Didelphis virginiana Mammal White Tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus Birds American Robin Turdus migratorius Birds Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata Birds Dark-Eyed Junco Junco hyemalis Birds Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens Birds European Starling Sturnus vulgaris Birds Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus Birds Wild Turkey Meleagris gall
57 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Deer populations within the park fluctuate and are influenced by the deer population in the adjacent lands surrounding the park. When the populations are elevated within the park, and/or potential for increased immigration from the population outside of the park, park managers authorize annual hunting to control the deer population. Keeping deer populations under control allows for the regeneration of vegetation in the park and ensures that habitat is provided for many other species.
Amphibians and Reptiles Reptiles and amphibians can be found in the park. Snakes include fox, red belly, and garter snakes. Race runners have been found near the park. A few frogs and toads exist in the park but the lack of ephemeral ponds limit their populations. A northern cricket frog has been seen near Hastings in the wetlands along the river. They may exist in SLPR, but have not been documented. Painted turtles have been documented adjacent the park; however, the park is lacking sufficient clear water streams and open water to provide habitat for a variety of turtles.
Insects The restoration of prairie within the park has provided suitable habitat for a variety of insects, especially pollinators. Pollinator populations have been on a decline due to habitat loss and agricultural pesticide use. Prairies within SLPR have the potential to provide suitable habitat for the rusty patched bumblebee (Federally Endangered). The site is located within the federally designated Primary Dispersal Zone, which is an area identified as important areas for conservation. Monarch butterflies are located within the prairie and forest edges of the park. Monarch populations have declined and is under consideration for listing by the USFWS for 2020. The species relies on milkweed which can be found throughout the parks open areas. Additional prairie restoration and maintenance is needed to enrich pollinator diversity. For instance, planting prairie violets could enhance habitat to make suitable for the Regal Fritillary butterfly.
Bison Bison do not currently exist in the park, but roamed through the region through the beginning of European settlement. Bison grazing in natural patterns, like fire, is an important ecological process that has been eliminated in the park. Disturbance through the random patterns of bison mob grazing increases native plant diversity and prevents savannas from closing in to become forests. At the time of writing this document bison reintroduction to the park is being considered. Figure 6-1 shows the extent of potential bison grazing range within the park.
58 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Rare Wildlife Species The 2015-2025 MN DNR Minnesota Wildlife Action Plan emphasizes wildlife species of greatest conservation need (SGCN). These species, habitats or populations are at risk of declining within a significant portion of their range. The habitats associated with these at-risk species are typically rare or declining due to trends in land use, such as farming and development. SGCN can also include those species whose populations are stable within Minnesota but are declining is a significant portion of their range outside of the state.
Information from eBird, Minnesota Breeding Bird Atlas, Dakota County Parks Staff, National Parks Service and the MN DNR natural heritage database was used to compile the list of species (Table 2) of SGCN observed within Spring Lake Park Reserve.
Today, much of the parks agricultural areas have been restored to prairie and savanna habitat. Habitat outside of the park is mainly developed or farmed with the exception of the Spring Lake Islands WMA which is a series of islands located immediately north of SLPR.
The wildlife composition of the park has degraded along with habitat quality within the park but has also degraded because of adjacent land use changes with regional destruction of habitat. The incredible value of the park is its position along Spring Lake and within the Mississippi National Flyway. A great diversity of waterfowl feed in Spring Lake and beautiful passerines such as the warblers feed in the prairies and forests of the park as they migrate. Some stay in the park to nest. Mammals, reptiles, amphibians and insects also abound in the park even though their numbers and diversity have dwindled since the time of settlement. Of note are recent sightings of Fishers in the park that may have taken up residence. This NRMP will focus on the further enhancement of habitats in the park. Preliminary public surveys show that natural habitat is a primary value of this well situated park.
There are a variety of mammals that continue to utilize the park. As mentioned previously, several bat species have been reported in Dakota County in recent years. Some of these species utilize the limestone bluffs and roost in habitat within the forested areas of the park. Whitetail deer populations bounced back with the game regulations set forth during the 1930’s. Whitetail deer populations within the park fluctuate and are influenced by the population in the adjacent lands surrounding the park. Agriculture outside the park can provide a food source for deer. SLPR authorizes annual hunting seasons to control the deer population. Currently, deer populations within the park are adequate and the annual special hunt will not commence in 2019, but will most likely start up again in years ahead.
SLPR is located within a major migratory pathway and is visited by a number of avian species. SLPR is part of the Mississippi River Twin Cities Important Bird Area (IBA). The IBA is located within the Mississippi Flyway which accounts for 40% of North America’s waterbird and shorebird population. Upland portions of the park are home to a variety of bird species including some identified in the 2015-2025 Minnesota Wildlife Action
59 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Plan, Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN); listed in Table 3-2. Birds surveyed within the park during the 2018 breeding bird survey are provided in the table below (Table 3-3).
60 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Table 3-2 Species of Greatest Conservation Need determined from information provided for wildlife surveys within SLPR (2016 – 2019).
State Federal Taxa Scientific Name Common Name Status Status Birds Ammodramus leconteii LeConte's Sparrow NL Birds Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper Sparrow NL Birds Chondestes grammacus Lark Sparrow SPC Birds Coccyzus americanus Yellow-billed Cuckoo NL Birds Empidonax virescens Acadian Flycatcher SPC Birds Falco sparverius American Kestrel NL Birds Hylocichla mustelina Wood Thrush NL Birds Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike END Birds Melanerpes erythrocephalus Red-headed Woodpecker NL Birds Pipilo erythrophthalmus Eastern Towhee NL Birds Setophaga citrina Hooded Warbler SPC Birds Setophaga tigrina Cape May Warbler NL Birds Spiza americana Dickcissel NL Birds Spizella pusilla Field Sparrow NL Birds Toxostoma rufum Brown Thrasher NL Mammal Taxidea taxus American Badger NL Mammal Eptesicus fuscus Big Brown Bat SPC Mammal Lasiurus borealis Red Bat NL Mammal Lasiurus cinereus Hoary Bat NL Mammal Lasionycteris noctivagans Silver-haired Bat NL Mammal Myotis lucifugus Little Brown Bat SPC Mammal Myotis septentrionalis Northern Long-eared Bat SPC THR Mammal Perimyotis subflavus Tri-colored Bat SPC
61 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
State Federal Taxa Scientific Name Common Name Status Status Insect Danaus plexippus Monarch NL Insect Bombus affinis Rusty Patched Bumble Bee NL END Insect Bombus terricola Yellowbanded Bumble Bee NL Insect Bombus fervidus Yellow Bumble Bee NL
Table 3-3 2018 Bird Species List from the annual breeding bird survey.
Taxa Scientific Name Common Name Birds Corvus brachyrhynchos American Crow Birds Spinus tristis American Goldfinch Birds Septophaga ruticilla American Redstart Birds Turdus migratorius American Robin Birds Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle Birds Icterus galbula Baltimore Oriole Birds Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow Birds Poecile atricapilus Black-capped Chickadee Birds Cyanocitta cristata Blue Jay Birds Polioptila caerulea Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Birds Toxostoma rufum Brown Thrasher Birds Molothrus ater Brown-headed Cowbird Birds Bombycilla cedrorum Cedar Waxwing Birds Spizzela passerina Chipping Sparrow Birds Spizzela pallida Clay-colored Sparrow Birds Geothylpis trichas Common Yellowthroat
62 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Taxa Scientific Name Common Name Birds Accipiter cooperi Copper's Hawk Birds Spiza americana Dickcissel Birds Picoides pubescens Downy Woodpecker Birds Sialis sialis Eastern Bluebird Birds Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern Kingbird Birds Sayornis phoebe Eastern Phoebe Birds Pipilo erythrophthalmus Eastern Towhee Birds Contopus virens Eastern Wood Pewee Birds Spizella pusilla Field Sparrow Birds Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper Sparrow Birds Dumetella carolinensis Gray Catbird Birds Myiarchus crinitus Great-crested Flycatcher Birds Troglodytes aedon House Wren Birds Passerina cyanea Indigo Bunting Birds Charadrius vociferus Killdeer Birds Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove Birds Cardinalis cardinalis Northern cardinal Birds Chondestes grammacus Lark Sparrow Birds Colaptes auratus Northern Flicker Birds Icterus spurius Orchard Oriole Birds Seiurus aurocapilla Ovenbird Birds Dryocopus pileatus Pileated Woodpecker Birds Melanerpes carolinus Red-bellied Woodpecker Birds Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo
63 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Taxa Scientific Name Common Name Birds Phasianus colchicus Ring-necked Pheasant Birds Pheucticus ludovicianus Rose-breasted Grosbeak Birds Piranga olivacea Scarlet Tanager Birds Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow Birds Vireo gilvus Warbling vireo Birds Meleagris gallopavo Wild Turkey Birds Setophaga petechia Yellow Warbler
Habitats in the park have expanded since the 2003 Stewardship Plan with the restoration of prairie. Other habitats have degraded due to a lack of fire and the encroachment of invasive species. Undisturbed habitat is critical for many species. Limiting development in the central portion of the park and continuing its designation as “Preserve”, as indicated in the 2003 Stewardship Plan, would go a long way to protect existing habitats in the park. Other habitats could be enhanced through restoration to bolster their ability to host wildlife species. See Section 6 below for recommendations for habitat restoration.
Literature Cited:
State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources, 2016. Minnesota's Wildlife Action Plan 2015-2025. Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources, 2019. Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS), accessed October 2019.
State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources, 2018. Minnesota Prairie Conservation Plan
2019 Minnesota Breeding Bird Atlas, accessed November 2019.
64 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
4 Natural Resources Issues and Opportunities/Recommendations
Ecological degradation in SLPR has been addressed through past efforts such as land purchase, dump clean-up, erosion control, and prairie establishment. This positive momentum can continue as further impacts to the park are addressed. Issues of concern and the opportunities for improvement are discussed below.
4.1 History of Post-Settlement Human Disturbance Peoples’ disturbance of the land, such as through lumbering and plowing, has led to the elimination and curtailment of key ecological processes which has greatly altered the park’s natural features. Tilling and intensive cattle grazing eliminates native plants and disturbs soil profiles, which reduces soil organic matter content and destroys essential soil microbes and the soil food web. This situation leads to a significant reduction of soil quality and makes soil vulnerable to erosion. In addition, today, a lack of natural native plant community disturbance, particularly a lack of fire and native ungulate grazing, has prohibited recruitment of species and, altered species interactions, truncated nutrient cycling, and stunted typical regeneration patterns of biotic communities. The fire-dependent plant communities of the park that are currently not intentionally managed by fire and grazing (or other means such as haying and mowing), have diminished to mere vestiges of native forest, woodland, and savanna, while populations of invasive plant species have become established and continue to rise.
Ranelius Turkey Farm, date unknown. Source: Guelcher, The History of Nininger
65 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Opportunities/Recommendations: • Continue restoring native plant communities – especially oak savanna and forests by: o Allocating funds for restoration projects. o Using fire as a management tool in fire-dependent communities. o Introducing native grazing animals, such as bison, where appropriate. o Mimicking fire and/or grazing with mowing, haying, or other techniques, when fire and/or grazing cannot be used in fire- dependent communities. o Re-introducing a diversity of native plants. o Educating park users about past and current impacts to the native ecosystem and the efforts Dakota Parks are taking to reverse degradation. • Control invasive species, using best practices and the latest science. Diligently watch for new invasive species to avoid their encroachment. • Minimizing ecological disturbance when constructing new trails and other park development through the thoughtful placing and alignment of these elements within the landscape setting.
4.2 Habitat Fragmentation and the Loss in the Variation within the Ecosystem of the Park Habitat fragmentation is that process that cuts habitats into smaller pieces of land that get isolated from each other. Each of these pieces constitutes a habitat by itself, but they no longer interact with each other like they did when they were all part of the same ecosystem. Within SLPR the elimination of development within private in-holdings (housing, roads, etc.) in the park in recent years has greatly contributed to joining separate pieces of habitat. Purchasing inholdings has made great strides in allowing park habitats to merge within park borders.
The construction of the Mississippi River Green Way (MRGW) through the middle of the park has resulted in the separation of habitats above and below the trail. MRGW was established to avoid high quality habitat and to minimize the impact on the land. Based on the due diligence, the multi-purpose trail is consistent with an approved master plan and an informed County Board-selected alignment, accommodates park access to people of all abilities, and serves diverse and year-round recreation opportunities. As with any trail of such size, plant and animal species, especially very small ones, can have difficulty and sometimes even be unable to traverse this pavement, resulting in their inability to expand territories or colonize new ground.
66 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Habitat fragmentation in the park is also occurring due to large colonies of invasive species such a common buckthorn and Tartarian honeysuckle. An example is the very western corner of the park along the river where buckthorn dominates and displaces native plant habitat.
Mississippi River Green Way with restoration of sides slopes in-process.
Opportunities/Recommendations: • Recognize that cultural and natural resources are inseparably intertwined and intentional changes to either one affects both. • Continue purchasing inholdings and expand park boundaries as feasible (described in the SLPR Master Plan). • Continue restoring habitats that were impacted by farming or development, until all are restored. • Carefully design new park development to retain and maximize biotic community connectedness. • Continue the restoration and management of disturbed land along the MRGW. Be especially vigilant of invasive plant species control as the trail corridor is a primary entry point for many invasive species.
67 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
4.3 Loss or Curtailment of Ecological Services in the Region The ecological functioning of the park occurs within a greater ecological context and ecosystem of the county and beyond. Its wildlife, plant communities, air and water quality and climate both influence and are highly influenced by the greater system. The influence of immediate agricultural and industrial neighbors, as well as influences from regional habitat destruction, air pollution, and urbanization even from distant locals, limit the ecological possibilities of the park. Examples include the heavy sediment loads flowing down the Mississippi River that clouds the water in Spring Lake which prevents much aquatic vegetation growth and diminishes fish and waterfowl habitat. The degradation and elimination of many forests and savannas throughout the Mississippi flyway has negatively impacted feeding habitat for migrating songbirds, thus reducing the number and species of birds reaching the park. Farming adjacent to the park has eliminated a significant local native plant propagule source for the park, as well as reduced the greater area of wildlife habitat. And then there is the great threat of climate change – discussed below.
Opportunities/Recommendations: • Work with the US Army Corps of Engineers, MN DNR and other agencies to improve the water quality of Spring Lake and to restore its aquatic vegetation. • Continue working with adjacent landowners to help them improve their lands in ways that improve the ecological quality of the park, such as controlling erosion and restoring native plant communities. Consider working with adjacent landowners who grow row crops to determine if they are interested in selling an agricultural (buffer) easement on their property to prevent erosion of and next to the park, or to perhaps restore the easement area to native vegetation if row crop agriculture is no longer of interest to the landowner (Land Conservation Plan of Dakota County). • Continue restoring native plant communities and improving ecological conditions in the park so that the park is a positive example for neighbors and park visitors, which can benefit its local ecosystem ecological context through leading by example. • Reintroduce extirpated wildlife species when appropriate. • Reach out to neighboring landowners to establish good relations; encourage them to restore native habitat on their property. • Continue educating park visitors about the ecology of the park and teaching them the value of their own actions outside the park borders to positively influence the ecology of Dakota County and beyond.
68 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
4.4 Loss of key park ecological processes Through the altering of the land to meet human needs, key ecological processes and elements have been eliminated with unintentional consequences. One being the elimination of wildfire, which is a key component of nutrient cycling and plant life cycles that has resulted in the near elimination of oak savanna in the park and the extirpation of many plant and animal species. Also, past overhunting of large grazing animals such as elk and bison, as well as habitat destruction throughout the region has resulted in the elimination of animal-mediated disturbances, such as seed movement and nutrient transport by these animals that has altered the composition and trajectory of native plant communities.
Controlled burns are a valuable tool in woodland and savanna management.
69 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Opportunities/Recommendations: • Reintroduce bison or other large grazing animals to the park. • Increase the use of fire as a management tool especially in woodlands and savannas. • Determine what plants have been eliminated from the park and reintroduce them as habitats are developed. • Stabilize ravines to prevent erosion of valuable topsoil. • Work with US Army Corps to perform periodic drawdowns of Spring Lake to help regenerate native wetland seedbanks and improve water fowl habitat. • Work with US Army Corps to build habitat islands in Spring Lake to help improve wildlife habitat.
4.5 Reduced Native Plant Diversity For a large variety of reasons as described above, plant diversity, in the park, is diminished from historic levels and is on a trajectory to continue to diminish. Additional reasons include: invasive species encroachment, ravine erosion, deer predation, lack of past natural resource management, nitrogen deposition, and climate change (as described below).
Of particular note in SLPR is the lack of native oak tree regeneration and lack of herbaceous plant diversity in all forests of the park. Oaks were the dominant tree prior to European settlement and should have persisted. However, recent plant surveys have revealed that throughout the largest blocks of forest in the central and eastern park, red, white and bur oaks have been nearly eliminated. Logging may have been the primary reason for their scarcity today, but an inability to regenerate in the absence of fire is another. Oak seedlings need light to survive, and thus oak forests rely on wind storms, disease, and occasional burning to open up the canopy that promotes seedling germination and forest regeneration. Also, periodic fires would keep shrub growth in check, which would in turn allow much more light to reach the ground.
The forest floor of the park was once covered with a proliferation of beautiful wildflowers, ferns, and sedges. Today, much of the herbaceous cover and composition is limited. Interestingly, in some areas, large monotypic stands of wood nettle are present; notably without the presence of Tartarian honeysuckle and buckthorn. Diverse herbaceous stands do occur in the park today, but they are located primarily on very steep slopes that would have been inaccessible to grazing cattle.
70 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Land dominated by invasive plant species lose native plant diversity, such as in this dense stand of common buckthorn.
Opportunities/Recommendations: • Minimize soil disturbance when developing the park and designing and installing trails. Soil protection and restoration should be part of any project that involves soil disturbance (see section 1.1.2.6). • Restore of a variety of native habitats and shifting patchwork of refugia. Oak savanna was the dominant pre-settlement habitat of the park yet today only a few acres exist. This and other habitats should be restored to increase landscape heterogeneity and ecosystem complexity. • Continue to work with Agency partners and park neighbors to achieve the natural resources goals of the park and to support efforts in the surrounding ecoregion. • Promote increased support of natural resources management in the park. • Continue working with Dakota County Land Conservation group to purchase inholdings and any other adjacent properties from willing sellers or as identified in the approved master plan. • Fund park natural resources management at a greater extent than currently funded, to build on past prairie restoration successes. • Reintroduce bison to the park. • Use fire, according to the appropriate burn rotation, as a management tool, especially in woodlands and savannas.
71 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
• Monitor and aggressively control new invasive species. For example oriental bittersweet is just establishing in the park. Now is the time to get ahead of this newly introduced invasive species. • Continue to and more aggressively manage long-established invasive species such as garlic mustard, common buckthorn, and Tartarian honeysuckle. • Identify extirpated native plants and re-introduce them, to increase species diversity and species interactions. • Work with adjacent land owners to reduce stormwater runoff volumes coming off of their properties and entering the park. • Stabilize eroding ravines. • Continue managing whitetail deer populations to protect plant communities from over-browsing.
4.6 Invasive Species An invasive species is a plant or animal that is not native to a region and has negative effects on its economy, environment, or human health. They are typically those aggressive, exotic plant species that grow and reproduce rapidly, often displacing native plants or animals. Invasive plants typically reduce wildlife habitat value significantly by eliminating or displacing native cover and food sources. When filling in previously disrupted areas, invasive plants often form single-species (monotypic) stands that can create barriers to peoples’ movement, such as through dense or thorny growth. Many invasive plant species have colonized SLPR (see list below). Besides degrading wildlife habitat, invasive species can result in the erosion of topsoil that leads to the degradation of water quality.
Park staff have been working to control invasive plant species, especially common buckthorn, Tartarian honeysuckle, garlic mustard, and Japanese hedge parsley. These efforts would best be amplified, since there is much more infested area than is currently being addressed.
Invasive plant species in the park include:
Upland: garlic mustard, black locust, Siberian elm, common buckthorn, Tartarian honeysuckle, oriental bittersweet, Amur maple, Norway maple, , yellow and white sweet clover, Japanese hedge parsley, common burdock, wild parsnip, leafy spurge, spotted knapweed, Canada thistle, creeping Charlie, Japanese barberry, crown vetch, alfalfa, yellow rocket, orange hawkweed and smooth brome.
Lowland and Lakeshore: narrowleaf cattail and reed canary grass.
Park managers should also be on the watch for invasive species on the MN DNR Early Detection Watch List. Early detection target species are non- native, invasive species with limited distribution in Minnesota that are assessed as high risk. These include: black swallow-wort, British yellowhead,
72 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Dalmatian toadflax, giant hogweed, Grecian foxglove, tree of heaven, teasel, Phragmites australis, Japanese knotweed, Japanese hops, and multiflora rose—and this list is dynamic. As of summer 2019 these species were not observed in the park.
• Opportunities/Recommendations: • Further develop and follow through with a comprehensive invasive species management program. • Continue restoring native plant communities to restore native plant diversity and potentially out-compete some invasive plants. • Teach park users about the impacts of invasive plant species and show them how they can be identified and controlled such as: ▪ Cleaning shoes before walking through the park.
▪ Cleaning watercraft before and after entering the lake.
▪ Watching for invasive species in the park and notifying park staff of their appearance.
▪ Reporting sightings via EdMaps 4.7 Ravine Erosion The ravines of the park are in their essence evidence of past erosion. Historically, water moving from upland areas washed soil away to incise the ravines. There is a continual, natural rate of erosion inherent to all ravines. In SLPR, however, altered land use within the watershed and increased precipitation due to climate change is amplifying the volumes of water moving through the ravines, compared to historic levels. The most significant erosion is occurring along Hilary Path where construction of the road and elimination of natural vegetation has exacerbated the situation. There are also several points along the Mississippi River Greenway (MRG) that are significantly eroding.
Ravine erosion in SLPR Opportunities/Recommendations:
• Implement existing plans developed to improve Hilary Path and to stabilize the erosion. • Develop plans to stabilize all points of erosion along the MRG • Work with land owners within the watershed, especially those adjacent to the park, to reduce stormwater runoff. • Restore vegetation within ravines after runoff reduction practices have been implemented within the watersheds above the park ravines.
73 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
4.8 Deer Abundance Deer overabundance is an issue throughout the region. Deer do significant damage by browsing newly establishing trees and wildflowers. They prevent forest trees from regenerating and we lose the beauty of woodland wildflowers. Deer impact is compounded by earthworm activity that limits vegetation regeneration in the park. Unfortunately earthworm control methods do not exist, so it is important to keep deer populations low to prevent them from taxing an already weakened forest regeneration capacity. Park staff currently monitor deer populations and have implemented a bow hunt season to manage deer populations.
Opportunities/Recommendations:
• Continue the existing deer monitoring and management program. Reduce deer population to no greater than ten deer per square mile. • Educate park users as to the natural role of this beautiful animal, and how people can best nurture balanced populations of plants and animals.
4.9 Earthworms Earthworms are an invasive species not native to the Midwest. They are degrading many forests in Minnesota including those in Spring Lake Park Reserve. Minnesota forests did not evolve in the presence of earthworms who rapidly consume the duff on the forest floor leaving it bare by mid- summer. This results in soil moisture and nutrient loss, and prevents the reproduction of native tree and wildflower species that require the protection of the duff to regenerate. Forests that have been taken over by earthworms lack wildflowers and ferns, and young native trees. Unfortunately there are no effective earthworm management techniques.
Opportunities/Recommendations:
• Plant native forest species that are able to tolerate the presence of earthworms including: Pennsylvania sedge, zig-zag goldenrod, columbine and jack-in-the-pulpit. • Plant native and near native trees that are not reproducing naturally in the park. • Educate park users about the impact of earthworms and how they affect Minnesota forests. • Control deer populations to ten deer per square mile.
74 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
4.10 Past Natural Resource Management In the past twenty years an exceptional effort has been put forth by the County to establish and maintain prairies in SLPR, which has resulted in most of the former farm fields re-establishing exceptional biodiversity and providing improved habitat for a wide variety of species. However, natural resources management has not been sufficiently funded in past decades for the remaining natural areas of the park, resulting in diminished biodiversity, increased erosion, and lost oak savannas. Forests, too, have received little attention, except for some limited buckthorn and honeysuckle removal efforts, and as a result, are experiencing significant encroachment of invasive species.
Opportunities/Recommendations: • Sufficiently fund and implement this natural resources management plan. • Partner with landowners of park inholding properties in a cooperative manner to achieve common natural resources goals. • Recognize the need for large scale ecosystem management to achieve site specific goals. • Educate park users, including the YMCA at the Youth Lodge, on the importance of natural resources management. • Continue to organize volunteer events such as harvesting seed or removing invasive plants.
4.11 Climate Change Climate change is impacting SLPR and will increasingly impact the area in the near future. In Minnesota, climate change is manifesting with warmer winters (especially increasing night-time lows), increasing precipitation and storm intensity (more heavy rains and fewer slow soaking events), and greater snow events. According to DNR State Climatologist Kenny Blumenfeld, increased summer day-time temperatures and increased occurrence of drought has not yet been experienced in Minnesota (although night-time lows have been increasing). These changes are, however, predicted to increase within the next 10 - 20 years. Park users and managers can expect more heat and drought in the near future.
Climate change exacerbates the ecological issues discussed above in this section. As the region, and the park, experiences greater swings in temperature and precipitation, insects, birds, trees, wildflowers, and soil microorganisms are forced to tolerate conditions beyond those through which they have evolved. Disease more readily occurs in stressed plants and animals, native plant species might die out and invasive species take their place, and thus we lose our rich natural heritage. In addition, downed trees and erosion from severe storms is increasingly a concern.
75 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
The stewardship section of this plan puts forth a strategy and methods for protecting the natural resources of SLPR. As park users and managers, we must be alert to the changes occurring in this and all of Dakota County’s natural areas.
Opportunities/Recommendations: • Continue the monitoring program for plants and animals to track changes in populations and sifts in species. Appropriate measures can be taken as changes occur. Evaluate the monitoring program periodically for fit and efficiency along with staffing capacity. • Increase plant and habitat diversity today. Increasing diversity establishes resilient plant communities because species are adapted to differing niches and will tolerate different stresses. For example, some prairie species can handle cool, wet conditions better that hot, dry, whereas other species are the opposite. In a diverse ecosystem, they can alternate in dominance as environmental conditions shift. They go dormant when the conditions they prefer are not present. • Revert select forests to savanna. Oak savannas are more resilient to heat, drought and wind. Since oak savannas were the dominant plant community at SLPR prior to European settlement, it makes sense to prefer them at this site. • Teach park visitors about the impacts of climate change and instruct them on how they might be able to help through volunteer activities.
Oak savannas are resilient plant communities that can withstand extremes in wet and dry conditions. They must be burned regularly.
76 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
5 Vision & Goals
The purpose of protecting and restoring natural resources at Spring Lake Park Reserve is to:
• Allow people to experience the natural heritage of the area and improve their experience in the park
• Provide habitat for native plants, birds, insects, mammals, amphibians and reptiles
• Demonstrate the native ecosystem regeneration process
• Foster and build a resilient, mature, and high-functioning ecosystem
• Collaborate and partner with adjacent landowners to achieve the best joint management of natural resources for the area • Conserve wildlife species of Conservation Need (MNDNR designation) • Mitigate impacts of climate change
• Achieve regionally outstanding ecological quality
This Spring Lake Park Reserve NRMP builds from: Dakota County’s Natural Resources Management Vision for the Park System - The water, vegetation, and wildlife of Dakota County parks, greenways, and easements will be managed to conserve biodiversity, restore native habitats, improve public benefits, and achieve resilience and regionally outstanding quality, now and for future generations.
5.1 Overall Park Natural Resources Management 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 and reintroduce extirpated animal species • Minimize the invasive species cover
77 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
• 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
5.2 Goals and Recommendations for Priority Features Forests and Woodlands Goal: To manage forest and woodlands to:
• regenerate native tree species, especially sugar maple and oaks, • preserve existing sugar maples and oaks, • facilitate the introduction of certain/select southerly (northern Iowa) forest species adaptive to a warming climate, • preserve and enhance a diverse native plant community in the mid and understories, • achieve mixed age woodland and forest canopies, and • manage for habitat as opposed to timber production. Recommendations:
• Control invasive plant species to an average maximum cover of 5 percent. • Aggressively manage invasive species that are new to the area, striving to eradicate them from the park. • Introduce and/or continue to use fire as a management tool. • Utilize the National Park Services inventory to help manage forests and woodlands on the site.
78 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
• Manage deer to minimal numbers (approximately ten deer per square mile). This is the least expensive undertaking park staff can conduct with the greatest impact to protect habitat and increase native plant diversity and improve overall wildlife habitat in the park. Recommended deer management includes: o Conducting aerial deer surveys (from a helicopter) in the winter to assess deer populations. o Holding controlled hunts in the fall. o Working with neighboring municipalities to coordinate deer management programs. o Conduct a sharpshooting program if hunting is not possible or is not enough to control the deer population.
• Protect oak and sugar maple seedlings from predation by deer, rabbits or mice by fencing or other methods. • Follow the Dakota County Emerald Ash Borer management plan. Remove dead trees in areas where they are a danger to people, and in areas of plant community restoration. • Remove invasive canopy trees. Phase out the pine plantations in the park over time through thinning and replacing with locally appropriate species. • Consider introducing climate-adaptive plant species within 250 miles of Dakota County, for example those native to northern Iowa, southwestern Wisconsin and Southeastern Minnesota (south of Dakota County) but that are not found in Dakota County. • Introduce native ground layer species that have been lost. Method is to plant or seed into canopy gaps, thus ensuring adequate sunlight. This will serve to increase overall diversity of the community as well as provide pollen and food for native pollinators and other wildlife. • Monitor vegetation and wildlife. Oak Savanna Goal: To establish and maintain oak savanna plant community similar to what would have existed in the park prior to European settlement. To establish a diversity of native plants that thrive under a burning management regime typical for oak savanna.
Recommendations:
• Thin canopy trees to occupy 10-40% aerial coverage (herbaceous vegetation should dominate this community type). • Use fire is a primary management tool. Burn often enough to achieve the desired species composition, distribution, and structure. Burning units on a staggered rotation every 1 to 5 years is typical. Never burn more than 1/3 of the entire savanna plant community in one year. • Trees native to the MN oak savanna, primarily bur oak, will be planted or protected from predation as seedlings naturally establish from trees in the park.
79 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
• Establish a diversity of native herbaceous plants appropriate to savannas. See DNR’s Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota: The Eastern Boreal Forest Province (2005) • Minimize the extent of shrub establishment to develop an open landscape safe for park users and easy to burn. • Consider introducing climate-adaptive plant species within 250 miles of Dakota County, for example those native to northern Iowa, southwestern Wisconsin and Southeastern Minnesota (south of Dakota County) but that are not found in Dakota County. • Control invasive plant species to an average maximum cover of 5 percent. • Aggressively manage invasive species new to the area to extirpate them from the park. • Introduce grazing/browsing as a management tool (e.g. bison or goats). • Manage deer to minimal numbers. • Continue working with adjacent land owners and land owners of park inholdings to explore opportunities for natural resources regeneration and protection both in and adjacent to the park.
Prairies Goal: To nurture, establish and regenerate diverse prairie habitats.
Recommendations:
• Establish a diversity of native herbaceous plants appropriate to prairies of southern Minnesota. See DNR’s Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota: The Eastern Boreal Forest Province (2005) • Remove newly establishing trees and shrubs in prairies and control colonies that have established (primarily using fire as a management tool). • Control invasive plant species to an average maximum cover of 5 percent. • Aggressively manage invasive species new to the area to extirpate them from the park. • Consider introducing climate-adaptive plant species within 250 miles of Dakota County, for example those native to northern Iowa, southwestern Wisconsin and Southeastern Minnesota (south of Dakota County) but that are not found in Dakota County. • Use fire as a primary management tool. Burn often enough to achieve the desired species composition, distribution, and structure. Burning units on a staggered rotation every 1 to 3 years is typical. Never burn more than 1/3 of the entire prairie plant community in one year. • Introduce grazing and browsing as a management tool (e.g. bison, goats).
80 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Ravines Goal: To stabilize ravine slopes and to eliminate the accumulation of sediment in the bottom of ravines.
Recommendations:
• Protect and enhance vegetation in the contributing watersheds of the ravines. Do this through establishing and managing native plant communities as described above. • As watersheds have become stabilized, focus on the stabilizing of ravine side slopes and bottoms through planting and ecosystem management. • Continue working with property owners within the ravine watersheds to manage stormwater runoff that flows to the park ravines. Encourage them to establish permanent vegetation, and share with them information about stormwater management features that can be implemented to slow or infiltrate stormwater. Direct them to publicly available funds for project implementation. • Work with County Facilities Management staff to change trail snow plowing practices that cause erosion near trails. • Site and design new trails such that they do not cause soil erosion, such as aligning trails with the contours of slopes and not against them. Follow International Mountain Bike Association trail design standards.
Cliffs & Bluffs Goal: To protect these sensitive geologic features from human impacts and invasive species.
Recommendations:
• Monitor cliffs for direct and indirect damage by people, such as climbing damage or erosion caused by construction projects uphill. • Direct trails away from fragile cliffs. • Manage cliffs to limit the growth of invasive species and to limit the encroachment of red cedar. Red cedar is a native tree but historically was not nearly as abundant as it is today due to fires and browsing. In many places it is encroaching bluff prairies and out-competing a diversity of native herbaceous plants. • Restore native plant diversity to bluff prairies and woodlands in areas of low ecological quality (see Figure 6-2—Target Plant Community). • Vegetate the exposed rock face created during the development of the Miss. River Greenway. This would require substantial soil importing at the base of the cliff to allow for the establishment of trees while also supporting the growth of vines that could potentially climb the rock face from below.
81 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Red cedars displacing cliff plant communities in the park.
Soils Goal: To regenerate soils by eliminating negative soil impacts and by supporting the building of soil structure.
Recommendations:
• Soils that are left undisturbed and for which have a diversity of vegetation slowly build soil structure through the action of roots, microbes, invertebrates, insects and mammals. Soil regeneration (soil structure) can be enhanced by incorporating or topdressing with organic matter. Consider this as a step for restoration projects on especially degraded or compacted soils. • Limit driving vehicles off-road and off-trail. Vehicles compact soil and destroy soil structure greatly reducing the ability for soils to hold water and oxygen necessary for plant success. • Prior to construction, install tree protection fencing around mature trees to protect their critical root zones. • During construction projects, minimize the area of impact. Do not allow contractors to sprawl beyond the project limits. • After construction, mechanically rip compacted areas to a depth of eighteen inches and till eight inches of compost six inches into the ground. • In areas of past construction, where negative soil impacts have lingered (such as the regional trail corridor), topdress with compost to boost the soil regeneration process and feed the soil food web.
82 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
Regional Trail Corridor Goals: To restore a diversity of native plant species and regenerate soils impacted through the construction process. To diligently manage invasive species. To continue the restoration process that narrows the ecological gap the trail has created.
Recommendations:
• Establish oak savanna or forest in areas disturbed by trail construction (as per Target Communities maps, Figures 6.4 – 6.6). Focus on the establishment of a diverse herbaceous layer. • Regenerate soils through nurturing both the soil and a diversity of herbaceous plants for the foreseeable future. • Use fire as the primary management tool. • Monitor and control invasive plant species to an average maximum cover of 2 percent. Trail corridors of this size become corridors for the distribution and establishment of invasive species because they are inadvertently brought in and spread by trail users and maintenance equipment. Wildlife Goal: To provide habitat for a diversity of indigenous wildlife species.
Recommendations:
• Manage for a shifting mosaic of refugia that promotes a heterogenous landscape and helps to maximize bio-diversity. • Continue, and ramp up, wildlife monitoring efforts to better understand existing and extirpated wildlife populations. Identify habitat needs for Species of Greatest Conservation Need (Table 3-2). • Consider working with local colleges and universities to conduct wildlife research. • Continue restoring native plant habitats throughout the park to expand and improve wildlife habitat. A diversity of habitat types provide life-cycle needs for a diversity of wildlife species. • Protect and enhance habitat for Species of Greatest Conservation Need; for example - o Bats: protect roosting trees by limiting the removal of trees to only the winter months: November through March. o Bumble bees: prior to any construction, mow flowering species (before they flower) to discourage insects from the area.
• Monitor and control invasive animal species. Species of concern (MN DNR) include Asian-Long horned beetle, Brown marmorated stink bug, Gypsy moth, and jumping worms. None of these have yet been detected in the park.
83 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan
6 Implementation
6.1 Native Plant Community Restoration Restoration Strategy The restoration of native plant communities within Spring Lake Park Reserve will begin within four nodes of highest ecological potential (Figure 6-1—Restoration Priorities). Here an intense focus on invasive species removal will begin, with an aim of eliminating competition and protecting native plants and creating conditions for species diversity enhancement. The goal is to first protect the highest ecological quality areas (areas of greatest native plant diversity) through invasive species eradication, and then to move restoration efforts out to lower diversity areas as indicated by the arrow in Figure 6-1—Restoration Priorities. Eventually the entire park may be restored and transition to the management phase where burning, supplemental planting, and other management activities will encourage native plant proliferation and discourage invasive plant establishment. Figure 6-2—Target Plant Community Systems depict target plant communities for the restoration efforts. Figure 6-3—Restoration Phasing, depicts recommended phasing of restoration efforts. The speed at which restoration is to be implemented will depend upon funding and Dakota County staff capacity to oversee the process.
Restoration of this oak savanna included the placement of prairie straw to carry fire through an area where buckthorn and canopy trees were removed.
84
Figure 6-1 Restoration Priorities
85
Figure 6-2 Target Plant Community Systems
86
Figure 6-3 Restoration Phasing by Work Unit
87
Adaptive Management Approach An adaptive management approach for ecosystem regeneration will be followed at Spring Lake Park Reserve. Adaptive management is an iterative process of decision making, with an aim of reducing uncertainty over time via system monitoring. It is a systematic approach for improving resource management by learning from management outcomes including but not limited to:
• Weed control and weed eradication success
• Native plant establishment, failure, and success
• Disturbance by people and wildlife
• Climate impacts
Adaptive management is the process of testing a management technique in each unique landscape, monitoring its effectiveness, and then adjusting the technique in response. This iterative process takes time, and results in long term success.
The monitoring process involves:
1. Conducting annual spring site assessments to identify issues and determine management actions for that year. Develop a maintenance plan for the year (timing and activities involved).
2. Each year walk the park natural areas every 4-6 weeks during growing season to inspect for invasive weed encroachment, dead or diseased plants, erosion problems, human impacts and miscellaneous issues.
88
Target Plant Communities Target plant communities set the goal for eventual restoration. They provide a vision for native plant community restoration in the park. The target communities were developed through analysis of the park’s existing plant communities, soils, aspect and moisture levels, as well as taking into consideration the historic plant communities of the site through historical aerial photography interpretation. Climate change, resiliency, and management requirements were also taken into consideration. The plant communities of the park will exist in a continuum, with transition zones between the communities. The sharp lines on the map are not representative of actual transitions that will develop.
Figure 6-4, Figure 6-5, and Figure 6-6 show the target plant communities developed for the park. Plant communities are identified using Minnesota's Native Plant Community Classification (Version 2.0) by MnDNR. Detailed descriptions of native plant communities can be found at: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/npc/classification.html. Park managers will determine species to plant in these communities, as well as specific management processes. Restoration process is outlined in the next section below. Native plant communities identified in the plan include:
Prairie Savanna CTs12 - Southern Dry Cliff UPs13 - Southern Dry Prairie CTs33 - Southern Mesic Cliff UPs14 - Southern Dry Savanna UPs23 - Southern Mesic Prairie UPs14c - Dry Hill Oak Savanna (Southern) UPs24 - Southern Mesic Savanna Forest/Woodland FDs27b - White Pine - Oak Woodland Wetland FDs37b - Pin Oak - Bur Oak Woodland WFs57 - Southern Wet Ash Swamp FFs59 - Southern Terrace Forest WMs83a - Southern Seepage Meadow/Carr FFs68a - Silver Maple - (Virginia Creeper) Floodplain Forest MHs37 - Red Oak-White Oak Forest MHs38b - Basswood - Bur Oak Forest MHs38c - Red Oak - Sugar Maple - Basswood - (Bitternut Hickory) Forest MHs39a - Sugar Maple - Basswood - (Bitternut HIckory) Forest MHs39b - Sugar Maple - Basswood - Red Oak - (Blue Beech) Forest MHs49a - Elm - Basswood - Black Ash - (Hackberry) Forest
89
Figure 6-4 Target Plant Community Classes—East
90
Figure 6-5 Target Plant Community Classes—Central
91
Figure 6-6 Target Plant Community Classes—West
92
Ecological goals for the park include habitat improvements, diversification of habitat types, and increased biodiversity. This is to be accomplished in the face of climate change, invasive species encroachment, and increased use of the park. To achieve these it will be important to restore ecological process such as grazing and fire, and to move ecosystem composition back towards those plant communities found on site 150 years ago; dominated by prairie, woodland, and oak savanna (see Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2). In the future prairie and oak savanna are expected to be more resilient to the extremes of climate change; warmer summers, warmer winters, and both wetter and drier conditions. These communities are also more economical to maintain as they can readily carry fire which provides cost effective maintenance because fire controls cool season exotic weeds, helps prevent the invasion of woody plants, and reduces thatch. Savannas also provide habitat for a great diversity of indigenous wildlife species.
Restoration Process and Long-Term Maintenance The following table (Table 6-1) describes the basic steps in the process of plant community restoration:
Table 6-1 Plant Community Restoration
Target Plant Community Restoration Process Long-Term Maintenance
Maple-Basswood Forest, • Remove woody and herbaceous invasive • Monitor restoration progress as described above in species (cut, mow, herbicide, burn, etc.) the Adaptive Management Approach. Oak Forest throughout the project area. • During the first three years after initial restoration, • If deemed necessary, regenerate canopy trees conduct weed management through mowing or by creating small clearings (canopy gaps) that spot spraying at least four times per growing allow light to stimulate growth of naturally season. regenerating or newly planted trees. • After the first three years of management, spot • If deemed necessary seed or plant native trees mow, brush saw, and herbicide-treat invasive or herbaceous species. woody plant species once every 3-4 years. Also • If restoration is located along the regional trail treat invasive herbaceous species once per year in develop specific planting and management spring or fall. plans to focus resources on this highly • Manage emerald ash borer as per the County’s degraded area within 50’ of the trail. Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan. • Because earthworms cannot be controlled it is • Plant trees and wildflowers as deemed appropriate critical to aggressively control deer that every 5-10 years. consume regenerating native vegetation.
93
Target Plant Community Restoration Process Long-Term Maintenance Reduce deer population to no greater than ten • Maintain deer populations at no greater than ten deer per square mile. deer per square mile. Oak Woodland • Remove woody and herbaceous invasive • Monitor restoration progress as described above in species (cut, mow, herbicide, burn, etc.) the Adaptive Management Approach. throughout the project area. • During first three years after canopy gap creation, • To develop true woodland remove 20-50% spot treat invasive plants with herbicide four times trees to open the canopy and allow light to hit per growing season. the ground plain. • After the three year establishment period, spot • Grazing by goats may be used to clear invasive mow and herbicide-treat invasive woody plant vegetation from the woodland floor. A plan species. Herbicide application during dormant could be developed with a grazing specialist to season is ideal (every other year). determine where and when grazing would be • Prescribed burn every 3-4 years. most effective. • Grazing by bison or goats may supplement burning. • Consider planting woodland herbaceous • Manage emerald ash borer as per the County’s species in the gaps created. Alternatively, Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan. allow vegetation to emerge from the seed bank. • Phase canopy-gap creation to maintain partially open canopy. Create additional gaps every 10 - 20 • Control deer to 10 deer per square mile. years until all undesirable canopy trees have been • Interseed and/or plant live plugs the third removed. growing season for additional diversity. • Interseed and/or plant live plugs occasionally for Experiment with seeding onto the black additional diversity. Experiment with seeding onto following a prescribed burn. the black following a prescribed burn.
• Maintain deer populations at no greater than ten deer per square mile. Oak Savanna • Remove woody and herbaceous invasive • Monitor restoration progress as described above in species (cut, mow, herbicide, burn, etc.) the Adaptive Management Approach.
throughout the project area. Reduce canopy • For the first two years after planting, mow cover to within a range of one tree per acre to herbaceous plants as appropriate (1-2 times the forty percent cover. first year, and once the second) to reduce annual
94
Target Plant Community Restoration Process Long-Term Maintenance • Prep soil for planting (till, harrow, smooth, weed competition. Also, spot apply herbicide to rake, burn, etc.). perennial weeds four times per growing season. • Install seed and/or live plants. • After the establishment period (approximately 3 • Prevent erosion by appropriate means such as years), burn sporadically to minimize woody plant disc anchored straw or hydromulch. establishment. • Some bur oaks may be planted, but tree • Fire should be a primary management tool for planting will be limited to achieve a woodland, savanna, and prairie. Prescribe a burn maintainable savanna landscape. every 3-4 years. • Water any live plants as necessary. • Grazing by bison or goats may supplement burning. • Install tree protection from deer and mice as • After establishment period, spot treat invasive needed. plants with herbicide once per growing season. • Interseed or plant to increase native cover to increase native plant diversity. Experiment with seeding onto the black following a prescribed burn. • Control deer to 10 deer per square mile.
Mesic Prairie, • Remove woody and herbaceous invasive • Monitor restoration progress as described above in species (cut, mow, herbicide, burn, etc.) the Adaptive Management Approach. Dry Bedrock Bluff throughout the project area. • For the first two years after planting, mow • Prep soil for planting (till, harrow, smooth, herbaceous plants as appropriate (1-2 times the rake, burn, etc.). first year, and once the second) to reduce annual • Install seed and/or live plants. weed competition. Also spot apply herbicide to perennial weeds four times per growing season. • Prevent erosion by appropriate means such as disc anchored straw or hydromulch. • After the establishment period, burn sporadically to minimize woody plant establishment. • Control deer to 10 deer per square mile. • Grazing by bison or goats may supplement burning.
• After establishment period, spot treat invasive plants with herbicide once per growing season.
95
Target Plant Community Restoration Process Long-Term Maintenance • Interseed or plant to increase native cover to increase native plant diversity. Experiment with seeding onto the black following a prescribed burn. • Control deer to 10 deer per square mile. Sedge Meadow, • Remove woody and herbaceous invasive • Monitor restoration progress as described above in species (cut, mow, herbicide, burn, etc.) the Adaptive Management Approach. Seepage Meadow throughout the project area. • Manage emerald ash borer as per the County’s Floodplain Forest • Allow native plants to naturally regenerate. Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan. Supplementally seed if necessary. • Spot treat invasive plants with herbicide twice per • Control deer to 10 deer per square mile. growing season. Depending on weed pressures, aggressive treatment of reed canary grass and cattail may be necessary.
Restoration phasing Spring Lake Park Reserve covers approximately 1,100 acres – most of which will require restoration and management. The work will be phased to achieve reasonable annual budgets and stay within staff capacity. The phased approach is depicted in Figure 6-3.
Phase 1, Years 1-5: Starting within the highest quality ecological nodes of the park (see Figure 6-1), a significant effort will be undertaken to protect these unique, high quality resources. Native plant community restoration begins here. Upon restoration completion within the Phase 1 area, efforts will move out from these nodes into somewhat more degraded plant communities. Before embarking upon Phase 2 restoration projects funds must be secured to maintain Phase 1 acreages. If adequate funds are not available to maintain any phase of work, restoration of the next phase should not proceed. It is recommended to focus resources on the protection and management of the highest quality areas first.
Phase 2, Years 6-10: Phase 2 adds a concentric ring of native plant community restoration around the Phase 1 central nodes. Phase 2 projects serve both to expand habitat and to create a protective buffer around the diverse ecological nodes. Phase 2 efforts are slated to occur over the course of five years as funds are available.
96
Phase 3, Years 11-20+: This phase comprises an effort to restore the most degraded reaches of the park. Restoration may be slow and expensive because of a lack of indigenous species on the ground, and because of extensive invasive species. A strong effort (two years) is recommended to control/eliminate invasive species before planting. This will help to keep management efforts reasonable.
6.2 Wildlife Management The primary goal for SLPR wildlife management is to enhance habitat so that a diversity of wildlife species thrive. This is a ‘build it and they will come’ approach. Restoring a diversity of habitat types and a diversity of native plant species provides wildlife the food, shelter and space to reproduce and thrive in the park.
Species of Greatest Conservation Need (see Table 3-2) are priority species for habitat management in Spring Lake Park Reserve. Habitat improvement will be accomplished through the native plant community regeneration efforts described in this document. Healthy woodlands, savanna, and prairies host a great diversity of these species. Park managers will determine specific habitat improvements for individual wildlife species to be implemented in the park.
Park managers will be considering reintroducing extirpated animals as opportunities arise. Bison is currently under consideration. Other species may include a variety of herps such as bull snake and rat snake, but many other species may be considered.
It is important to establish a diversity of habitat types within the park because different wildlife species require different food, shelter, and nesting types. Management staff will continue to improve a variety of vegetative layers (e.g. ground, understory, mid-story, and canopy layer) for birds to carry out their life cycles. For example, to provide the appropriate habitat for forest birds, it is critical to have a diverse and well-structured forest composed of various species of large trees, medium size trees and small trees (structural heterogeneity). Standing dead trees (snags) and logs and treetops on the forest floor (coarse woody debris) may look rather messy, but they provide excellent habitat for birds and bats. This diversity of habitat will be achieved by implementing the native plant community regeneration plan.
Deer Management Deer are a hindrance to ecosystem regeneration because dense populations of deer over-graze native plants. Deer have been well managed in the park, and this is recommended to be amplified to protect a significant investment in ecosystem restoration and management by reducing deer to ten per square mile. This is especially important because of the damage to native plant communities caused by earthworms. The earthworm impacted forests of the park are further damaged by deer, so their control is critical because there are no control methods for earthworms.
97
6.3 Soil Management Soil regenerates (develops good soil structure) through the growth of plant communities that are not repeatedly disturbed through actions such as tilling, grading or construction. A vast majority of the soils in the park are naturally recovering from past agricultural and construction impacts through the action of roots, microbes, insects, invertebrates and mammals that build soil structure. Soils with good structure can hold nutrients, hold additional moisture, and become resistant to erosion. The act of restoring and managing native plant communities will continue this trend of soil regeneration.
When undertaking construction projects within the park it is important that sufficient budget and planning occur to implement soil regeneration within the construction disturbance zone. This may include importing topsoil or the incorporation of soil amendments. It will also involve the implementation and management of appropriate native plant communities. Therefore, the design of native plant communities around designed facilities will improve overall ecological quality.
Soils are eroding through the central ravine and the ravine of Hilary Path. The contributing watersheds within the park are stable, while agriculture disturbs soils within reaches of watershed beyond the park boundary. Park managers should continue to build relationships with park neighbors to work with them on soil stabilization and recommend funding sources for stabilization projects.
6.4 Stormwater & Shoreline Management As discussed earlier in this plan, park managers should continue to work with neighboring property owners to manage stormwater running into the park from their properties. Options include seeking agricultural and natural area easements, offering to provide technical assistance to manage the natural communities on their properties, collaborating on projects that benefit the natural resources of the park reserve and possibly of the private properties too., For example, decreasing the volume and rate of stormwater runoff from surrounding properties will go a long way to stabilizing the ravines of the park.
New construction of park facilities and trails must include the construction of stormwater management facilities to infiltrate and filter stormwater running off hard surfaces. Rain gardens, bioretention swales and stormwater ponds are a few of the facilities that can be implemented to manage stormwater.
The shoreline of Spring Lake is very stable; secured with naturally occurring boulders and large trees. Erosion is not occurring, but it would be advisable to walk the shoreline every other year or so to inspect for changes. When park boating and recreational facilities are designed for the
98
lake shore, considerable effort and resources must be invested to provide protection from the erosive power of flood waters and wave action as this is a very dynamic shoreline.
6.5 Monitoring Recommendations The monitoring of native plant communities and wildlife in Spring Lake Park Reserve can provide park managers with an understanding of populations and their condition. This information allows for informed management decisions. Monitoring procedures and recommendations are presented in detail in the 2019 Lebanon Hills Natural Resources Management Plan. Refer to pages 186-192 of this document for monitoring protocol for Spring Lake Park Reserve.
6.6 Native Plant Community Restoration & Maintenance Costs The tables below present projected costs for the restoration and management of native plant communities within Spring Lake Park Reserve. They were developed from costs incurred from similar projects in the region, including County projects, for the years 2017-2019.
Table 6-2 Native Plant Community Restoration Cost Estimates
Cost to Restore per Phase Restoration Total Acres to Cost Estimate Phase Restore 1, Yrs. 1-5 294 $1,024,000 2, Yrs. 6-10 310 $1,389,000 3, Yrs. 11-15 208 $716,000 Total 811 $3,129,000
Table 6-3 Native Plant Community Maintenance Cost Estimates
Cost to Maintain per Phase Existing and Restoration Newly Restored Cost Estimate Phase Acres to Maintain 1, Yrs. 1-5 462 $1,005,000
99
2, Yrs. 6-10 819 $1,571,000 3, Yrs. 11-15 1037 $1,659,000 Total $4,235,000
Table 6-4 Maintenance and Restoration Combined Costs Estimates
Restoration Acres to Restore Cost Estimate Phase and Maintain 1, Yrs. 1-5 462 $2,029,000 2, Yrs. 6-10 819 $2,960,000 3, Yrs. 11-15 1037 $2,375,000 Total $7,364,000
6.7 Wildlife Resources Projects and Cost Estimates Inherently, wildlife habitat is closely intertwined with vegetation; wildlife depends on vegetation for cover, nesting, and food. Conversely, plants depend on animals for many things, such as dispersal, to scarify seed covers, and for pollination. Therefore, general improvements to native vegetation will benefit wildlife. More focused wildlife management, however, should be conducted, so that a greater number of species can benefit. Each species has different habitat requirements, and these should be given consideration during vegetation management. For example, grassland birds require large tracts of land that are relatively free of trees and tall woody vegetation, since predators and cow birds can more readily prey upon them if too many perch sites are available. Certain warblers need a mix of open and shrub/carr habitats to be successful throughout their varied life cycles. Fishers and badgers need a large territory to range in to be successful. Monarch butterflies need adequate amounts of milkweed stems to be successful. In general, many of the species that are in decline or rare need either specialized habitat elements or a type of habitat that has been lost or has become rare. For example, red-headed woodpeckers and Blanding’s turtles require savanna and ovenbird need blocks of forest interior.
Managing for the community, i.e., managing for a general plant community type is what is typically done, and what is recommended here; but staff must also be mindful of the specific conservation requirements of rare and declining species, so that species diversity is maximized. To that end, the list of species in Appendix contains many potential species to be considered for wildlife projects in the next five and 20 years for Spring Lake Park Reserve.
100
To date, the biggest potential wildlife project that is being planned for the Park Reserve is the re-introduction of bison. This project has advanced to the point of producing a draft proposal for Board review. The cost estimate for that project is approximately $1.2 million, of which approximately $160,000 will be needed for match, provided by the County.
Continuous monitoring and adjusting of management methods is required to achieve this goal. Also, some special management efforts may be required, such as 1) developing a protocol for animal species reintroductions that considers all aspects of the subject, such as the potential unintended negative consequences of introducing a particular species and 2) developing a file for each of the target species that enables a full understanding of the species and their life cycles, gathers literature on them, and compiles data.
The NRMSP described a timeline and a cost associated with wildlife management that includes collecting baseline and trend data, working with partners outside of parks, focusing on rare and endangered wildlife, protecting other important wildlife, and controlling problem wildlife. This had a cost of 1.1 million for the entire parks system for the first five years, which means that for SLPR approximately $300,000 would be allocated in the first five years for wildlife management. The costs for specific projects will be determined when they are identified and implemented. Some grant money can be used to enhance the vegetation for specific wildlife habitat improvement needs.
6.8 Water Resources Projects and Cost Estimates The recommended water resources projects and associated cost estimates are the following:
Project Name Timing and Cost Estimate External Funding County Funding Estimate Years Estimate
Ravine 1 and 2 2020-2021 $20,000 to $30,000 None $20,000 to $30,000 Stabilization Design
Ravine 1 and 2 2021-2024 Approximately $600,000 Approximately $450,000 Approximately $150,000 to Stabilization to $800,000 to $600,000 $200,000 Implementation
101
Trail Erosion Stabilization Design
Trail Erosion Stabilization 2021-2022 Approximately $150,000 None Approximately $150,000 Implementation for four sites
Habitat Islands in Spring TBD TBD USACE Habitat 35% cost share to be Lake (potential partner Restoration Grants provided by the sponsor with USACE) provide 65% cost share (up to $10M) for approved projects
Enhance the Black Ash 2022-2025 $50,000 $40,000 $10,000 Seepage Swamp
102
6.9 Funding Sources Table 6-5 lists a variety of grant funding sources that are available for natural resource improvement projects at Spring Lake Park Reserve.
Table 6-5 Grant Funding Sources
Grant Contact Program Category Sponsor Agency General Info Eligibility Link to Website Information Fishers and Natural National Fish Applicants can be federal, http://www.fishhabita "Heidi Keuler Farmers Resources/ Habitat state, county, and non- t.org/news/ US Fish and Partnership Habitat Partnership The UCAIR Grant Selection government organizations in Wildlife Service for the Upper Protection Committee is requesting either natural resources or 555 Lester Mississippi applications for projects agriculture with the ultimate Avenue River Basin goal of adding value to farms Onalaska, WI addressing any of the four areas while restoring aquatic 54650 listed below. For the 2020-2021 habitat and native fish 608-783-8417" UCAIR Grant cycle applications populations. that do not fall under one of these areas of interest will not be accepted. -Reduction of emissions from area sources, including residential homes and commercial sources such as, dry cleaners, print shops, gas stations and auto body paint shops -Creating strategies to encourage employers and individuals to use telecommuting techniques and other methods to get vehicles off the road, particularly during the inversion season -Programs utilizing emerging technologies that result in measurable emissions reductions
103
Grant Contact Program Category Sponsor Agency General Info Eligibility Link to Website Information -Reduction of emissions in underserved areas: Socioeconomically disadvantaged communities and areas of opportunity (geographic, industry, sector) that have not received adequate financial support
Forest Natural MN DNR Cost share program to provide Financial assistance to https://www.dnr.state Private Forest Stewardship Resources/ technical advice and long range woodland owners for .mn.us/woodlands/co Program Program Habitat planning to interested land completing projects to st-share.html Coordinator Protection owners. Forest stewardship plans practice good forest DNR Forestry are the outcome of the program- stewardship on their land. A 500 Lafayette plans are designed to meet typical project is between 3 Road, Box 44 landowner goals while maintaining and 20 acres but could be St. Paul, MN the sustainability of the land. smaller or larger depending 55155 on land goals. (651) 259-5261
104
Grant Contact Program Category Sponsor Agency General Info Eligibility Link to Website Information Conservation Natural MN DNR Grant program to restore or Eligible applicants are limited http://www.dnr.state. Partners Resources/ enhance prairies, wetlands, to local, regional, state, and mn.us/grants/habitat/ LSCPLGrants.DNR Legacy Grant Habitat forests, or habitat for fish, game, national non-profit cpl/ecp-grant- @state.mn.us Program - Protection or wildlife in Minnesota. Program organizations, including cycle.html Jessica Lee, CPL Traditional provides competitive grants of government entities. Private Grant Program Projects $5,000-$400,000 with a 10% non- individuals and for-profit Coordinator state match requirement and a organizations are not eligible 651-259-5233 total project cost cap of $575,000. to apply for these grants. (St. Paul) Restoration and enhancement Conservation projects will only be funded on Partners Legacy lands in public ownership or Grant waters designated as public MN DNR waters. All project sites must be 500 Lafayette open to the public for all seasons Road of hunting and fishing. Box #20 St. Paul, MN 55155
105
Grant Contact Program Category Sponsor Agency General Info Eligibility Link to Website Information Conservation Natural MN DNR Grant program to restore or Eligible applicants are limited http://www.dnr.state. Partners Resources/ enhance prairies, wetlands, to local, regional, state, and mn.us/grants/habitat/ LSCPLGrants.DNR Legacy Grant Habitat forests, or habitat for fish, game, national non-profit cpl/ecp-grant- @state.mn.us Program - Protection or wildlife in Minnesota. Program organizations, including cycle.html Jessica Lee, CPL Metro provides competitive grants of government entities. Projects Grant Program Projects $5,000-$400,000 with a 10% non- must be located within the 7 Coordinator state match requirement and a county metro area or within 651-259-5233 total project cost cap of $575,000. city limits of cities with a (St. Paul) Restoration and enhancement population of 50,000 or Conservation projects will only be funded on greater (Duluth, Rochester, St. Partners Legacy lands in public ownership or Cloud). Private individuals and Grant waters designated as public for-profit organizations are MN DNR waters. not eligible to apply for these 500 Lafayette grants. Road Box #20 St. Paul, MN 55155
106
Grant Contact Program Category Sponsor Agency General Info Eligibility Link to Website Information National Fish Natural USFWS The National Fish Habitat Action Eligible applicants include https://www.grants.g Cecilia M. Lewis, Habitat Resources/ Plan is a national investment federal, state, or local ov/web/grants/search National Action Plan Habitat strategy to leverage federal and government agencies; Native - Coordinator Protection privately raised funds to protect, American governments; grants.html?keywords National Fish restore, and enhance the nation's interstate, intrastate, public, =national%20fish%20h Habitat fish and aquatic habitats through and private nonprofit abitat%20action%20pl Partnership Fish partnerships that foster fish institutions and organizations; an and Aquatic habitat conservation. Funds or any other organization Conservation appropriated to the U.S. Fish and subject to the jurisdiction of Program 703-358- Wildlife Service's (Service) Fish and the United States with 2102 Aquatic Conservation (FAC) interests that support the cecilia_lewis@fws Program specifically to implement mission of the Service on a .gov the Action Plan will be utilized in cost recoverable basis and the collaboration with the National goals of the Action Plan. Fish Habitat Board and Fish Habitat Partnerships. Fish Habitat Partnerships are the primary work units of the Action Plan, formed around distinct geographic areas, "keystone" fish species, or system types (e.g. large lakes, impoundments, estuaries). Funds will support national and regional science and coordination activities to protect, restore, or enhance fish habitats.
107
Grant Contact Program Category Sponsor Agency General Info Eligibility Link to Website Information Tax Base Brownfields Metropolitan The Metropolitan Council’s Tax Cities, counties, and local https://metrocouncil. Marcus Martin Revitalization Council Base Revitalization Account (TBRA) development authorities org/Communities/Serv Phone: (651) 602- Account is one of the three incentive located in the 7-county metro ices/Livable- 1054 accounts created by the 1995 area and participating in the Communities- Email: Livable Communities Act adopted Metropolitan Livable Grants/Tax-Base- marcus.martin@ by the Minnesota Legislature. The Communities Housing Revitalization- metc.state.mn.us TBRA provides grants to Incentives Program are Account-(TBRA).aspx investigate or clean up eligible to apply for funds. contaminated property for Applications involving public- subsequent residential, private partnerships are most commercial, or industrial competitive. Cleanup grant development. applicants must have an MPCA-approved RAP, but Funded activities include: Phase I investigation grants can fund and Phase II environmental site RAP development. assessments, RAP development, demolition and site preparation (only if necessary to access contamination), soil or ground water remediation, soil vapor mitigation, asbestos abatement work, lead paint removal or stabilization.
108
Grant Contact Program Category Sponsor Agency General Info Eligibility Link to Website Information Conservation Water BWSR Funds are available for Counties, Cities, SWCDs, http://conservationco Brian Miller at Corps Quality Conservation Corps crew labor Watershed Districts and rps.org/clean-water- (651) 209-9900 Minnesota only for the purpose of protecting, Watershed Management funding ext. 19 Clean Water enhancing and restoring water Organizations brian.miller@cons Fund: Crew quality in lakes, rivers and streams ervationcorps.org Labor and to protect groundwater and drinking water sources from degradation. Project proposals should demonstrate measurable outputs to achieve water quality objectives through the implementation of BMPs. Projects that focus on retaining water on the land through native plantings versus habitat restoration are preferred. Conservation Water Dakota County The Dakota SWCD offers funding Dakota County land owners, http://www.dakotaco Contact Dakota Initiative Quality Soil & Water and/or technical assistance for developers, and local units of untyswcd.org/cif.html County SWCD Funding Conservation projects that demonstrate government (651) 480-7777 Program District innovative stormwater management, low impact development and/or conservation design principles.
109
Grant Contact Program Category Sponsor Agency General Info Eligibility Link to Website Information Metro Natural MN DNR Great River Greening is seeking Partners can be counties, http://www.dnr.state. For more Conservation Resources/ partners to implement habitat watershed districts, cities, mn.us/metroconserva information, Corridor Habitat restoration on protected lands and non-profits and others within tioncorridors/index.ht please contact: Partnership Protection waters, with priority given to the 12-county metropolitan ml Kristina Geiger, Habitat projects that 1) protect and area. Projects must be within 651-917-6295 Restoration restore water quality (projects a mapped Metro Minnesota Land Program must include monitoring), 2) Conservation Corridor Trust, protect, restore, and enhance land kgeiger@mnland. and habitat, and 3) reduce the org spread of invasive species along Bart Richardson, streams, rivers, and land 651-259-5796 transportation routes. MnDNR, bart.richardson@ state.mn.us
Clean Water Water MPCA The MPCA is accepting Only LGUs that meet the https://www.pca.state Cindy Penny: Partnership Quality applications for water resource following criteria are eligible .mn.us/water/financia cynthia.penny@st Loan projects to be funded through the to apply for loans. l-assistance-nonpoint- ate.mn.us or 651- Program CWP Loan Program • LGU has the ability to pledge source-water- 757-2099 (approximately $11 mill available). its full faith and credit to pollution-projects- Application will be accepted from ensure repayment of a project clean-water- local governmental units (LGUs) implementation loan partnership-and interested in leading a project for • LGU has the authority to protection or improvement of generate cash revenues for groundwater or surface water the repayment of a loan bodies from nonpoint sources. • LGU has the authority to Applicants awarded loan funds enter into a loan agreement may begin project work after the with the MPCA loan agreement is executed and LGUs that meet these project workplan is approved. No requirements include reimbursable costs may be counties, cities, townships, incurred prior to execution of the tribes, watershed districts, loan agreement. and watershed management organizations. Joint powers organizations composed of
110
Grant Contact Program Category Sponsor Agency General Info Eligibility Link to Website Information previously mentioned entities are also eligible, but must submit a resolution from at least one LGU that meets the eligible criteria stating that they will participate in the project as a loan sponsor. Local soil and water conservation districts and other LGUs that are not eligible to serve as a loan sponsor may partner as a project sponsor with another government entity, such as a county or watershed district, which will serve as the loan sponsor.
111
Continuing Natural United States Authorizes the Corps of Engineers A requirement for application For more Authorities Resources/ Army Corps of to plan, design, and implement is sponsorship and cost information, Program Habitat Engineers certain water resources projects sharing. The sponsoring please contact: Protection without additional project specific agency may be a state, Tim Novak or congressional authorization. county, city, tribes or other Nathan Campbell group. Cost share is 65% from USACE. federal and 35% sponsor (County), and maximum federal costs can be $10,000,000. Spring Lakes represents a possible project to restore vegetation with a drawdown of Pool 2, and mitigation/use of sediment to perhaps build islands for habitat.
112
Upper Sioux Community Tribal Historic Preservation Office Spring Lake Park Reserve Traditional Cultural Properties Survey Final Report Summary
Land Acknowledgement
This is an area where the Dakota lived, prayed, hunted, gathered, battled, and buried our relatives. The boundaries of the Spring Lake Park Reserve encompass numerous highly sensitive Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) of importance to the Dakota People and their ancestors for time immemorial.
Purpose of the Survey
In coordination with the Dakota County Parks Department the Upper Sioux Community Tribal Historic Preservation Office (USC THPO) conducted a Traditional Cultural Properties survey of the Spring Lake Park Reserve. Survey work took place between September 24-29, 2020. The Purpose of this survey was to begin to identify Traditional Cultural Properties and culturally sensitive areas within the boundaries of the reserve and to evaluate known archaeological sites for cultural significance. The purpose is to provide needed information that will assist in planning, park management and consultation. It also provides preliminary recommendations to Dakota County on best practices for preservation and protection of cultural resources. Specifically, to prevent negative impact by long-term development plans proposed by Dakota County for Spring Lake Park Reserve.
This report and included preliminary recommendations are a starting point for further discussion between Dakota County and Tribal Representatives on how to prevent negative impact to cultural resources. It does not conclude Tribal Consultation with the Upper Sioux Community or any other Tribal Nations. USC THPO does not represent all the Nations that are connected to this location, additional evaluation from consulting parties is needed.
Methodologies
Multiple methods were used for preliminary identification including utilizing cultural resource records, known areas of interest, maps, geology, in person review of the areas within Spring Lake Park Reserve and cultural knowledge specific to USC THPO and the crew. Prior to the field work it was known that a six-day time frame did not allow for all areas of county land to be surveyed and attention was given to planned areas of development and high potential areas identified by USC THPO.
Field Surveys were conducted in two ways based on what was learned during preliminary identifications, access to the locations, park development/utilization and available survey time. At each location, an initial survey or evaluation was done by the field crew consisting of a walk through to determine one of three options. These options are: 1) No indication of cultural sites, no additional work needed 2) Probable indication of cultural sites, pedestrian survey with transects needed, or 3) Clear indication of cultural sites or resources, no transects needed.
Page 1 of 6
If a pedestrian survey with transects was needed the crew navigated the area a line set distances apart. Standard practice is 5-10 meter transects but this was adjusted in some areas to what the terrain allowed.
Traditional Cultural Property identification were done in two ways. First is the initial recognition of plants, landforms, cultural markers etc. learned through training and experience. The second step of identification requires a specific skillset unique to the Tribal Cultural Specialists rooted in traditional knowledge and practices.
Upper Sioux Community Cultural Survey Crew Members Samantha Odegard – Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Drew Brockman – Lead Crew Member Dennis Gill – Spiritual Advisor Waziyatawin – Crew Member Dakota Ironheart – Crew Member
Dakota County Staff Joseph Walton – Point of Contact
Proposed New Development Areas
The Dakota County Parks have identified areas within Spring Lake Park Reserve that are intended for long term development for recreational and educational purposes. These identified developments are:
• New cabin area at existing Retreat Center • Camping area • Interpretive Center Area • River Landing Use Area • Natural Surface trail in center of park • Mill Site and trail along shoreline • Trail/stair connection between Schaar’s Bluff and Mill Site • Picnic and play area improvements/ new parking area
During our Traditional Cultural Property Survey, we covered these proposed development areas and other areas within Spring Lake Park Reserve determined to have potential or be areas of concern. They are broken down in this report into ten locations. All recommendations require further consultation and collaboration with THPOS to determine best practices to protect cultural resources while allowing for public park uses.
Page 2 of 6
Survey Results
1) New Cabin Area at Existing Retreat Center
This area was identified as culturally sensitive with a TCP in the areas. Further evaluation would be needed to identify the original use of this TCP.
Recommendation: Any future development for a new cabin should avoid the TCP, development within the culturally sensitive area may be possible with Tribal consultation and Tribal Monitoring.
2) Camping Area
Within the proposed camping area, the survey crew identified two TCPs. The identified sites can be avoided.
Recommendation: Plan the project to avoid these properties and do not draw attention to the location, meaning no interpretation or signage. We highly recommend Tribal Monitoring during development of the camp site and suggest primitive camping only to reduce the need for development.
3) Mississippi and Bison Interpretive Center and Rivers Access known as Bud’s Landing
Continued disturbance of this area caused difficulty in TCP identification. Like other locations within the park it suffers from large trash deposits and poor environmental upkeep. In addition to devastating historic and ongoing disturbances caused by Euro-American habitation and recreational use, past archaeological surveys have disturbed or destroyed traditional cultural properties in these areas. Locals have also scavenged this area over decades removing countless indigenous artifacts. Evidence of this can be seen in the cinder block structure located on the terrace overlooking the boat launch along with other debris scatted in the area.
Recommendation: That the interpretive center footprint utilizes the former homesites located on Fisher Avenue to minimize ground disturbance in areas previously untouched, this would also keep a wooded buffer along the high ground to reduce the chances of inadvertent discoveries during ground disturbance activities. A Tribal Monitor should be present during development.
4) Natural Surface Trail and Bison Range
A culturally sensitive area with TCP was located to the east of where the Mississippi River Trail bends north. The proposed park usage for this area as bison grazing would not have a negative impact, it would aid in restoration and help protect the TCP. Beyond prairie habitat restoration or bison grazing no additional disturbance to this area should take place.
The Proposed Ravine Overlook sits within or near known sites and a TCP was identified at this location. Recommended that no further development take place in this area.
Recommendation: The surface trail should follow along the tree line north of the newly identified TCP in the prosed bison area and continue east, passing along the other restored prairie areas. A surface trail would have no to minimal effect on cultural resources in the area if these recommendations are taken. During survey work numerous native plants were identified that have medicinal properties that are important to indigenous communities, access to these plants would be beneficial to many.
Page 3 of 6
5) Bremer Mounds and Village Site:
Recommendation: It is recommended that the trail hugs the eastern wall of the ravine to keep foot traffic away from the documented mound group known as the Bremer mounds.
The proposed surface trail should not meander through the village site located north of the mound group.
6) Mill Site and Shoreline Trail
What is called the Sorg Site is a TCP that includes a village site and gathering place. It suffers from extensive flooding debris scatter worsened by the trash being allowed to accumulate. Although there is extensive disturbance a chance for buried cultural deposits exists, causing this to be an area of concern where development is not recommended.
Note: Starting near the Mill site and continuing to the eastern edge of the park boundary is one large TCP that includes the shoreline, cliffs, the bluff and wooded areas. There are undoubtably additional sites located on and off park property so in addition to the TCP a culturally sensitive area extending at least a half a mile from the shoreline was identified.
7) The Caves
The caves, incorrectly identified by archaeologists as habitation sites, have a much greater cultural significance. Historic Euro-American habitation and work sites such as the Mill and rock quarrying have caused disturbances to Traditional Cultural Properties in the area. The boarded up and abandoned Mill House with surrounded trash and debris is evidence of the level of disturbance. Archaeological work within the caves themselves have disturbed or removed portions of this TCP. Continued disturbance is evident by beer cans and other trash in and around the caves. To the Dakota Oyate and our spiritual leaders this is a form of desecration; the caves should only be accessed for ceremonial purposes by indigenous communities.
Much importance in this area is placed on the historic Mill site but this is a Sacred Site. It is similar to other sites along the Mississippi River, Wakan Tipi in St. Paul for example.
Determination and Recommendation: Measures need to be taken to protect the caves by officially limiting access, eliminate plans for a trail along the shoreline or stairway from the bluff top to prevent more traffic to the area and doing more to discourage or prevent access to the caves. Clearing of trash and historic debris should take place as well. These measures should be taken starting at the park gate on the east side of the DNR Boat Launch and continue along the Mississippi River to the edge of county property.
8) Gathering Center/Picnic and Play Area
The Schaar’s Bluff overlook is a TCP that was disturbed/destroyed. No further development is recommended in this area. The Picnic areas to the north and west of the Schaar’s Bluff Gathering Center have around ten sites identified during the survey. These are just initial finds in the time we had, there great probability for more in this area.
The open field south/southeast of the playground and sand volleyball has an TCP encompassing an entire hilltop and the surrounding base.
Page 4 of 6
South of the Gathering Center two TCPs were identified. Multiple trails currently run through this area; no other development should take place here.
Recommendation: Consultation with THPOs is needed regarding best practices on how to address the TCSs in the Shaar’s Bluff area.
9) Eastern Wooded Areas Above the Mississippi
This eastern section of the reserve has great cultural significance. Due to the landscape much of the area below the bluff was not fully investigated and likely can only be accessed by the waterway. Further investigation of this area is recommended.
Recommendation: Consultation with THPOs is needed regarding this highly sensitive cultural area but at minimum our recommendation is restricted access to this area with accompanying signage, especially the areas east of the gas line clear cut.
10) Overlook along Mississippi River Trail with Pelican signage
This location is a TCP, but construction of the trail and overlook disturbed this TCP and destroyed others surrounding it. Currently there are picnic tables located at this location, it is recommended to remove the picnic tables near the overlook.
Conclusion:
Survey work did not cover all areas of Spring Lake Park Reserve, to cover all 1000+ acres and to more thoroughly identified TCPs in the areas from the Gathering Center to the eastern edge of the reserve would take a number of weeks. However, locations of great cultural significant like this can never be fully evaluated by archaeology or other Euro-American standards. The significance to the history, cultural identify, spirituality and lifeways of the Dakota Oyate is unmeasurable. At Spring Lake Park Reserve Dakota County manages the lands that are significant to the cultural identity of current and future generations of an entire nation of people.
This document and included recommendations do not conclude Tribal Consultation with the Upper Sioux Community or any other Tribal Nation.
Page 5 of 6
Page 6 of 6
DAKOTA COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE MASTER PLAN
Preliminary Draft 11/12/20
TEN X TEN ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
DAKOTA COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CONSULTANTS District 1 - Mike Slavik (chair) TEN X TEN Landscape Architecture District 2 - Kathleen A. Gaylord QUINN EVANS Cultural Resources District 3 - Thomas A. Egan BARR ENGINEERING Natural Resources District 4 - Joe Atkins District 5 - Liz Workman District 6 - Mary Liz Holberg DAKOTA COUNTY STAFF TEAM District 7 - Chris Gerlach Lil Leatham Joe Walton DAKOTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Steve Sullivan Jerry Rich Kurt Chatfield Timothy Tabor Beth Landahl Lori Hansen Jeff Bransford Jill Smith Scott Hagen Greg Oxley Autumn Hubbell Amy Hunting Katie Pata Barry Graham Anna Ferris Ram Singh Al Singer Robert Timmerman Nate Reitz TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICERS James Guttmann Franky Jackson, Prairie Island Indian Community Anthony Nelson Noah White, Prairie Island Indian Community Donald Post Leonard Wabasha, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Cheyanne St. John, Lower Sioux Indian Community Samantha Odegard, Upper Sioux Community Drew Brockman, Upper Sioux Community
xvi Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 DAKOTA COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE INTRODUCTION Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 xvii TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... ES1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION...... 1-8 Overview...... 2 Role in the Region...... 3 Planning Context...... 4 Master Planning Process...... 8
CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT...... 9-28 Overview...... 10 Park Context...... 11 Demographics and Trends...... 13 Recreation Trends...... 17
CHAPTER 3: EXISTING CONDITIONS...... 29-68 Overview...... 30 Cultural Landscape Overview...... 31 Cultural Landscape Significance...... 32 Summary Site History...... 40 Cultural Landscape Analysis...... 41 Natural Resources Inventory...... 46 Existing Park Conditions...... 59 Existing Outdoor Education and Events...... 67 Key Considerations...... 68
CHAPTER 4: VISION AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES...... 69-70 Overview & Purpose...... 70 Vision Statement...... 70 Guiding Principles...... 70
xviii Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 DAKOTA COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE TABLE OF CONTENTS
REVISED CHAPTERS 5 &6 WILL BE PRESENTED AT NEXT PLANNING Operations...... 146 COMMISSION UPDATE Operational Analysis...... 147
CHAPTER 5: MASTER PLAN...... 71-153 APPENDIX A: CULTURAL RESOURCE ANALYSIS...... A-1 Overview...... 72 APPENDIX B: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT...... B-1 Long Term Concept Plan...... 75 APPENDIX C: DEMOGRAPHICS AND TRENDS...... C-1 Upper Spring Lake Park Reserve - Schaar’s Bluff...... 77 Lower Spring Lake Park Reserve - Mississippi Discovery Zone....83 Trail System...... 89 Accessibility...... 93 Park Views...... 94 Park Setting...... 95 Park Facilities, Amenities & Signage...... 97 Stewardship Plans...... 99 Interpretation Framework...... 113
CHAPTER 6: IMPLEMENTATION & MANAGEMENT...... 131-154 Overview...... 132 Phasing Plan...... 132 Boundaries and Acquisition...... 137 Additional Studies ...... 139 Natural Resources Stewardship...... 140 Interpretation Implementation...... 141 Public Awareness, Outreach, and Marketing...... 142 Visitor Services...... 143 Public Services, Utilities, and Impacts...... 144 Park Access...... 145
INTRODUCTION Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 xix LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 | Spring Lake Park Reserve Location within Dakota County……………..……2 Figure 5.1 | Comparison of Undeveloped vs. Developed Footprint…………...... ………74 Figure 1.2 | 2003 Master Plan Concept for Spring Lake Park Reserve…………...... …4 Figure 5.2 | Site-wide Concept Plan, long-term development plan……………...... ….74 Figure 1.3 | Relationship of Existing Planning Documents……………………...... ……..…5 Figure 5.3 | Program Distribution, Long-Term Development Plan……………...... ……..76 Figure 2.1 | Twin Cities Metropolitan Regional Park System…………...... ……………..10 Figure 5.4 | Upper Park / Schaar’s Bluff Enlargement, Long-Term Development Plan …..78 Figure 2.2 | Spring Lake Park Reserve Service Area……………………….……………………13 Figure 5.5 | Schaar’s Bluff Gathering Area Enlargement, 10-Year Development Plan….....80 Figure 2.3 | Population by Ethnicity in Service Area, 2010-2024………...... …………14 Figure 5.6 | Schaar’s Bluff Gathering Area Enlargement, Farm Use Area, Long- Figure 2.4 | Population by Household Income in Service Area, 2019………………...…15 Term Development Plan………...... ……………..……82 Figure 2.5 | Population by Age in Service Area, 2019...... ……………………..…...……15 Figure 5.7 | Lower Mississippi Discovery Zone Enlargement, Long-Term Plan.…..84 Figure 2.6 | Population by Race in Service Area, 2010-2024………………...... …15 Figure 3.1 | Historic Period Plan 1: 10,000 BCE - CE late 1840s…………………...…..…34 Figure 5.8 | Lower Mississippi Discovery Zone Enlargement, 10-year Development Figure 3.2 | Dakota presence in the river valley (Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Plan……………...... 86 Community)...... …36 Figure 5.9 | Lower Mississippi Discovery Zone Enlargement, Long-Term Figure 3.3 | Historic Period Plan 2: CE late 1840s-1928……………………...... …..….37 Development Plan……………...... …88 Figure 3.4 | Historic Period Plan 3: 1929-1972……………………………...... …….....….39 Figure 5.10 | Site-wide Overview of Trail Types…………………...... …….90 Figure 3.5 | Map of Potentially Contributing Landscape Features……...... ……41 Figure 5.11 | Upper Park Summer and Fall Trail Loops…...... ………………………….92 Figure 3.6 | Mississippi River Commission Survey, 1890s……………………………...... 47 Figure 5.12 | Upper Park Winter Trail Loops……………………...... ……………………….92 Figure 3.7 | Post Settlement Human Impact (1951 Aerial)……………………………...……49 Figure 5.13 | Lower Park Summer and Fall Trail Loops…...... ………………………………92 Figure 3.8 | Topography…………………………...... ……..53 Figure 5.14 | Lower Park Winter Trail Loops……………………………...... ………………92 Figure 3.9 | Soil textures found across the park…………………………...... ….…….55 Figure 5.15 | Park Setting Plan…………………...... ………….96 Figure 3.10 | Natural Resource Inventory—Existing Ecological Communities...... 57 Figure 5.16 | Park Wayfinding Signage Plan……………...... …..98 Figure 3.11 | Ecological Communities Ranking………………………...... ……..58 Figure 5.17 | Overview Diagram of Sensitive Ecological and Cultural Areas……...100 Figure 3.12 | Existing Conditions Map……………………………...... 60 Figure 5.18 | Park Reserve’s Relationship with Mississippi Corridor Figure 3.13 | Upper Spring Lake Park Reserve Enlargement Plan, Existing Critical Area...... 102 Conditions…………...... …62 Figure 5.19 | Target Plant Communities, Site-Wide……………………………...... ………..104 Figure 3.14 | Middle Spring Lake Park Reserve Enlargement Plan, Existing Figure 5.20 | Interpretive Framework Map, Site-Wide Themes…………………....…….120 Conditions ………...... …..64 Figure 5.21 | Interpretive Nodes Enlargement, Gifts of the Land Segment 01……124 Figure 3.15 | Lower Spring Lake Park Reserve Enlargement Plan, Existing Figure 5.22 | Interpretive Nodes Enlargement Plan, Kinship and Connection Conditions……………...... 66 Trail Segment 02…………...... 126
xx Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 DAKOTA COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
LIST OF TABLES
Figure 5.23 | Interpretive Nodes Enlargement Plan, Importance of Place Table 2.1 | Project Area Context: Activity Types and Programming within Trail Segment 03…………...... ……128 30-Radius ...... …12 Figure 5.24 | Interpretive Nodes Enlargement Plan, Gifts of the Land Trail Table 2.2 | Equity Analysis of Park Demands and Concerns……………...... ….16 Segment 04……………………...... 130 Table 2.3 | Key Community Input Themes and Master Plan Response...... 26 Figure 6.1 | Phasing Key Plan…………………………………...... …133 Table 3.1 | Spring Lake Park Reserve Facility Inventory……………………...... ……………59 Figure 6.2 | Inholding Key Plan……………………...... ………138 Table 5.1 | Summary of Cultural Stewardship Recommendations………...... …….111 Table 6.1 | SLPR Project Prioritization Table, 5-Year Development Plan...... …….134 Table 6.2 | SLPR Project Prioritization Table, 10-Year Development Plan…...... 135
Table 6.3 | SLPR Project Prioritization Table, Long-term Development Plan….....136 Table 6.4 | Inholding Parcel Description Table…………………………...... …………………137 Table 6.5 | Five-year Improvements Impacting Park Operations…………..……...... 148 Table 6.6 | Five-year Plan Operational Expenses (Estimated)………………………….….150 Table 6.7 | Five-year Plan Operational Revenues (Estimated)…………………………….152 Table 6.8 | Ten-year Improvements Impacting Park Operations….………………….….152 Table 6.9 | Ten-year Plan Operational Expenses (Estimated)………………………….…..153 Table 6.10 | Ten-year Plan Operational Revenue (Estimated)………………………….….154
INTRODUCTION Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 xxi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW
This comprehensive master plan update for Spring Lake Park Reserve is THOMPSON COUNTY PARK built on previous plans, policies and ordinances. A master plan establishes a BIG RIVERS REGIONAL MISSISSIPPI RIVER SOUTH ST. PAUL TRAIL (BRRT) specific vision for a park, while guiding its ecological management and physical RIVERFRONT TRAIL development to appropriately accommodate public use. The master plan is a RIVER TO RIVER dynamic document -- firm enough to guide park improvements, yet flexible GREENWAY enough to change based on increased knowledge, experience and changing public MISSISSIPPI RIVER GREENWAY needs as the plan is implemented. (MRG)
This master plan update drew from relevant County plan documents, the 2006 Spring Lake Park Reserve Interpretive Plan, the current regulatory setting, community and stakeholder feedback, recreational and educational needs of the LEBANON HILLS REGIONAL PARK region, and the natural and cultural resources of the park itself. SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE
WHITETAIL WOODS REGIONAL PARK
MIESVILLE RAVINE PARK RESERVE
LAKE BYLLESBY REGIONAL PARK
Figure 1.1 Spring Lake Park Reserve Location within Dakota County
INTRODUCTION Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 2 OVERVIEW
ROLE IN THE REGION The Dakota County Parks Department’s mission statement is to “enrich lives by providing high-quality recreation and education opportunities in harmony with natural resource preservation and stewardship.” Dakota County’s parks tradition emphasizes protection of large tracts of high-quality resource lands and providing ANOKA COUNTY nature-based recreation and education.
Spring Lake Park Reserve exemplifies that Mission. As one of seven “park reserves” in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Park System, Spring Lake Park Reserve is distinguished by its close relationship with the Mississippi River and its breadth of cultural and natural resources. Spring Lake Park Reserve draws visitors year- HENNEPIN COUNTY WASHINGTON COUNTY RAMSEY COUNTY round for activities ranging from boating, to cross-country skiing, to archery. 494 As part of this system, Spring Lake Park Reserve is subject to regional policies MINNEAPOLIS ST. PAUL committed to strengthening equitable use of parks and trails by the residents of the region across age, race, ethnicity, income, national origin and ability.
35W 35E In addition to its regional park role, Spring Lake Park Reserve is part of state CARVER COUNTY and national parks and trails systems. It is a destination within the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) due to its natural history, cultural SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE significance, wildlife watching, and family-friendly activities. The park is also SCOTT COUNTY DAKOTA COUNTY situated along the southern most segment of the Mississippi River State Water 61 Trail, from Minneapolis to Hastings. 35 52
Spring Lake Park Reserve hosts part of the National Mississippi River Trail in Minnesota. Of the five sections described in the National Trail, Spring Lake Park Reserve sits within the “Forested Floodplain” where the river begins to lose its urban character, the bluffs get higher and the river widens. Dakota County has designated the segment of the national trail that runs through the county as the Figure 1.2 Twin Cities Metropolitan Regional Park System Mississippi River Greenway (MRG), linking St. Paul to Hastings.
3 Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 DAKOTA COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE PLANNING CONTEXT
PREVIOUS PARK MASTER PLANS (2014) (2018) MISSISSIPPI RIVER METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Planning processes for Spring Lake Park Reserve in 1983 and 2003 have guided INTERPRETIVE AND 2040 REGIONAL PARKS its development over time. The 2003 plan was a complete update of the 1983 EXPERIENCE PLAN POLICY PLAN
plan, due to significant changes in recreational and educational demands and REGIONAL SCALE approaches to natural resource and cultural stewardship. The 2003 plan called for (2019) a connecting trail within the park, overlooks, rest stops, and more comprehensive DAKOTA management of natural resources. Other improvements, such as group camping (2008) COUNTY 2040 DAKOTA COMPREHENSIVE and more formalized river access on the west end of the park, were not realized COUNTY 2030 PLAN & COMPREHENSIVE MISSISSIPPI RIVER and have been incorporated in this 2019-2020 master plan. SCALE COUNTY PLAN UPDATE CORRIDOR CRITICAL (2017) AREA PLAN DAKOTA COUNTY DAKOTA COUNTY DAKOTA COUNTY PARK SYSTEM PARK VISITOR NATURAL RESOURCE 2003 Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan Overview PLAN SERVICES PLAN MANAGEMENT PLAN The 2003 master plan envisioned three park zones with different development program elements. Figure 1.3 illustrates the 2003 concept vision for the park. (1983) (2003) (2019-2021) SLPR MASTER SLPR MASTER SLPR MASTER PARK SCALE PARK PLAN PLAN PLAN UPDATE The Schaar’s Bluff area at the eastern end of the park emphasized family original complete update and group activities, picnicking, social gatherings, education / interpretive programming, and general uses. The following elements have been implemented: Figure 1.3 Relationship of Existing Planning Documents 1. Schaar’s Bluff Gathering Center (formerly, Cultural Center) - a unique and functional space that serves many uses The Preserve was envisioned an intimate, lightly-developed experience in the 2. Reconfigured Parking - serving the Gathering Center and Picnic Grounds central part of the park where visitors could enjoy nature, reflect, and learn about the cultural history of the park. With the exception of the Mississippi Elements of the 2003 plan that have not been implemented include: River Greenway (MRG), planned development in the Preserve has not been 3. Riverside Day Use Area – shoreline picnic area and day-use boat dock with implemented. Amenities included: nature trails and cultural site/river observation point 7. The Harbor - a houseboat-style overnight camping experience right on Spring 4. Relocated Play Area - integrated into the Picnic grounds in a shaded, less Lake, with shoreline picnic grounds and an overlook. visually dominant area 8. Three parallel trails, a regional trail, a cultural trail, and a nature trail 5. Outdoor Stage Area - small performance stage with formal seating to accommodate 20 to 50 people The Outdoor Education and Activity Center in the western park focused on 6. Archaeological Interpretive Area - interpretive educational node recreating an unique outdoor opportunities for individuals, families, and groups, with emphasis active archaeological dig on unique year-round camping and educational opportunities, a higher level of
INTRODUCTION Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 4 PLANNING CONTEXT
11
4
1 2
3 5 6
9 7
10
8
Figure 1.2 2003 Master Plan Concept for Spring Lake Park Reserve
5 Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 DAKOTA COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE PLANNING CONTEXT
access to the river, and a regional trail connection with the lake. The following interpretive nodes along Dakota County’s Mississippi River Greenway. Two of the planned developments have not been implemented: nodes are located in Spring Lake Park Reserve: the tree canopy walk near the 9. The Village - unique, year-round camping, recreating a village atmosphere West Trailhead and an node at Schaar’s Bluff interpreting stories in the park. connected to the park’s history 10. Relocated Boat / Canoe / Kayak Launch - relocation site for an existing DNR Dakota County Park Visitor Services Plan, 2017 boat launch to serve more users and act as the main launch point for the The 2017 Visitor Services Plan identified visitor trends for Spring Lake Park water trail to the islands Reserve, such as: 11. Island Camping - rustic island camp sites • Middle-aged to older populations are found near Lake Byllesby, Miesville Ravine, and Spring Lake. The Dakota County Parks System Plan, 2008 • Spring Lake Park Reserve hosts the third highest level of park visitation The Dakota County Park System Plan was updated in 2008 as part of the 2030 after Lebanon Hills and Thompson County Park and currently offers an Comprehensive Plan update. The park system vision is: intermediate level of service. • Great Places: Enhance parks by including the basic popular amenities that the public expects as well as innovative, thought-provoking, or singular activities that relate to each park as a unique place. The Plan’s Service Vision for Spring Lake Park Reserve is to maintain an • Connected Places: Establish a countywide network of city and regional intermediate service level and focus on the river setting, natural resources, and greenways for recreation, transportation, habitat, and water quality. cultural significance with the following enhancements: • Protected Places: Strategically protect resource areas to preserve natural • Promote picnic facilities processes and system function. • Evaluate facility modification needs for increasing service provision • Deliver nature and cultural education programming The 2008 Dakota County Park System Plan identified the theme for Spring Lake • Improve program cultural fluency to draw diverse visitors Park Reserve’s as: “A Mississippi River Park - Rich resources framing balanced • Improve trail-based self-guided interpretation recreation based on the river, history, and discovery.” • Add bike rental and self-vend kayak rental • Enhance outreach to all communities, including multicultural outreach Park System Plan priorities for Spring Lake Park Reserve include: • Expand volunteer opportunities (adopt-a-park, stewardship) • Expanding scenic river views and river access • Adding picnicking on Schaar’s Bluff Dakota County Natural Resource Management System Plan, 2017 • Adding trails with natural and cultural resource interpretation The 2017 Dakota County Natural Resource Management System Plan identifies approaches to preserve and improve natural resources on County lands. As a park Mississippi River Interpretive and Experience Plan, 2014 reserve, Spring Lake is intended to provide, protect and manage representative The Mississippi River Interpretive and Experience Plan recommends ten
INTRODUCTION Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 6 PLANNING CONTEXT
areas of the original major landscape types. Spring Lake Park Reserve contains policy and authority for MRCCA rules (6106.0010 – 6106.0180) , which define predominantly natural and semi-natural vegetation with large areas of high requirements for local government units when preparing or updating plans or biodiversity significance, as mapped by the Minnesota County Biological Survey. regulations that affect lands within the MRCCA and followed by state and regional A large percentage of the park supports oak forest, savanna, shrubland, prairie, agencies in developing plans within their jurisdiction. and non-prairie grassland, recalling historic prairie and savanna which prevailed across the southern two-thirds of the County prior to 1850. Dakota County Shoreland and Floodplain Ordinance No. 50 - specifically defines policies and ordinances associated with the Shoreland Management Districts and Dakota County 2040 Comprehensive Plan, 2019 and the Mississippi River Floodplain Management District. Corridor Critical Area Dakota County’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2019, provides high- level guidance, incorporating elements of the Park System Plan, with updated information from the Park Visitor Services Plan, and the Natural Resources Management System Plan. It also includes the updated Dakota County Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Plan, developed in response to the below State mandate.
The purpose of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) is to: • Protect and preserve the Mississippi River and adjacent lands for the benefit of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the state, region and nation; • Prevent and mitigate irreversible damages to resources within the MRCCA • Preserve and enhance the natural, aesthetic, cultural, and historical values of the Mississippi River and adjacent lands for public use and benefit; • Protect and preserve the Mississippi River as an essential element in the national, state, and regional transportation, sewer and water, and recreational systems; and • Protect and preserve the biological and ecological functions of the Mississippi River corridor.
The MRCCA Standards and Guidelines establishes standards and guidelines for all plans, regulations, capital improvements, and public facilities for the MRCCA, including Spring Lake Park Reserve. The MRCCA was established by Governor’s Executive Order in 1979. Minnesota Statute 116G.15 establishes Minnesota
7 Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 DAKOTA COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE MASTER PLANNING PROCESS
In 2019, Dakota County began the process of updating the 2003 Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan and the 2005 Spring Lake Park Reserve Natural Resource Management Plan (NRMP). Dakota County hired TENxTEN with Quinn Evans Architects and Barr Engineering to develop the update to the 2003 plan.
The goals of this planning process were to: • Emphasize the connectedness of the Park’s natural and cultural resources; use these resources to direct primary design. • Work collaboratively with the community, underrepresented populations, and key stakeholders with open communication about plan development to gain a well-rounded sense of community preferences and concerns • Engage visitors in immersive interpretive experiences that share the story of Spring Lake Park Reserve. • Provide realistic phasing opportunities for the five-year, ten-year, and long- 2019 Kick Off Tour 2019 Planning Commission Tour term implementation windows.
The planning process occurred across six tasks from 2019-2021: • Task 1: Project Initiation • Task 2: Research, Findings, and Vision • Task 3: Listening and Gathering • Task 4: Concepts and Draft Recommendations • Task 5: Plan Development and Plans • Task 6: Final Plan and Approvals
2019 THPO Site Walk 2019 THPO Site Walk
INTRODUCTION Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 8 CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT OVERVIEW
Located in the southeast Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area, the Dakota County Park System serves the third most populous county in Minnesota. With more than 6,000 acres and a fast-growing network of greenways, Dakota County’s nature-based system provides valuable recreational, cultural, and natural resources to the County and the region. ANOKA COUNTY
Minnesota has been Dakota homeland for thousands of years. Dakota connections to Minnesota’s rivers, lakes, rocks, landforms, plants and village sites are deep and enduring. Several culturally significant sites are present in Spring Lake Park Reserve, all of which have been built upon and damaged by farming, development and archaeological investigation. This Master Plan aims to share the stories of this WASHINGTON COUNTY place while honoring and respecting these cultural gifts. RAMSEY COUNTY
This chapter reviews local and regional recreational needs and opportunities HENNEPIN COUNTY ST. PAUL related to Spring Lake Park Reserve. Special attention has been paid to best 494 MINNEAPOLIS practices for maintaining balance between provision of recreation and the 35W 35E stewardship of cultural and natural resources throughout the planning process. The following sections represent Spring Lake Park Reserve’s regional and use context. CARVER COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE DAKOTA COUNTY • Park Context: summarizes the location of the park within the region and 61
parks within the service area, 35 52
• Demographics and Trends: looks at demographics within the park service SCOTT COUNTY area and current recreation trends • Demand Forecasting and Needs: synthesizes how demographic and recreation trends will influence demand for future activities within the park • Community and Partner Engagement: summarizes the master planning Figure 2.1 Twin Cities Metropolitan Regional Park System community engagement process and feedback received • Equity Analysis: examines the public engagement process and outcomes for stakeholders underrepresented in park visits.
CONTEXT Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 10 PARK CONTEXT
Spring Lake Park Reserve is in eastern Dakota County on the south shore of including Murphy-Hanrehan Park Reserve, Lake Elmo Regional Park, Hyland-Bush the Mississippi River’s Spring Lake in Rosemount and Nininger Township. The Anderson Lakes Regional Park, and Miesville Ravine Park Reserve. As regional park was first proposed as a County park in the 1970 Dakota County Parks and travel increases, recreational amenities within a 30-mile drive radius from Spring Recreational Facilities Plan. Acquisition of park property began in 1972. In 1975, Lake Park Reserve have also been considered. the State Legislature passed the Metropolitan Parks Act that established the Regional Park System. Spring Lake Park Reserve was given regional designation RECREATIONAL CONTEXT and included 1,100 acres. In 1980, the park boundary was expanded as a part of Minnesota’s State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) indicates that the Dakota County Long Range Comprehensive Plan and expanded again in 1993. two-thirds of all recreation occurs within a half hour drive of home. Using this Since the 2003 master plan, all but three private properties within the park have metric, regional parks within a 30-mile drive radius of the SLPR were analyzed to been acquired. The designation of park “reserve” signifies its rich ecological and understand the various recreational opportunities available in the park’s vicinity. cultural assets. The interplay of the ecological, cultural, and scenic assets makes Table 2.1 includes activities identified by the SCORP, including trail types, active Spring Lake Park Reserve one of the most unique parks in the regional system. and passive recreation opportunities, lodging and learning centers, cultural resources, ecological communities, and unique features. The immediate park surroundings are primarily farmland, making the park a local destination for the adjacent towns and a regional destination from the more Several other regional parks are within the 30-minute drive from Spring Lake populated urban centers in the Twin Cities area. Visitors access the park by car Park Reserve; however, none offers access to the Mississippi River or the same from the north and south via US Highway 52 or by State Highway 61 to Highway breadth of diverse ecological communities. Of the nearby regional parks, two park 55 and County Road 42. reserves (Miesville Ravine and Murphy-Hanrehan) and two parks (Battle Creek and Lebanon Hills) emphasize the parks’ natural resources. Among park reserves, Local visitors may access the park from the City of Hastings on the Mississippi Spring Lake Park Reserve offers the most types of active and passive recreation. River Greenway (MRG) regional trail. The Rosemount Greenway will provide future Phalen Regional Park and Lebanon Hills Regional Park are popular for recreation, trail access to Spring Lake Park Reserve. with swimming and fishing being highlights. Whitetail Woods and Lebanon Hills regional parks offer the best camping within a 30-minute drive of Spring Lake SERVICE AREA Park Reserve. With five miles of Mississippi River frontage, high quality natural areas, and unique cultural landscape, Spring Lake Park Reserve has the potential to Spring Lake Park Reserve stands out for its remarkably robust set of recreational draw visitors from throughout the Twin Cities Metro Area. Its service area is opportunities in the context of park reserves, its diverse ecological communities, approximately a 20-mile drive to the park and encompasses Dakota County, and and the presence of cultural landscapes associated with both Euroamerican portions of Ramsey and Washington counties in Minnesota and Pierce County, settlement and living Indigenous communities. Wisconsin. The service area is bisected by the Mississippi River and abuts the border of the City of St. Paul. Five regional parks lie within this service area,
11 Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 DAKOTA COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE PARK CONTEXT
Miesville Ravine Spring Lake Park Phalen Regional Battle Creek St. Croix Bluffs Cannon River Lebanon Hills Whitetail Woods Murphy-Hanrehan Regional Park Reserve Park Regional Park Regional Park Turtle Preserve Regional Park Regional Park Park Reserve Reserve Scientific and Type Park Reserve Regional Park Park Reserve Regional Park Regional Park Park Reserve Park Reserve Park Reserve Natural Area Size 1,100 acres 494 acres 1,840 acres 579 acres 214 acres 2,000 acres 1,600 acres 456 acres 2,800 acres Paved x x x x x x x Trails Unpaved x x x x x x Cross Country Skiing x x x x x x x x Swimming x x x x x Cycling x x x x x x Active Hiking / Walking x x x x x x x x Recreation Playground x x x x x x Archery x x Mountain Biking x x Athletic Fields x Nature Observation x x x x x Geocaching x x x x x Picnicking x x x x x x x Passive Paddle Sports x x x x Recreation Fishing x x x Hunting x x x x Gardening x Tent Camping x x RV Camping x x Lodging / Camper Cabins x Centers Visitor / Event Center x x x x Nature Center Archaeological x Artifacts Cultural Sacred Sites x Resources (Indigenous) Colonial History x Oak Savanna x x Prairie x x x x Ecological Floodplain Forest x x Communities Forest x x x x x x x x Water Body x x x x x x x Equipment Rentals watercraft dog park boating boating sledding sledding sledding snowmobiling Unique Attractions amphitheater turtle sanctuary ice fishing ice fishing Features areas (observation only) horse trails horse trails Table 2.1 Project Area Context: Activity Types and Programming within 30-Radius
CONTEXT Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 12 DEMOGRAPHICS & TRENDS
The demographic analysis provides an understanding of service area populations for Spring Lake Park Reserve.
RACE AND ETHNICITY DEFINITIONS ST. PAUL • This report uses the following categories for data on race and ethnicity for consistency with Federal statistics, program administrative reporting, and civil rights compliance reporting:
494 • American Indian - a person having origins in any of the original peoples of 35W North and South America (including Central American), and who maintains 30 MILE DRIVE RADIUS 35E FROM SLPR tribal affiliations or community attachment. • Asian - a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, 52 HASTINGS Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia,
35 China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand,
61 and Vietnam. • Black - a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. • White - a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa • Hispanic or Latino - an ethnic distinction, a subset of a race as defined by the Federal Government; this includes a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.
Water Features Regional Parks Local Parks Service Area Outline TWIN CITIES REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS The Twin Cities population will grow, become more diverse, and be older, on Figure 2.2 Spring Lake Park Reserve Service Area average, in the future. Between 2010 and 2040 the Twin Cities Metro population is forecasted to grow by 824,000 residents (Thrive MSP 2040), a more than 29 percent increase, which is projected to require 13,000 new housing units annually. By 2040, only one in five of net new households are projected to include children. One in five residents will be aged 65 or older, compared to one in nine in 2010. The region is also growing in racial and ethnic diversity; with a projected 40 percent of the population identifying as a person of color compared to 24 percent in 2010.
13 Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 DAKOTA COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE DEMOGRAPHICS & TRENDS
DAKOTA COUNTY DEMOGRAPHICS will grow between 50 and 65 percent. The populations identifying as “Two or The US Census Bureau estimates that Dakota County’s population will grow from More Races” is projected to grow by 63 percent between 2010 and 2024 from nearly 430,000 (2018 estimate) to over 500,000 in 2040. Over the next five years, approximately 15,126 to 24,673. Dakota County can expect to add more than 10,000 new residents. As populations continue to grow, recreation services must expand accordingly. Increasing Income the capacity and services of parks in the county will require a clear vision and The overall average household income for the service area is approximately strategy for evolving park facilities and spaces, as well as their maintenance, to $120,000 with a median of $85,450. The majority of households own at least meet future needs. one vehicle. The 2016 Metropolitan Council Regional Park System Visitor Study Report showed that people with higher incomes are visiting parks more frequently SERVICE AREA DEMOGRAPHICS than those with lower incomes. The report defines “higher income” as those earning more than $100,000, which resulted in higher annual visits, fewer/no Demographic analysis within the Spring Lake Park Reserve service area gives an safety concerns, and greater satisfaction with the quality of facilities, services, understanding of populations who are likely to visit the park. For the purposes of and recreation opportunities. The median household income for the Spring Lake this analysis, the service area is comprised of Dakota County and communities Park Service Area is $85,450, falling within the mid-range income level defined shown in Figure 2.1. The analyses are reflective of the total population within by the Metropolitan Council. This suggests that addressing safety concerns and the service area, and its key characteristics that impact park use such as age developing unique and welcoming programming will be critical to serve the segments, income level, race, and ethnicity.
Population and Age 2010-2024 POPULATION BY ETHNICITY IN SERVICE AREA
Following state and metro trends, population within the service area for Spring 700000 Lake Park Reserve is projected to steadily grow, from 532,884 in 2010 to 554,464 600000 in 2019, and to 610,087 by 2024. Based on the 2019 American Community Survey US Census Bureau (ACS) estimate, the age distribution of residents is fairly even. 500000 Over time, the age groups over 55 are expected to experience the most growth. 400000
300000 93% 92% 91% Race and Ethnicity 200000
While the population majority is white/non-Hispanic, projections show slight Hispanic 100000 growth in the percentage of non-white population over the next five years. Based Non-Hispanic 0 on ACS Data, race and ethnicity projections in the service area parallel the metro- 2010 2019 2024 area, with the Black population projected to grow the most, doubling between 2010 and 2024. Asian, Pacific Islander, Multiple Race, and Hispanic populations Figure 2.3 Population by Ethnicity in Service Area, 2010-2024
CONTEXT Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 14 DEMOGRAPHICS & TRENDS
2019 POPULATION BY AGE IN SERVICE AREA 700000 median income groups in the service area. Awareness and physical access to 1.47% parks are two of the largest hurdles for low income families and individuals. 3.73% 600000 Providing more non-web-based promotional materials and occasional public 8.83% transportation to the park for public events would benefit low income visitors. 14.15% 500000 age 85 and up
age 75-84 GROUPS UNDERREPRESENTED IN PARK VISITS 14.07% The 2017 Dakota County Parks Visitor Services Plan (VSP) engaged several groups 400000 age 65-74 14.54% underrepresented in park visits, including: age 55-64
• Older adults 300000 age 45-54 14.14% • Foreign-born Latinos age 35-44 5.71% • South Asian Indians 200000 age 25-34 • Youth 21.44% age 19-24 • African Americans 100000 age 5-18 • Vietnamese • People living with disabilities 0 6.75% Under 5 • Somalis Figure 2.5 Population by Age in Service Area, 2019 • US-born Latinos
700000 2010-2024 POPULATION BY RACE IN SERVICE AREA 2019 POPULATION BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN SERVICE AREA
$200,000 or greater 600000 9.7% 200000 $150,000-$199,999 10.8% 500000 $100,000-$149,999 Two or More Race 150000 29.9% 400000 $75,000-$99,999 Other Race 300000 14.6% $50,000-$74,999 100000 84.5% 83.6% 76.3% $35,000-$49,999 Asian 16.9% 200000 $25,000-$34,999 American Indian 50000 10% 100000 $15,000-$24,999 Black 5.7% White 5.5% Less than $15,000 0 0 4.7% 2010 2019 2024
Figure 2.4 Population by Household Income in Service Area, 2019 Figure 2.5 Population by Race in Service Area, 2010-2024
15 Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 DAKOTA COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE DEMOGRAPHICS & TRENDS
The VSP also indicated that park visitation is growing but at a rate lower than Growth forecast for the service area includes populations currently expected because Dakota County parks are not drawing from all communities underrepresented in park visits, including older adults, African Americans, – specifically from under-represented groups. The Metropolitan Council’s 2014 Somalis, and US-born Latinos. Future park improvements and programs can Regional Park Use Among Select Communities of Color, a Qualitative Investigation, provide activities and programs that appeal to these audiences. Increasing racial and 2016 Regional Parks System Visitor Study Report concluded that income and ethnic diversity and aging of the population require increased capacity and and ethnicity have significant impact on park usage, information behavior, flexibility of park services in the region and county. and experience. Non-white visitors were more likely to use parks for fishing, picnicking and attending special events and are also more likely to get information DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY about the parks from family and friends. Low-income visitors rely more on public Demographic trends for the service area indicate overall population growth transportation. Spring Lake Park Reserve is well situated to accommodate the and growth in populations currently underrepresented in park visits including activities generally preferred by non-white groups but will struggle to address the older adults, African Americans, Somalis, and US-born Latinos. Future park accessibility need of low-income visitors because of its location outside a town improvements and programs will need to provide activities and programs that center and lack of transit service. appeal to these audiences. Growth in non-white and older populations will require increased capacity and flexibility.
African American African Immigrant Asian Immigrant / Asian Hispanic Diverse Composition Figure 2.5 Population by Age in Service Area, 2019 American Preferred Outdoor • Picnicking/BBQ • Playground use • Walking • Celebration/ parties • Walking Recreation Activities & • Biking • Walking • Fishing • Picnicking/ BBQ • Playground use Amenities • Basketball • Being with family • Rest/ relaxation • Spending time with family • Swimming / going to the lake Fear and Safety • Violent crime • Violent crime • Snakes • Water-viruses • Violent crime Concerns • Run over • Kids getting lost • Bees • Getting lost • Getting lost inside the park • Accidents • Drowning • Water-viruses • Darkness • Kids unsafe • Behavior of others • Being alone • Getting lost inside the park • Crime • Strangers • Getting lost inside the park • Hunters • Animals • Crazy People • Being alone • People • Behavior of others • Behavior of others • Getting hurt • Animals Suggestions to • List of events • List of events • Clarify “What is a regional • Description of what park • Which parks have what Increase Awareness • Description of what • Description of what park park? offers • What is happening at the park offers offers • Location • Locations based on activity park/ Events • Clarify “What is a • Clarify “What is a regional • Directions • Directions • Location regional park?” park?” • Which parks have what, schedules, locations & contact information Figure 2.5 Population by Race in Service Area, 2010-2024 Table 2.2 Park Preferences and Concerns (Source: Regional Park Use Among Select Communities of Color, a Qualitative Investigation, Metropolitan Council, March 2014)
CONTEXT Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 16 RECREATION TRENDS Nationally Most Popular Outdoor Activities by Participation Rate:
Recreation Trends provide an understanding of national, regional, and local trends. This information can help guide future recreation at Spring Lake Park Reserve.
NATIONAL TRENDS 1. Running / Jogging 2. Fishing 3. Road Biking, Mountain 19% of Americans / 17% of Americans / Biking, BMX 16% of Americans At a national level, according to the Outdoor Foundation’s 2018 Outdoor Recreation 55.9 million participants 49.1 million participants / 44.9 million participants Participation Topline Report, almost half of the American population participated in outdoor activities in 2017. The report shows increasing diversity in outdoor recreation participants with the overall American population being motivated to get outside for exercise and fitness. Participation has been slowly increasing over the past three years. The most popular outdoor activities by participation rate are as follows: 1. Running / Jogging and Trail Running 4. Hiking 5. Camping 2. Freshwater, Saltwater and Fly Fishing 15% of Americans / 14% of Americans / 3. Road, Mountain and BMX Biking 44.9 million participants 41.8 million participants 4. Hiking and Walking 5. Car, Backyard, Backpacking and RV Camping Nationally Ranked Top-Growing Outdoor Activities:
Some of the above-noted activities are currently accommodated at the park and others can be considered.
Top-Growing Outdoor Activities: 1. Stand-Up Paddling 2. Cross Country Skiing 3. BMX Biking 1. Stand-Up Paddling 18% increase in participa- 13% increase in participa- 13% increase in participa- 2. Cross Country Skiing tion from 2013 to 2016 tion from 2013 to 2016 tion from 2013 to 2016 3. BMX Bicycling 4. Adventure Racing 5. Boardsailing / Windsurfing 6. Kayak Fishing 4. Adventure Racing 5. Boardsailing / Wind- 6. Kayak Fishing For emerging activities, it will be important to consider ecological impacts and the 11% increase in participa- surfing 10% increase in participa- demographics to which they would appeal. Adventure racing is highly flexible and tion from 2013 to 2016 10% increase in participa- tion from 2013 to 2016 tion from 2013 to 2016
17 Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 DAKOTA COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE RECREATION TRENDS
easily catered to available space/activities, and usually involves a combination of • Programs and facilities focused on an older adult population will assume a biking, running, paddling, and navigation of obstacles. It could take advantage of greater importance in the years to come. Older adults experience greater infrastructure already in place in the park, expanding its usefulness. Cross county physical limitations so it will be important to ensure that facilities and skiing at Spring Lake Park Reserve could be expanded. Additional water-oriented services are accessible (DC Parks Visitor Service Plan) activities should be considered as part of improved lake access at the park. • The number of non-local visits (visits to regional parks made by people who do not live in the jurisdiction of the respective regional park implementing STATEWIDE & REGIONAL TRENDS agency where the park is located) are declining. (Met Council 2040 Regional In 2017 the Minnesota DNR created the Minnesota Outdoor Activities Survey, in Parks Policy Plan). which a random sample of 8,000 Minnesotans were invited to share information • Facilities in regional parks need to be assessed to ensure they help meet the on their participation in outdoor activities, what motivates them to recreate, needs of the growing ethnically diverse segments of the population. (SLPR MP factors that limit participation, and preferences for communication. This survey 2003) showed an increase in those who considered outdoor activities to be important, • Technology will continue to have a greater presence in parks and may growing from 57 percent in 2004 to 70 percent in 2017. Minnesotans from all facilitate new recreational activities, such as those using drone, eSports, or regions are showing a greater willingness to travel further for activities in which GPS dependent activities. (NRPA, Predictions for Parks and Recreation’s Top they occasionally participate. In the Twin Cities Metro, 26 percent of respondents Trends in 2019) are willing to travel 26 miles or more for daily or weekly activities. 43 percent of Minnesotans outside the metro are willing to travel this distance for activities. This information is particularly applicable to Spring Lake Park Reserve as a regional destination
Notable statewide and regional trends give insight to the long-term prospects for Spring Lake Park Reserve in terms of user base and challenges. Generally, the state and region are seeing an aging population, more localized user base and increasing racial and ethnic diversity in user groups. Specifically, the statewide Recreational Walking Camper Cabins trends include: • The fastest growing age group in Minnesota, and the Spring Lake Park Reserve Service Area, is the 65-and-older group, which will shift recreation trends. Walking, jogging, stand-up paddle-boarding, and geocaching are all state-wide trends on the rise according to the MN DNR. (Met Council System Analysis of the Regional, Recreation Open Space System Study, 2016).
Serving diverse populations GPS dependent activities
CONTEXT Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 18 DEMAND FORECASTING AND NEEDS
DESIRE OF EXISTING USERS Based on Twin Cities Metro and Dakota County demographic projections and recreation trends, future visitors to Spring Lake Park Reserve are likely to be older and more diverse than ever before. Catering to these populations will require some adjustments in the way that the park programs and markets itself. As people age, their recreation needs change. Older adults will require facilities and equipment that meet their mobility needs as they age, as well as programming that caters to their interests, capabilities, and activity level. People of color tend to participate in nature based recreation less than white and/or non-Hispanic populations, so introducing these populations to outdoor recreational activities and encouraging continued participation will be essential to maintaining use of our regional parks and trails system in the future. It will be important to overcome people’s perceptions of park safety, and promote Bison observation Biking and Mountain Biking awareness of the park system and its offerings.
People of lower incomes tend to visit regional parks at lower rates than those with higher incomes. Ensuring that the park is financially accessible and offering affordable equipment rentals will help insure the park can be used by all residents.
Spring Lake Park Reserve’s 2017 Visitation Estimate, according to the Met Council, was 115,200 visits. This is about one-seventh of the Lebanon Hills Regional Park visitation estimate of 886,800. By emphasizing Spring Lake Park’s high-quality natural resources and unique cultural resources, there is opportunity appeal to more people.
RESPONDING TO EXISTING USER DESIRES ESRi’s 2019 Sports Market Potential indicates regional interest in a wide range Nature Play Areas Winter Hiking of outdoor activities and park programming. Swimming, jogging, and hiking were all reported as frequent respondent activities. Boating, canoeing/kayaking, and
19 Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 DAKOTA COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE DEMAND FORECASTING AND NEEDS
bicycling were also reported with high frequency. Some of these regional patterns As the population of Dakota County and the region continues to change and were reflected in more localized engagement about the future of Spring Lake Park expand, the parks system must also be able to adapt and accommodate new Reserve. users. Spring Lake Park Reserve is a key resource for the Twin Cities and is well-positioned to become a regional destination. National and regional data in Online mapping, open houses, and focus groups explored the interests of combination with community engagement feedback (outlined in more detail in existing users at Spring Lake Park Reserve. Participants expressed interest in Appendix B) has informed a vision for more inclusive programming and recreation bison observation opportunities as a natural and cultural landscape asset and at SLPR in order to better serve the park users of the future. learning opportunity, biking and mountain biking, camping, and winter hiking. Interest in outdoor education programs and interpretive themes supports more passive recreation focused around the unique education opportunities the park offers. Some existing park users suggest that their ability to take advantage of current park offerings is limited by the lack of specialized and basic facilities. For example, increased restroom access, overlooks for birding, and a warming structure to encourage more winter use would support longer stays and seasonal use. Winter users also requested differentiated trails for skiing and snowshoeing/ winter hiking as the two activities require different maintenance
PLANNING FOR FUTURE PARK USERS Spring Lake Park Reserve can integrate emerging activities better serve future park visitors, provide basic popular activities, and protect/enhance the ecological integrity and expansive undeveloped nature of the Reserve. • Specialized uses, such as cultural interpretation and wildlife viewing draw participants from a larger geographic area due to limited availability. Events, such as races or music, help introduce new visitors to the park and its offerings. • With the Twin Cities becoming increasingly urban, places that offer nature- based recreation in proximity to the Twin Cities Metro is and advantage. • Rental equipment will give more people an opportunity to try and get exposure to new activities. Spring Lake Park Reserve Site Photo, 2019
CONTEXT Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 20 PARTNER AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
OVERVIEW Use Among Select Communities of Color, and findings from the Metropolitan Using the Public Participation Spectrum developed by the International Council’s 2019 Report Youth & Parks: Getting Outdoors Close to Home influenced Association for Public Participation, the public participation goal was to also recommendations in this plan. A complete list of engagement activities as consult. The master planning process sought to reach a range of representative well as summaries of input received can be found in Appendix B. stakeholders to build awareness and support for future investment in Spring Lake Park Reserve. Specific objectives included: The approach for community engagement for the master planning process was • Identifying what would make the park relevant and fun for both current park based on the following principles: users and those who are interested in park experiences but do not visit the • Make it Fun and Easy. Make engagement convenient, interactive, thoughtful, park today. and valuable to all parties. Whenever possible, the County should seek • Assessing park needs for recreation, interpretation, visitor services, natural opportunities to meet people on their terms, going beyond a traditional resource restoration, and natural resource management. community meeting. • Assessing opportunities to improve the park’s appeal as a regional • Include Everyone. Provide opportunities for all interested parties to destination, building on the park’s Mississippi River setting, high quality participate and be heard regardless of race, income, religion, gender, age natural resources, and significant cultural resources. (including youth and seniors). Reach and engage diverse populations of the • Engaging with Tribal Historic Preservation Officers representing the Prairie area, especially those typically underrepresented in Dakota County Parks and Island Indian Community, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, planning/engagement processes. Lower Sioux Indian Community, and the Upper Sioux Community to better • Speak their Language. Make engagement activities and materials inclusive, understand the significance of park’s indigenous cultural landscape and to written in plain language, and translated into multiple languages, as receive guidance on how manage significant sites. appropriate (e.g., Spanish). • Building new and strengthening existing relationships with stakeholders, • Build relationships. Set the stage for developing long-term relationships with project partners, and residents. underrepresented populations. Build partnerships based on common goals with cities, agencies, and non-profit organizations. To achieve the project objectives, the planning process developed targeted engagement activities for those who actively use Spring Lake Park Reserve Community engagement began in 2019 and shifted to online engagement as well as County residents who may only occasionally visit county parks and opportunities in March 2020, due to the COVID-19 Pandemic stay-at-home order may not have visited Spring Lake Park Reserve. In addition, effort was made to and social distancing best practices. reach demographics underrepresented in Dakota County park visits including Indigenous, Hispanic/Latinx, people living with disabilities, and people with low incomes, youth, and older adults. Findings from dialogues conducted in 2016 as PROMOTION OF THE PLANNING PROCESS A variety of marketing and outreach methods were employed to contact potential part of the County’s Visitor Park Services Plan with people underrepresented in park users and interested parties. The County’s website hosted a page with park visits, findings from the Metropolitan Council’s 2014 Report Regional Park
21 Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 DAKOTA COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE PARTNER AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
information about the park master plan; flyers mailed to residents living close to PHASE 1 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT the park; there was outreach to those who had rented the gathering center and Community engagement events for the first phase of the Spring Lake Park picnic shelters in the past; Flyers were sent to those living nearest to the park; Reserve Master Plan Update were held October to December 2019. The events press releases included opportunities for public engagement; signs were posted were intended to engage a cross section of Dakota County residents, park users, within the park; and social media and email were used to alert Dakota County and stakeholders to collect valuable perspective, input and generate interested in residents about the planning process. the planning process.
PARTNER ENGAGEMENT In total, there were more than a dozen engagement activities with nearly 1,000 The project team engaged partners throughout plan development, including the people engaged. Events were conducted using various formats including an open City of Rosemount, Nininiger Township, the City of Hastings, the National Park house, pop-ups at existing community events, individual and agency meetings, Service, the MnDNR, and the YMCA. Key to the planning process was engaging stakeholder meetings, and emails and phone calls. Online engagement consisted with Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) through a series of listening of an interactive map and questionnaire on the Social Pinpoint platform and a sessions. questionnaire sent to existing and potential partner community organizations.
Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) During Phase 1, effort was made to reach out to people who are typically The project team held four listening sessions with the THPOs to review plan underrepresented in park visits. Events included: concepts, discuss how to best respect culturally significant areas, and guide the • Met Council Youth and Parks Research Study (Latino, youth) interpretive planning. Areas for further study were also determined and are noted • Latino Health / Salud Latina Community Health Fair, Burnsville (Latino, youth) throughout the master plan document. Input included: • Reality Store Resources Outreach, Dakota County Technical College (people • Further study is needed to assure that existing cultural assets and significant living with disabilities, youth) sites are not disturbed as a part of the master planning process. These • Sharks (people living with disabilities, youth) include a Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP) survey, a Mound Management • Hastings Y Pop-up Event (older adults) Plan, an Inadvertent Discovery Plan and Monitoring Plans for future • South St. Paul Early Childhood Education (Latina) implementation work. • Hastings Family Service (People with low incomes) • Interpretation should embed culturally significant plantings and Dakota language, and discuss the history of the landscape while remaining sensitive Below are the key themes that emerged: to the significance and integrity of culturally significant sites. • Spring Lake Park Reserve is appreciated for its beauty and restored natural • Overall, the THPOs expressed comfort with the level and location of areas. People are primarily drawn to the park for the setting, bird/wildlife development in the preferred concept. observation, space rental, trails, and archery. • Since Spring Lake Park Reserve is mainly accessible by car and is surrounded
CONTEXT Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 22 PARTNER AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
by farmland, the park is primarily a monthly destination for visitors. Some visits were harder to reach and less likely provide input than during Phase I. locals mentioned that they will occasionally bike or run from Hastings to the park along the new Mississippi River Trail. Key themes that emerged in Phase 2 were: • The spectacular Mississippi River Valley views at this park are a primary draw • Natural Features: Many comments indicate that the community value for many visitors and it will be important to protect and continue to enhance maintaining the park as a “reserve” that will not be overdeveloped especially these views. Native Prairie and the Bluff Ecosystem. Over-development was a consistent • Users acknowledge that this is a park reserve and plays a major role as bird concern across engagement types. habitat along the Mississippi River Flyway. • Views to the Mississippi River: The community values the visual connection to • People had numerous ideas for how to improve the clarity and length of trails the Mississippi River and favored opportunities to visually connect with or get with particular interest in expanding or creating winter trails, running trails, closer to the River throughout the Park. and mountain bike trail offerings. • Soft Surface Trails: Narrow, natural surface walking/hiking trails that explore • People had positive responses to the interpretive themes outlined in the 2003 remote areas of the park with minimal impact to natural resources was master plan. Suggestions on Social Pinpoint and on the activity board also favored by community members. requested more interpretation of the unique cultural resources that exist on • Bison: There was a strong positive response to bringing bison to the park and this site. including an interpretive center to help educate visitors. • Participants are interested in new activities and amenities in addition to improving existing facilities including camping, equipment rental, safer boat launch, improved playground, and more youth programs.
PHASE 2 The purpose of Phase 2 engagement was to seek input on draft concepts that proposed new programming, amenities, and natural resource investment. The feedback received was used to inform a preferred master plan. Engagement occurred in April, May, and June 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic and the social unrest following the murder of George Floyd. Engagement methods included evaluation of the concepts online via Social Pinpoint, a Survey, an online open house, social media mini polls, email responses, and stakeholder meetings. During Phase 2 nearly 1,000 unique individuals were engaged. The need to pivot to on-line platforms and competing priorities, especially for communities disproportionately impacted, meant that communities underrepresented in park THPO Site Walk, 2019 Planning Commission Tour, 2019
23 Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 DAKOTA COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE PARTNER AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK - SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PHASE 3 TO BE COMPLETED AFTER PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD
CONTEXT Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 24 EQUITY ANALYSIS
PROJECT DATA EVALUATION SUMMARY As covered earlier in this chapter, demographics of those living within the service The Master Plan was directly shaped by the community input received both from area in 2019 are white (83%), Black (7.58%), American Indian (0.54%), and Asian the general public and underrepresented audiences. Recurring themes expressed (6.34%). Eight percent of the population was Hispanic. Median Income in the throughout the process included preserving and protecting natural resources, service area was $85,000. Fourteen percent of the population is over 65, and 28% increasing access to the Mississippi River, providing access to more of the park is under 18. In general, demographics of census blocks closer to the park are less with low impact natural surface trails, emphasis on cultural interpretation, diverse and wealthier than the larger service area. and adding visitor amenities such as more restrooms, improved playground, equipment rentals, and picnic facilities. Recurring input themes, feedback Dakota County’s Parks, including Spring Lake Park Reserve, are not drawing received, and plan response are summarized in Table 2.3. residents from all communities. The Dakota County Visitor Services Plan and Though the Master Plan addresses park activities and amenities that may Metropolitan Council research on visitor demographics has found that several result in increased park use among underrepresented audiences and sets a groups are under-represented among park visitors. People of color, people with goal of creating a park that is welcoming to people of all abilities, races, and disabilities, seniors, and those with lower household income comprise a smaller backgrounds, additional efforts will be needed to address equity. Barriers to park share of park visitors than would be predicted by their proportion of the general use among demographic groups underrepresented in park visits include lack of resident population. awareness of the park and its location far from most of the County’s residents. Dakota County efforts, such as the Parks Awareness and Promotion Plan, and a Current reasons for underrepresentation include distance from home, lack Marketing Plan which will be completed in 2021 will recommend strategies to of awareness, time, and transportation options. In addition, safety concerns, raise park system awareness. language barriers, weather, cultural or religious insensitivity and discrimination, and lack of desired recreation facilities contribute to inequity in park use.
The historic reasons for this inequity are numerous. Reasons can be traced to the US-Dakota War of 1862 when many Dakota people living in the area were sent into exile. In the 150 years that have followed, government programs and policies have enabled white settlement and discouraged people of color from living in the rural areas and suburbs surrounding Spring Lake Park Reserve. In addition, government policies, institutional racism, and personal discrimination has discouraged generations of people of color from visiting parks. People who were not raised going to parks tend to not visit parks as adults or take their children to parks.
25 Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 DAKOTA COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE EQUITY ANALYSIS
Contributing Phase 1: General Input Phase 2: Initial Concepts Phase 3 - Draft Plan Preferred Concept Stakeholder Group October 2019 April -June 2020 Review 2021 Natural Resource General public Park is appreciated Strong support for New development outside of the Restoration Older adults for its beauty and high natural resource existing use areas is limited Tribal Historic quality natural areas restoration Long term vision for the park is Preservation Officers full restoration Bison Reintroduction General public Support for Bison Support for Bison Bison reintroduction is People living with Reintroduction Reintroduction recommended disabilities Tribal Historic Preservation Officers Birding/Wildlife General public Support for birding High support for wildlife Natural resource restoration to viewing viewing support wildlife Mountain Biking General public Mixed feedback on Limited comments Mountain biking is not included mountain biking Hiking General public Requests for additional Support for low impact hiking trail mileage natural surface hiking Easier access to the trails trails in the center of the Concern about Hilary park Path trailhead Mississippi River General public Views are a draw for Support for Mississippi Additional river valley overlooks Views Latinx participants many visitors River views/overlooks included Play General public Requests for improved Support for nature- Renovation of existing play area, playground, shade, based play inclusion of nature play, shade, nature play and closer proximity to restrooms Picnicking/Four General public More handicapped No comments Renovation of existing picnic Season Rental Space accessibility in picnic shelters, new non-reservation area shelters, new 4 season reservation space Table 2.3 Key Community Input Themes and Master Plan Response
CONTEXT Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 26 EQUITY ANALYSIS
Contributing Phase 1: General Input Phase 2: Initial Concepts Phase 3 - Draft Plan Preferred Concept Stakeholder Group October 2019 April -June 2020 Review 2021 Mississippi River General public Safer boat launch Support for boat launch Recommended river use areas at Access/River Use Latinx participants requested, more places on west side of park the Landing (with boat launch) and Areas Older adults to access the river the Mill Camping General public Interest in camping Concern about type of Walk-in/bike-in camping included Latinx participants camping and locations, in the plan highest support for walk-in/bike-in/canoe-in Equipment Rental General public Interest in equipment Support for equipment Equipment rental recommended rental: bikes, skis, rental snowshoes, watercraft Archery Trail General public Appreciation for the No comments Existing archery trail remains People living with archery trail disabilities Youth Cultural Landscape General public Positive response to Support for an Guided and self-guided Interpretation Older adults the themes in the 2003 interpretive center, interpretation recommended to be Tribal Historic master plan, requests opportunities for integrated into all aspects of the Preservation Officers for more interpretation, partnership with visitor experience interest in outdoor indigenous youth education programs organizations Winter Use General public Interest in ski and Interest in ski and Maintain ski trail mileage, increase snowshoe trails snowshoe trails snowshoe and winter walking trail mileage Winer equipment rental Mississippi River General public Interest in biking Continued interest in County is working on completion Greenway Latinx participants Interest in MRG completion of the MRG of the MRG in a separate process Older adults completion with anticipated opening in 2022 Table 2.3 Key Community Input Themes and Master Plan Response (continued)
27 Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 DAKOTA COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE EQUITY ANALYSIS
Contributing Phase 1: General Input Phase 2: Initial Concepts Phase 3 - Draft Plan Preferred Concept Stakeholder Group October 2019 April -June 2020 Review 2021 Barriers to park use General public Awareness, No comments Dakota County is currently Latinx participants transportation, cost for preparing an awareness and Older adults events, time, distance outreach plan and will be Youth completing a Marketing plan in Low income 2020 households Stargazing People living with Request for stargazing/ Concerns over light Observatory not included in plan disabilities observatory/indigenous pollution from Flint Hills Youth star knowledge General public, Low income households Tribal Historic Preservation Officers Photography General public People visit the park to No comments Additional river valley overlooks take pictures
Restrooms General public More bathroom facilities, Support for increased 5 new restroom/vault toilet Latinx participants keep open longer hours restroom access locations included in the plan
Table 2.3 Key Community Input Themes and Master Plan Response (continued)
CONTEXT Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 28 CHAPTER 3: EXISTING CONDITIONS OVERVIEW
This chapter describes current conditions in Spring Lake Park Reserve for the following major park assets:
• Cultural Landscape: overview, significance, history summary, and analysis of cultural significance and contributing features • Natural Resources: inventory and assessment, including topography, water resources, Picnic Shelter at Schaar’s DNR Boat Launch, 2019 View from Schaar’s Bluff, Church’s Woods and Hiking vegetation, and wildlife Bluff, 2019 2019 Trails, 2019 • Existing Park Conditions: inventory and assessment, including issues and opportunities • Outdoor Education & Events: a summary of current park programming and services • Key Considerations: key findings to consider in development of concepts and recommendations
Overlooks, 2019 Gathering Center, 2019 Asphalt and Concrete Cultural McCarriel’s Mill, 2019 Trail at Schaar’s Bluff, 2019
Mississippi River Greenway Soft Trail near the picnic area, Mown Soft Trail in the field, Mown Trail transition, 2019 Trail, 2019 2019 2019
EXISTING CONDITIONS Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 30 CULTURAL LANDSCAPE OVERVIEW
This section integrates environmental and cultural understanding of Spring Historic Site: significant association with a historic event, activity, or person Lake Park Reserve to inform the planning process. It begins with an overview such as battlefields and house properties of presidents. of the landscape’s historic significance, followed by an illustrated chronological narrative of physical landscape change over time. Features that potentially Historic Designed Landscape: designed or laid out by a landscape architect, contribute to the landscape’s significance are identified at the end of the section. master gardener, architect, or horticulturist using design principles, or by others working in a recognized style or tradition. It may be associated with a Inventory and analysis follow a cultural landscape approach based on federal significant person(s), trend, event, or development in landscape architecture. standards, including A Guide to Cultural Landscape Reports: Contents, Process, Examples include parks, campuses, and estates. and Techniques and The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes.1 Historic Vernacular Landscape: shaped by human activities, reflecting This approach relies on historical documentation as a basis for understanding the physical, biological, and cultural character of everyday lives. Function landscape evolution, building on the site history from the 2003 Master Plan.2 is significant in vernacular landscapes, which can be a single property or collection of properties. Examples include rural villages, industrial complexes, This chapter identifies potentially significant features using existing research, as and agricultural landscapes. formal determination of significance has not occurred for all resources within the park. Ethnographic Landscape: includes natural and cultural resources defined as heritage resources, such as contemporary settlements, sacred sites, and WHAT IS A CULTURAL LANDSCAPE? unique geological structures. Plant communities, and animals, subsistence and A cultural landscape is “a geographic area, including both cultural and natural ceremonial grounds are often included.4 resources and the wildlife or domestic animals therein, associated with a historic event, activity, or person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values”3 The four types of cultural landscapes are:
1 Robert R. Page, Cathy A. Gilbert, and Susan A. Dolan, A Guide to Cultural Landscape Reports: Contents, Process, and Techniques (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, Park Historic Structures and Cultural Landscapes Program, 1998); and Birnbaum and Peters, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes, 3-5. 2 Brauer and Associates, Ltd. Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan (Dakota County, MN: Dakota County Planning Department, 2003). 3 Charles A. Birnbaum, “Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning,Treatment and Management of Historic Landscapes,” Preservation Brief 36 (US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1994). 4 Birnbaum, Preservation Brief 36.
31 Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 DAKOTA COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE SIGNIFICANCE
WHAT IS THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES? 1854 to 1932, beginning with its construction and ending with demolition of the The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) recognizes districts, sites, mill structure following construction of Lock and Dam No. 2. This site also may buildings, structures, and objects that meet at least one of four significance be significant under Criterion D. A 2019 cultural resources assessment found criteria and possess integrity.5 the site to have moderate to high potential for intact post-contact archaeological resources.7 Criterion A. associated with events that significantly contribute to broad patterns of history There are seven archaeological sites associated with early Indigenous occupation within the study area, and one post-contact archaeological site. With a high Criterion B. associated with the lives of significant persons in the past concentration of archaeological sites and location on the Mississippi River and Spring Lake, the park may also be significant under Criterion D due to its Criterion C. embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method moderate to high potential for intact archaeological resources associated with of construction; represent the work of a master or possess high artistic values; Indigenous occupation and use. or represent a significant, distinguishable entity whose individual components may lack distinction The park contains remnants of late 19th and early 20th century Euro-American agricultural development, including farm buildings dating from the early to mid- Criterion D. have yielded, or are likely to yield, information important on history 20th century at the former Schaar farm and a foundation possibly associated or prehistory.6 with the 1857-1858 Blakely property. Remaining period buildings do not appear to retain adequate integrity to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, as they are disconnected from their agricultural context by park development and POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT VERNACULAR LANDSCAPE restoration of prairie and oak savanna. Although no part of Spring Lake Park Reserve is listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the NRHP framework can be used to evaluate the potential significance and integrity of the park’s historic resources.
The McCarriel’s Mill site may be locally significant under Criterion A related to the local history of Nininger township, early Euro-American settlement along the Upper Mississippi River, and the boom town of Nininger. After Nininger’s decline, the McCarriel family continued mill operation until construction of Lock and Dam No. 2. The proposed period of significance for the McCarriel’s Mill Site is
5 National Park Service, “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation,” National Register Bulletin 15 (Washington, DC: US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1995), 44. 7 106 Group, Ltd., Cultural Resources Literature Review and Assessment for the McCarriel’s Mill Site 6 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 15, 2. at Spring Lake Park Reserve (Dakota County Parks Department, 2019).
EXISTING CONDITIONS Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 32 CULTURAL LANDSCAPE SIGNIFICANCE
SIGNIFICANT ETHNOGRAPHIC LANDSCAPE “[Mdewakanton] Dakota elders tell of the creation of humans occurring in our Ethnographic significance of the landscape was reviewed by Tribal Historic homeland of Minisota Makoce, but specifically at the place called Maka Cokaya Preservation Officers of associated Indigenous tribes and nations for inclusion in Kin, or the Center of the Earth. This place is at Bdote, which means the joining or this plan. A concurrent Traditional Cultural Property study will further clarify this juncture of two bodies of water and in this instance refers to the area where the significance. Minnesota River joins the Mississippi.” Bdote extends out from the confluence, including Historic Fort Snelling, Mni Si (Coldwater Spring), Oheyawahi (Pilot Knob), The park landscape is culturally significant as a place where the ancestors of Imnížaska (the white river bluffs), and other significant sites along the Mississippi today’s associated Indigenous communities lived and are buried. It lies within the and Minnesota river corridors. upper Mississippi River valley regional center where people came together for ceremonies and events to reinforce communal ties and to forge alliances.8 The Traditional stories and natural landscape features are mutually supporting landscape also has proximity to significant Indigenous historic village locations at parts of existence in Dakota culture, rather than a distinction between “natural” Pine Bend and Grey Cloud Island, and the original location of Inyan Sa (Red Rock). and “cultural.” The interconnectedness of everything is Mitakuye Owasin. This includes the land, earth, rocks, sky, rivers, animals, plants, ancestors, and living The park landscape may also be significant as a portion of the Bdote, an area descendants. All are one whole entity. surrounding the Mississippi and Minnesota river confluence that has deep significance to many Dakota communities.9
8 Bdote Memory Map, Dr. Chris Mato Nunpa, Phd and Dave Larsen, Dakota elder, accessed November 2018 as part of the Indian Mounds Regional Park Cultural Landscape Study, http://bdotememorymap. org/. 9 The term Bdote (also rendered as Mdote or Mendota, meaning “confluence”), is used by some Dakota groups to describe where the rivers meet. Documentation of the importance of the Bdote to Indigenous Peoples is part of the oral history of many communities. Published sources include: Gary Clayton Anderson and Alan R. Woolworth, Through Dakota Eyes: Narrative Accounts of the Minnesota Indian War of 1862 (St. Paul, Minnesota: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1988); Roy W. Meyer, History of the Santee Sioux: United States Indian Policy on Trial (Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1967); Gwen Westerman and Bruce White, Mni Sota Makoce: The Land of the Dakota (St. Paul, Minnesota: The Minnesota Historical Society, 2012); Waziyatawin Angela Wilson, What Does Justice Look Like? The Struggle for Liberation in Dakota Homeland (St. Paul, Minnesota: Living Justice Press, 2008); Waziyatatawin Angela Wilson, In the Footsteps of Our Ancestors: The Dakota Commemorative Marches of the 21st Century (St.Paul, Minnesota: Living Justice Press, 2006); Nick Coleman and John Camp, The Great Dakota Conflict (St. Paul, Minnesota: Pioneer Press Dispatch, 1987). Further documentation supports the long-time association of Indigenous Peoples with the area: Valentine Mott Porter, ed., “Journal of Stephen Watts Kearny” Missouri Historical Society Collections 3, no. 2 (April 1908): 103-111; Christina Harrison, Before the Fort: Native American Presence at the Confluence of the Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers (Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, 2002); John O. Anfinson, Thomas Madigan, Study of the Former U.S. Bureau of Mines Twin Cities Research Center Property, Hennepin County, Drew M. Forsberg, and Patrick Nunnally, River of History: A Historic Resources Study of the Mississippi Minnesota (National Park Service, Mississippi National River and Recreation Area, June 2006); David National River and Recreation Area (National Park Service, 2003); Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. and Two Mather, Fort Snelling Historic District, Update of National Register of Historic Places Documentation Pines Resource Group, LLC. The Cultural Meaning of Coldwater Spring: Final Ethnographic Resources (Draft project outline dated March 24, 2015)
33 Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 DAKOTA COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE SUMMARY SITE HISTORY
Boulanger Island INDIGENOUS OCCUPATION AND USE, CA. 10,000 BCE – CE r Slough B ange LATE 1840S oul Landscape changes during this period are illustrated on Historic Period Plan 1. Mississippi River
Humans have lived within the park area for thousands of years, supported by the river, forest, and prairie landscape. Understanding of this vast time period is drawn from the oral history of the living communities, extant important sites associated with their ancestors, and remnants left behind in the archaeological record.
While archaeologists use various terms for early area inhabitants, Dakota people simply call the earliest populations of Minnesota their ancestors. Four fires of the Seven Council Fires (Oceti Sakowin) Roa d f rom St. make up the Dakota Nation (Oyate).“ They include the Mdewakanton Paul to Ha sting (Dwellers by Mystic Lake), the Wahpekute (Shooters of the Leaves), s .25 .5 mi Wahpetunwan (Dwellers Among the Leaves), and the Sisitunwan Sources: (Dwellers by the Fish Campground).”10 Oak Openings and Barrens Inholdings 1855 General Land Office Map 1855 General Land Office Map from 1983 Spring Lake Master Plan Floodplain Forest Park Boundary 2003 Spring Lake Master Plan Wetland Road or Trail PaleoIndian Tradition: ca. 10,000-6000 BCE USGS National Elevation Data Set Humans likely began occupying the region as the last glaciers River retreated (12,000 to 10,000 years ago), following the spread of plants Figure 3.1 Historic Period Plan 1: 10,000 BCE - CE late 1840s and animals northward. The landscape initially was characterized by By 8000 BCE (before common era), southeastern Minnesota was dominated by forests tundra, replaced by a boreal forest, and followed by a short-lived pine- comprised of oak, maple, elm, and ash. Prairie expanded into east central Minnesota as the birch-elm woodland as the climate warmed. People in this area likely climate warmed over the next 2,000 years. By about 6000 BCE, the Dakota County area was lived in small, mobile groups hunting megafauna such as mammoth, predominantly prairie with deciduous forests in river valleys.12 mastodon, or ancient bison.11 Archaic Period, ca. 6000-1000 BCE After 6000 BCE, the climate became wetter and cooler. Forest expanded, pushing prairie 10 Waziyatawin, What Does Justice Look Like?, 20. 11 Fleming et al., An Archaeological Survey of Dakota County, 34; page 11 indicates regions southwest and reaching its present-day extent between 2500 and 1200 BCE. People there are 4 known sites (outside of SLPR) in DC where either mammoth or mastodon remains have been found. 12 Fleming et al., An Archaeological Survey of Dakota County, 37.
EXISTING CONDITIONS Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 34 SUMMARY SITE HISTORY
in the region likely became more locally-oriented, as evidenced by artifacts period, a vast trade network stretched across most of North America.16 manufactured using less far-ranging raw materials, and more habitation sites. They took advantage of the wide range of plant and animal resources through Mounds in the park were likely constructed during the second occupation hunting, gathering, and fishing.13 (between CE 300 and 1100). Similar to other mounds in the region, they were typically conical or linear and located on bluffs overlooking major bodies of People likely lived in at least two locations on bluffs overlooking Spring Lake water. Although not all mounds contain burials and not all burials were placed in during this time. Artifacts suggest that portions of the landscape were used mounds, these massive structures indicate a significant spiritual landscape that both in the summer and the fall. As described in the 2003 Master Plan, “The remains even though some above-ground features have been destroyed. During use of nets by the occupants of the Lee Mill Cave Site to catch fish points to a this period, people lived in permanent settlements supported by farming, hunting, 17 summer occupation of Spring Lake Park. The presence of acorns at the Ranelius and fishing. Site indicates that people were also present in the park during the fall. During these times, the lake and especially the river would have provided not only Oneota Period, ca. CE 900-1650 Archaeologists associate the people who lived in the area during this period with consumables, but also places to bathe and to take refuge from the heat.” The the Oneota material culture, based on a style of elaborately decorated globular water level in the lake is not known during this period. As a spring-fed waterbody pottery made of clay mixed with crushed shell. Their descendants are members draining into the Mississippi River, the water may have been high enough to have of today’s Chiwere Siouan speaking tribes, including the Ioway, Otoe, Missouria, formed a lake, or low so that it appeared as a marsh, as recorded during the 19th and Winnebago. Scholars and tribal elders indicate that these groups split from a century.14 common ancestor.18
Mound Construction, ca. 1000 BCE-CE 1100 People lived in larger permanent settlements on river terraces, supported by Over the next 1,000 years, large, complex communities formed along waterbodies. floodplain agriculture, particularly corn, beans, and squash, and animal resources Agriculture developed and wild rice cultivation intensified, supplemented by such as aquatic food sources and bison. Park sites from the Oneota Period appear hunting, gathering, and fishing. With cooler and wetter climate conditions, lake to have been temporary rather than permanent, likely used as encampments levels likely rose.15 during hunting or trade expeditions.19
Park archaeological investigations suggest two occupations during this period. Archaeological materials related to this time period have been identified at the The first occupation, between about 200 BCE and CE 300, appears related to a Lee Mill Cave Site, Ranelius Site, and Hamm Site. cultural tradition referred to by archaeologists as “Hopewell Havana.” During this
13 Fleming et al., An Archaeological Survey of Dakota County, 37; and Anfinson, River of History, 41-42. 16 Brauer and Associates, Ltd., Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan, 6.8 14 Brauer and Associates, Ltd., Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan, 6.6. 17 Brauer and Associates, Ltd., Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan, 6.8 15 Brauer and Associates, Ltd., Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan, 6.8; and Fleming et al., An 18 Lance M. Foster, The Indians of Iowa (Iowa City, Iowa: University of Iowa Press, 2009). Archaeological Survey of Dakota County, 8 19 Brauer and Associates, Ltd., Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan, 6.9
35 Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 DAKOTA COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE SUMMARY SITE HISTORY
Contact with Early Euro-American Settlers, ca. 1650- late 1840s topography, and especially fire, which is affected by features that provide fire Historical documents and the archaeological record have not identified villages or breaks. The Dakota frequently used fire as a vegetation management tool.23 use sites within the park reserve between those associated with Oneota material In the 1830s, Dakota people established a village on the west end of Grey Cloud culture and the 19th century. Island, with lodges, fields, and gardens. It was occupied until the autumn of 1837, when its inhabitants relocated to Pine Bend. The next year, the village site was Although not recorded within the park, Dakota villages were located throughout taken over by the Mooers and Roberson families.24 the region during this time. Villages were generally near lakes and rivers to provide transportation and access to wild rice, and moved seasonally to follow game animals and harvest winter plants. Agricultural production included corn, squash, tobacco, and other crops.20 23 Webb et al., “Holocene Changes in the Vegetation of the Midwest,” 162-163; and Gilbert A. Leisman, “Vegetation of the Spring Lake Area,” in “Spring Lake Archaeology,” Science Bulletin Number 3, Part 4 By the late 1600s, French exploration and trading were common along the upper (1959), 1 24 John Higley Case and Minnesota Historical Society, Historical notes of Grey Cloud Island and its Mississippi River. At the time of French contact, four primary Dakota groups lived vicinity (St. Paul, Minn.: Published by The Society, 1915), 3, retrieved from the Library of Congress, www. in the region: Mdewakantons, Wahpekutes, Sissetons, and Wahpetons. The arrival loc.gov/item/19002000/; and Douglas A. Brink, “The Survey of Grey Cloud Island, Washington County Minnesota: An Archaeological Approach,” The Minnesota Archaeologist 32, no. 1 and no. 2, (1973) of Euro-Americans and other Indigenous tribes and nations to the area had a dramatic effect on the lives of the Dakota, bringing conflict, disease, land claims and depleting the Indigenous population and resources. Treaties in 1805, 1830, 1837, 1851, and 1858 transferred land rights from the Dakota to the U.S. through insincere promises and threats.21
Euro-American explorers and settlers also provided detailed descriptions of the landscape during this time. Just east of the park where Lake St. Croix meets the Upper Mississippi, painter George Catlin documented a landscape of sparsely treed bluffs rising over a wooded floodplain. Vegetation would have been a mosaic of upland forest, savanna, and prairie on bluff tops and slopes, with forest and wetland in the floodplain.22 Vegetation patterns depended on soils,
20 Westerman and White, Mni Sota Makoce, 34-36. 21 Waziyatawin, What Does Justice Look Like?, 29-32; Meyer, History of the Santee Sioux, 25; Westerman and White, Mni Sota Makoce, 140-143. 22 Webb et al., “Holocene Changes in the Vegetation of the Midwest,” 162-163; and Gilbert A. Leisman, “Vegetation of the Spring Lake Area,” in “Spring Lake Archaeology,” Science Bulletin Number 3, Part 4 Figure 3.2 Dakota presence in the river valley (Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux (1959), 1 Community)
EXISTING CONDITIONS Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 36 SUMMARY SITE HISTORY
EARLY EURO-AMERICAN SETTLEMENT, CE LATE 1840S- Boulanger Island Boulanger Slough City of 1928 Nininger Limestone Landscape changes during this period are illustrated on Historic quarrying Mississippi River Period Plan 2. Truax sawmill (1856) Schaar farm Spring Lake Euro-American settlers were drawn to the area by financial Mill (1854) opportunities provided by the Mississippi River as a power source for mills and transportation route for grain, lumber, and other goods. Spring Lake Louis Belanger, the first Euro-American settler in the area, arrived in the late 1840s and built a log cabin on an island. Other land claims quickly followed. In 1855, Daniel W. Truax and John Blakely built the Spring Lake Mill. After mill construction, water levels rose in Spring Bremer 25 Lake, which would never be as shallow as it was prior to 1855. New Kelley farm settlers knew the area as “Bluff Landing” or “Bassett’s Landing,”
26 referring to a trading post established just to the east. Spring Lake Stop Richland Stop Bremer Stop
.25 .5 mi Dakota people continued to live at Pine Bend until an 1851 treaty Hanna Stop Vermillion Road Stop resulted in their forced relocation to a reservation. During this time, Sources: Upland Forest Inholdings Buildings 27 no villages are recorded within the study area. 1927 Aerial Photography Floodplain Forest Agricultural Field Parcel (1896) 1890 Survey: Mississippi River Commission St. Paul Southern 1896 Nininger Plat Wetland Park Boundary Railway Line 2003 Spring Lake Master Plan Frustration from unkept promises from the Treaty of 1837, as well River/Lake Road Railway Stop USGS National Elevation Data Set as the treatment of Dakota people by the US Government and new Figure 3.3 Historic Period Plan 2: CE late 1840s-1928 settlers, erupted into the US-Dakota War in 1862. In May of 1863, many Dakota were sent into exile, moving west to the plains and communities in Minnesota (Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, Prairie Island Indian 28 north to Canada. It would be several decades before the four Dakota Community, Upper Sioux Community, and Lower Sioux Community) would be recognized by the federal government.29 Accounts from Nininger Township residents suggest that Dakota people 25 Brauer and Associates, Ltd., Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan, 6.10 continued to live near Spring Lake into the 1890s, although no villages are recorded within the 26 Leslie A. Guelcher, The History of Nininger... More Than Just a Dream: An Illustrated History of Nininger Township by the Nininger Chapter of the Dakota County Historical park boundary during this time.30 Society (Stillwater, Minnesota: The Croixside Press, 1982), 85. 27 Brauer and Associates, Ltd., Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan, 6.10 28 Coleman and Camp, The Great Dakota Conflict; Anderson and Woolworth, Through Dakota Eyes. This is a brief summary of complex events; for more information, see also 29 Coleman and Camp, The Great Dakota Conflict; Anderson and Woolworth, Through Dakota Eyes. http://www.usdakotawar.org/; Westerman and White, Mni Sota Makoce. 30 Brauer and Associates, Ltd., Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan, 6.10
37 Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 DAKOTA COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE SUMMARY SITE HISTORY
Beginning in the 1850s, the landscape dramatically changed from a mosaic of oak savanna, prairie, mesic forest, and floodplain wetlands to plowed crop land. Early Euro-American farmsteads typically planted grains (wheat, oats, and corn) and included small numbers of livestock and a vegetable plot to support limited farm income.31
Land investors Ignatius Donnelly and John Nininger, capitalizing on a prime location along the Mississippi River, platted the City of Nininger in 1856. The city grew quickly, but despite early commercial success it became a “ghost town” by 1860.32
After Nininger’s decline, agriculture dominated economic activity in the township, and the Spring Lake Mill continued to process grain. Rock quarries were View of Mississippi River above Hastings, ca. 1890 (MNHS) MD2.9 NG h1 (Locator Number) established along the Mississippi River bluffs to construct wing dams along the YR1939.5715 (Accession Number) Mississippi River for navigation. A sawmill operated in the location of the Truax mill, and a beer cellar and store were established just to the east of the park. A short-lived line of the St. Paul Southern Electric Railway Company extended along the southern park area for faster and easier transportation between St. Paul and Hastings.33
LOCKS AND DAMS, CE 1929-1972 Landscape changes during this period are illustrated on Historic Period Plan 3.
Shifting sandbars and shallow depths frequently limited navigation of the Mississippi River north of Hastings. Concerned that this would encourage a railroad monopoly and reduce U.S. competitiveness in the world economy, Congress approved a series of locks and dams along the river between St. Louis and Minneapolis; Lock and Dam No. 2 at Hastings was authorized in 1927. Once Spring Lake Mill and Pond 1907 (Dakota completed, the dam flooded approximately 10,000 acres of land between St. Paul Group of people at quarry on A.J. Jeremy property, ca. 1910-1914 (Guelcher, 215). County Historical Society, 77-9470-1960 HA) 31 Guelcher, The History of Nininger, 32 32 Brauer and Associates, Ltd., Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan, 6.11 33 Brauer and Associates, Ltd., Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan, 6.13
EXISTING CONDITIONS Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 38 SUMMARY SITE HISTORY
and Hastings, creating an artificial lake that submerged the earlier shoreline of Spring Lake. Seven hundred landowners lost access to Mississippi River floodplain property through flowage easements, although they still Limestone quarrying retained ownership of the underlying land.34 The Spring Lake Mill was abandoned and demolished shortly after the flooding.35 McCarriel (Mill Schaar farm removed ca. 1932) Agriculture within Nininger township shifted from grain to livestock in the 1930s and 1940s with expanded dairy and turkey farming. Other local industries included quarrying along the limestone bluffs and a Spring Lake resort near the south end of Spring Lake.36
Bud’s Hunting and On the west side of the park, the Ranney Well was constructed to Fishing Resort (1942) supply water for the Gopher Ordinance Works, which opened in 1943 in Cotes and Rosemount. The Gopher Ordinance Works plant Purported location of produced smokeless gunpowder for WWII. dance hall
The Science Museum of Minnesota conducted the Spring Lake Archaeology Project from 1952 to 1956. As part of this project, Lee .25 .5 mi Mill Cave, the Sorg Site, the Ranelius site, Bremer Village, Bremer Sources: Upland Forest Park Boundary 1937 Aerial Photography 37 Agricultural Field Road Mounds, and the Bud Josephs site were excavated. 1947 Aerial Photography 1970 Aerial Photography River/Lake Buildings 1955 Photographs and Personal Surveys of G.A. Leisman Inholdings 2003 Spring Lake Master Plan USGS National Elevation Data Set Figure 3.4 Historic Period Plan 3: 1929-1972
34 Brauer and Associates, Ltd., Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan, 6.13-6.14; “Dam Site Soon to be Deserted,” Hastings Gazette, 1930. 35 106 Group, Ltd., Cultural Resources Literature Review and Assessment for the McCarriel’s Mill Site, 8 36 Brauer and Associates, Ltd., Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan, 6.15 37 Elden Johnson and P. S. Taylor, “Spring Lake Archeology: The Lee Mill Cave” in Science Bulletin No. 3, part 2. St. Paul, Minnesota: The Science Museum of the St. Paul Institute, 1956
39 Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 DAKOTA COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE SUMMARY SITE HISTORY
SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE, CE 1973-PRESENT Spring Lake Park Reserve was first proposed as a County park in the 1970 Dakota County Parks and Recreational Facilities Plan. Acquisition began with the Carl and Dorothy Schaar property in 1973, and additions and boundary revisions continued through the 1970s and 1980s.38
The park received regional designation in 1975, and the first master plan was developed in 1983.39 An archery range and youth camp were constructed in 1993.40 Since 2005, structures and homes on Fischer Ave have been removed and over the last 25 years, nearly 200 acres of blufftop prairie and oak savanna were Fishing at Bud’s Landing, no date (Twin Cities Gene Josephs looks out on Spring Lake restored. The Schaar’s Bluff Gathering Center was constructed in 2006.41 In 2017, Pioneer Press, 2012) from site of Bud’s Landing, 2012 (Twin Cities the Mississippi River Greenway (MRG), a designated bicycle and pedestrian trail Pioneer Press) connecting along the Mississippi River, was extended through the length of the park.
Archaeological investigations have continued over the past 40 years at Lee Mill Cave (1996), Bud Josephs Site (1995), Schaar’s Bluff and Sorg Site (2005), Ranelius Site (2010), Bremer Village (1996; 2011-2013; 2014), Bremer Mounds (2010), and the Spring Lake Park Bluff Site (2012).42
Ranelius turkey farm, no date (Guelcher, 265) Nininger town sign (MinnPost, no date)
38 Brauer and Associates, Ltd., Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan, 2.1; Memorandum, Dakota County Parks Director, May 25, 1976 39 Brauer and Associates, Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan, 2.1 40 Dakota County Parks, “Approval of an Amendment to the Spring Lake Park Reserve Master Plan and Development of a Youth Group Camp in the Park,” January 26, 1993 41 URS, 2006 42 Fleming et al., An Archaeological Survey of Dakota County.
EXISTING CONDITIONS Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 40 CULTURAL LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS
This section presents an analysis of historic integrity for the cultural landscape. It identifies and documents those qualities and features that potentially contribute to historic character, retain integrity, and contribute to the significance of the landscape as related to the McCarriel (Mill periods of significance. The landscape analysis is intended to guide removed ca. 1932) design and inform treatment of significant aspects of the cultural Wagon Route landscape according to the United States Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
Integrity is the ability of the physical features of the landscape to convey the property’s historic significance, as evidenced by the survivial of physical characteristics that existed during the property’s period of significance.To retain integrity, a landscape must convey a sense of its historic character and retain essential physical Route of Hilary Path features that define why and when a property was significant. The cultural landscape is documented and evaluated according to the following landscape characteristics: natural systems and topography; spatial organization; archaeological resources; vegetation; views; circulation; and buildings, structures, and small-scale features. The Sources: Park Boundary Historic farm remnant (primary 2003 Spring Lake Master Plan, MN OSA, 1890 Survey: building present for 50+ years) McCarriel’s Mill site was assessed separately. Potentially Contributing Mississippi River Commission, USGS National Circulation Route Remnant/restored forest Elevation Data Set Potential periods of significance for the Spring Lake Park Reserve River/Lake Remnant/restored prairie/savanna Steep Slopes/Bluff cultural landscape are: Inholdings • Vernacular landscape of McCarriel’s Mill Site: CE 1854 to 1932 Figure 3.5 Map of Potentially Contributing Landscape Features • Ethnographic landscape associated with Indigenous occupation and use: ca. 6000 BCE to CE late 1840s
41 Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 DAKOTA COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS
NATURAL SYSTEMS + TOPOGRAPHY ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES Existing condition of natural systems and topography are described in the Natural While many archaeological studies have identified discrete locations where people Resource Inventory section of this chapter. Primary alterations to these features lived, worked, and were buried, the entire region is a Dakota place. Known sites since the end of the period of significance include quarrying at the bluff edge are listed below by archaeological stages and do not identify all places important in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and cut and fill for construction of the to associated Dakota communities. Archaeological sites were frequently named Mississippi River Greenway (MRG) in 2017. Rising water levels have altered the for former property owners, and do not represent Dakota place names. relationship of the bluff and cliffs to the floodplain, expanding Spring Lake and inundating marshes and islands present before construction of the Spring Lake Stages of Occupation and Use Mill in 1854 and Lock and Dam No. 2 in 1930. Contributing features include: 10,000-1000 BCE (ARCHAIC) • Mississippi River • Lee Mill Cave • Spring Lake • Bremer Village • Topography of bluff and floodplain • Ranelius • Caves • Springs 200 BCE – CE 1100 (WOODLAND PERIOD OR CERAMIC/MOUND STAGE) • Lee Mill Cave SPATIAL ORGANIZATION • Bremer Village The overall spatial organization is described in the Existing Park Conditions • Ranelius section of this chapter. While little is known about the organization of the built • Bremer Mounds landscape during its early occupation, villages and terrace mound sites likely • Sorg had proximity to and views over the river valley, emphasizing relationships to the bluff and lake. The MRG’s alignment with current park facilities departs from CE 900-1650 (LATE PRECONTACT/ONEOTA) this conjectural historic organization. Encroaching woody vegetation has blocked • Lee Mill Cave visual connections to the water and sky. • Bremer Village • Ranelius Spatial organization of the McCarriel’s Mill site has been impacted by mill • Hamm demolition, addition of structures after the end of the period of significance, and rising water levels.
EXISTING CONDITIONS Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 42 CULTURAL LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS
Sorg Site Hamm Site The Sorg Site lies at the eastern end of Spring Lake in a gently sloping outwash The Hamm site overlooks the shore of Spring Lake near Hamm’s Bay in plain fanning out from the base of a limestone bluff. Excavations revealed a the western end of the park, and may extend into the lake. Archaeological rectangular hearth, pieces of pottery, lithic tools, small mammal bones, and turtle investigations uncovered lithic debitage and shell-tempered pottery sherds. Near remains. The most notable discovery was a ceramic vessel that had been broken the edge of a terrace along Spring Lake, the site has been impacted by erosion. in place.43 Portions of the site have been eroded by rising water levels following Intact below-grade deposits may still exist.48 construction of Lock and Dam No. 2, and gullies from the uplands cut through the southern portion of the site. Historic quarrying and residential activity have Ranelius site destroyed other parts of this site.44 The Ranelius site is on a peninsula-like terrace overlooking the southern shore of Spring Lake. Numerous features consistent with habitation have been unearthed Lee Mill Cave at the site, including projectile points, end scrapers, pottery sherds, and bone and The Lee Mill Cave Site is 75 feet above the Mississippi River in a limestone bluff groundstone tools.49 The site has been disturbed by excavations but is otherwise at the eastern end of Spring Lake. Lee Mill Cave was carved out by water seeping largely intact.50 down from the blufftop and eroding the limestone.45 Excavations uncovered two hearths and two middens, with a large number of lithic tools and pottery shards. Bremer Mounds Small and large mammal bones, bird bones, fish bones, clam shell fragments, This site is a pair of mounds on a terrace overlooking the southern shoreline of turtle remains, and a single piece of maize were also unearthed. A small number Spring Lake. One mound is linear and the other is conical/ovoid in shape. Above- of human remains were recovered from the site, some of which were associated ground features of the conical mound were mostly destroyed by excavations in the with a rock fall.46 As indicated in the 2018 Dakota County Archaeological Survey, 1950s. Although the linear mound has been disturbed, its form is still visible on rock falls, erosion, recreational activities, and archaeological investigations have Lidar imagery and in-person.51 destroyed much of the site. However, the cave extends far into the bluff, and the inner cave may be undisturbed.47 Bremer Village Bremer Mounds and Bremer Village are about one-quarter mile apart on river terraces along the southeastern edge of Spring Lake. The village site is located on a terrace 50 feet lower in elevation than the mounds, adjacent to the edge of Spring Lake.52
43 Fleming et al., An Archeological Survey of Dakota County, Minnesota, 82-84 44 Fleming et al., An Archeological Survey of Dakota County, Minnesota, 84. 48 Fleming et al., An Archeological Survey of Dakota County, Minnesota, 88. 45 Johnson and Taylor, “Spring Lake Archeology: The Lee Mill Cave; and Johnson, Spring Lake 49 Fleming et al., An Archeological Survey of Dakota County, Minnesota, 88-89. Archaeology: The Sorg Site. 50 Fleming et al., An Archeological Survey of Dakota County, Minnesota, 88. 46 Fleming et al., An Archeological Survey of Dakota County, Minnesota, 85-87. 51 Fleming et al., An Archeological Survey of Dakota County, Minnesota, 90. 47 Fleming et al., An Archeological Survey of Dakota County, Minnesota, 86. 52 Johnson and Taylor, “Spring Lake Archeology: The Lee Mill Cave; and Johnson, Spring Lake Archaeology: The Sorg Site 43 Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 DAKOTA COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS
Shovel testing in 2011-2014 found that debris is not consistently deposited across Analysis the terrace, suggesting a series of camp sites. Pottery found at the site indicate Documented archaeological sites within the study area are a physical Initial (Middle) and Terminal (Late) Woodland and Late Pre-contact (Oneota) manifestation of continued ties to living communities. Contributing features occupations, with the Terminal Woodland being the most common.53 include: • Known and unknown village or use sites (Lee Mill Cave, Ranelius Site, Sorg Due to its position only a few feet above Spring Lake, the site has experienced Site, Bremer Village, Bud Josephs Site, Hamm Site, and Spring Lake Park Bluff erosion, particularly on its north side. The village may have extended into the area Site) that is now submerged. The southern portion of the site has also been disturbed • Known and unknown burial sites (Bremer Mounds) by construction of the Mississippi River Greenway (MRGW).54 VEGETATION Bud Joseph’s Site (21DK043) Existing vegetation is described in detail in the Natural Resource section of The Bud Joseph’s/Bud’s Landing Site is located on a terrace and outwash area this chapter. Vegetation patterns have changed substantially over the past on the shoreline of Spring Lake.55 The site yielded 33 flakes of lithic scatter. Local ten thousand years of human habitation. Prior to Euro-American settlement, residents also report finding Woodland sherds in the lake adjacent to the site.56 vegetation was a mosaic of upland forest, savanna, and prairie on the bluff tops The site likely was impacted by development of Bud’s Landing resort and nearby and slopes, with forest and wetland in the floodplain. As new settlers arrived, fire residences. It has also been damaged by erosion; a gully cuts through the site.57 management of prairies and oak savanna on the blufftop ceased, the blufftop and floodplain were converted to agriculture, and forest remained on steep slopes. Spring Lake Park Bluff (21DK088) Today’s vegetation patterns reflect successional regrowth of woody vegetation The Spring Lake Park Bluff site is on a terrace 100 feet above the shore of Spring following conversion of farm and resort land to park land in the 1970s Lake. Findings consisted of 11 pieces of Prairie du Chien chert debitage scattered over less than one acre.58 The site is in a relatively undisturbed wooded area and Although today’s vegetation types differ from the periods of significance, is likely intact.59 extensive efforts have restored prairie and oak savanna to the blufftop. Potentially contributing features include: • Remnant/restored prairie and savanna/oak openings • Remnant/restored mesic forest/oak forests 53 Fleming et al., An Archeological Survey of Dakota County, Minnesota, 91-92. 54 Fleming et al., An Archeological Survey of Dakota County, Minnesota, 92. 55 Johnson and Taylor, “Spring Lake Archeology: The Lee Mill Cave; Johnson, Spring Lake VIEWS Archaeology: The Sorg Site. Existing views are described in detail in the Existing Park Conditions section of 56 Fleming et al., An Archeological Survey of Dakota County, Minnesota, 118. 57 Fleming et al., An Archeological Survey of Dakota County, Minnesota, 118. this chapter. Woody vegetation was sparse on the blufftop during early use and 58 Christina Harrison, Phase 1 Archaeological Review for the Mississippi River Regional Trail: occupation when the vegetation was characterized by prairie or oak savanna, Spring Lake Park Segment, Nininger Township and the City of Rosemount, Dakota County, Minnesota (Minneapolis, MN: Archaeological Research Services for Dakota County Parks and Open Space, 2011). allowing expansive views of Spring Lake, the river valley, and the sky. Today, views 59 Fleming et al., An Archeological Survey of Dakota County, Minnesota, 145-146.
EXISTING CONDITIONS Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 44 CULTURAL LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS
are restricted by encroaching woody vegetation, with select points providing views Several remaining late-19th and early-20th century buildings from the Schaar of the River or sky. Locations of key views during Indigenous use and occupation farm do not retain integrity as part of the cultural landscape. The Schaar family are not known, and existing viewpoints do not correspond to recorded village or purchased the 150-acre property at the east end of the park in 1899 and grew mound sites. grain and raised dairy cows. The milkhouse and silo date to the mid-1940s.
Views related to the McCarriel’s Mill site have been modified due to flooding from A foundation possibly associated with the 1857-1860 Blakely property is near the Lock and Dam No. 2. McCarriel’s Mill site. The structure is disconnected from its historic context and does not retain integrity. CIRCULATION Existing circulation is described in detail in the Circulation and Connectivity MCCARRIEL’S MILL SITE section of this chapter. Two known historic routes are evident within the This site at the base of Schaar’s bluff occupies 1.5 acres. The 2019 Literature landscape. A road remnant connecting Schaar’s bluff to the McCarriel’s Mill site Review and Assessment indicated that all remaining site features McCarriel’s Mill is steep and heavily eroded, with limited stacked stonework supporting the road Site appear to retain sufficient integrity to be evaluated for eligibility in the NHRP. grade. The route is documented on the 1855 Government Land Office survey. The age of the boat is not known. Potentially contributing site features include: Hilary Path connects from Mississippi Trail (MN 42) to the base of the bluff at the • “Icehouse” (ca. 1860-1907) eastern end of the park, following a route shown on the 1880s Mississippi River • “Fish Pond” (before 1936) Commission map and 1896 plat of Nininger Township. • Retaining wall (ca. 1860-1907) • Foundations/locations for the house (1860), Garage (c. 1950s), Metal Shed (ca. During Indigenous use of the site and early Euro-American settlement, water 1966), Lumber Shed (ca. 1966), Saw Shed (ca. 1966) routes were important modes of transportation. Potentially contributing features include: • Road remnant (Wagon Trail) from Schaar’s Bluff to McCarriel’s Mill Site • Route of Hilary Path
BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES + SMALL SCALE FEATURES Existing buildings, structures, and small-scale features are described in detail in the Existing Park Conditions section of this chapter. Although no buildings remain, several Indigenous village sites have been identified. Post-holes at the Sorg site and Bremer Village site suggest a structure in this location. Above- and below- ground remnants of features from this period were damaged or destroyed by agriculture and mining, although subsurface features may still be intact.
45 Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 DAKOTA COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE NATURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY
INTRODUCTION Spring Lake Park Reserve displays an impressive assemblage of natural landscape features, including dramatic River and Spring Lake views, bottomland and upland terraces, and unique natural landscapes. Much of the park consists of north-facing limestone bluffs, steep slopes, and ravines that compose an ecosystem that is rare in the region. The park’s natural qualities provide a strong foundation for public enjoyment and enrichment. These qualities also provide a unique opportunity to protect a natural environment for biodiversity, preservation of natural heritage, open space, scenery, and respite from the built form.
PRE-SETTLEMENT PLANT COMMUNITIES Prior to Euro-American settlement, a mosaic of prairie and oak savanna covered the park except for the bluffs, shoreline, and steep ravines where oak forest thrived. Oak savannas are scattered trees and scrubby oak groves with some View of River Valley from Schaar’s Bluff area shrub thickets, within a matrix of grasses and wildflowers. This community thrived on the park’s sandy loam soils. Oak savannas and prairies were sustained by Native Americans who deliberately set fires to sustain productive hunting and food-gathering sources. The 1890 Mississippi River Commission map (Figure 3.7) gives clues as to what the first Euro-American settlers found as they began cultivating the land.
In the late 1800s settlers cleared trees and tilled prairie to build farmsteads, plant row crops, and graze cattle. They logged lumber and cut firewood. Native plants were eliminated through plowing, logging, and intensive cattle grazing. Settlers eliminated two natural landscape influences by suppressing large-scale fires and extirpating the bison and elk that grazed woody plant growth preventing forest succession. Aerial photos from 1937 show that most of the park land had been altered.
The Post Settlement Human Impact Map (Figure 3.8) identifies the types of View from the bottom of the central ravine up to the Mississippi River Greenway activities that altered the land. Farming gradually ceased as park property was
EXISTING CONDITIONS Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 46 NATURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY
Figure 3.6 Mississippi River Commission Survey, 1890s
47 Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 DAKOTA COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE NATURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY
purchased and managed by Dakota County Parks. The ecological integrity of the this reach to better support aquatic life, including an emerging game fishery park is evolving and improving. Figure 3.11 shows the extent to which woodlands and a rebounding mussel community. Despite improvements to point source have established with the suppression of fire. pollution, non-point source pollution from agriculture and other land uses is still a significant water quality problem. CURRENT CONDITIONS The park’s dominant physical features -- the Mississippi River, bluffs, topography, The Minnesota River has a profound effect on the size and water quality of the forests and ecological diversity -- provide a unique setting within in the regional Mississippi River and Pool 2, contributing significant sediment and nutrient park system. loading to the Mississippi, including Spring Lake, where still and slow-moving water drops fine sediment. Aquatic vegetation surveys completed by the EPA’s WATER RESOURCES Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, 2006-2008, documented the Mississippi River and Spring Lake absence of submerged aquatic vegetation at the sites sampled in Spring Park. The most compelling park feature is its location along the Mississippi River and Spring Lake. Situated within the Mississippi Flyway, the river and lake provide State and federal water quality reports for Mississippi River Pool 2 (including essential stopovers for migratory waterfowl and habitat for an impressive variety Spring Lake) show improvement over the past decade, although the river of wildlife species. As the third largest river in the world, the Mississippi draws remains on state and federal lists of impaired waters. Impaired uses include people to its scenic valley for observation of nature, water-based recreation, fish consumption, due to mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and hunting, and fishing. Figure 3.9 illustrates the dominance of the river and lake, Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS); aquatic life, due to high nutrient and total which underscores the value of these features to the park’s master plan. suspended solids; and recreation, due to elevated fecal coliform numbers. Mercury and PCBs are persistent toxins detected in Pool 2 sediments and in Pool 2 of the Mississippi River, which includes Spring Lake, is an impoundment various fish species. The State of Minnesota has issued advisories recommending formed by construction of Lock and Dam 2 at Hastings in 1930. Pool 2 includes 32 restricted consumption of eight species of fish caught in Pool 2. river miles from Lock and Dam 1 (Ford Dam) to Lock and Dam 2, and also includes the Minnesota River from Savage, MN to its confluence with the Mississippi River. Spring Lake supports a wide variety of fish species, including game such as The reach between Lower Grey Cloud Island and Lock and Dam 2 was most walleye and channel catfish. Special regulations for Mississippi River Pool 2 affected by the 1930 impoundment. In pre-European times, it was a floodplain allow only catch and release fishing for walleye, sauger, smallmouth bass and forest and marsh. Spring Lake is now a shallow water area swept by wind and largemouth bass battered by barge-generated waves. High turbidity has excluded aquatic plants except in the shallowest waters and areas sheltered by islands, negatively Surface Water Flow impacting fish habitat. Five significant ravines have formed in the park as water from south of the park has etched a path into the park’s soils and geological layers. These ravines are Upgraded wastewater treatment over recent decades has improved much of somewhat stable except for a large, branched central ravine that is eroding and
EXISTING CONDITIONS Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 48 NATURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY
Figure 3.7 Post Settlement Human Impact (1951 Aerial)
49 Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 DAKOTA COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE NATURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY
receiving sediment from large volumes of water that occasionally enter from agricultural land beyond the park borders.
The eastern ravine in which Hilary Path was constructed is also eroding, requiring repeated repairs. This will continue until the ravine is stabilized and stormwater can be held upstream. Since the park is entirely vegetated and has very limited impervious surface, surface water quality is high. Most precipitation landing on the park infiltrates into its permeable soils.
Seeps and Springs Water seeping through limestone layers and emerging out the face of Schaar’s bluff has allowed unique plant communities to evolve, especially on north-facing bluffs that benefit from a near continuous supply of calcareous water. Seeps are visible in the area of Church’s woods. A significant spring exists in the large The shoreline of Spring Lake is battered by waves, but is naturally stable because of the central ravine just south of the new regional trail bridge. Groundwater pours out naturally occurring rock and woody vegetation. of the surface in the ravine, yet the surface higher up in the ravine is dry. Here a unique and lush wet meadow plant community thrives.
GEOLOGY Bluffs The park’s dominant bedrock cliff, Schaar’s Bluff, rises 150 feet from Spring Lake. This bluff is characteristic of the Upper Mississippi River basin, whose banks are controlled by iconic bedrock strata deposited in ancient beach and sea floor environments. Deposition and wave action along the shores of ancient Lake Ordovician produced Saint Peter Sandstone, a friable sandstone with extremely well-rounded white grains. As sea levels rose in the Devonian era, organisms with carbonate shells settled out and lithified atop the Saint Peter sea floor. These carbonate strata formed the fossiliferous Platteville Limestone layer visible in the park bluff.
Eroded gravel and soil from Hilary Path deposited in the forest near existing DNR boat landing The striking bluffs result from differing resistance to physical erosion between
EXISTING CONDITIONS Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 50 NATURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY
the friable Saint Peter Sandstone and the durable Platteville Limestone. The Platteville protects the Saint Peter, which is easily eroded by the river’s lateral migration and stream power along its banks. Erosion undercuts the rigid cap of the Platteville, demonstrating geology in action with limestone rock falls at the base of the bluffs. The cliff area captures the geologic history of the Upper Mississippi’s response to and influence on Minnesota geology. In addition to dramatic views of the river, lake, and surrounding landscape, the cliff area harbors several unique plant communities such as the fern and Canada yew colonies near Church’s Woods. The park’s bluffs provide habitat for cave bats, big brown bats, red-shouldered hawk, red-tailed hawk, broad-winged hawk, bald eagles, turkey vultures, and also nesting birds such as swallows and swifts.
Ravines, Slopes, and Terraces Beautiful diversity of native plants on the north facing cliffs below Church’s Woods Spring Lake Park Reserve has dramatic ravines and terraces formed by glacial activity and erosion over the millennia. Although not as visible from one viewpoint, these features are integral to the unique experience offered by the park.
As illustrated on Figure 3.9 and described above, the landforms along the river are characterized by steep slopes, rolling terraces, and bluff lines; many slopes are well in excess of thirty percent. The topographic changes across the park create a series of terraces from the river up to the bluff land. These terraces are the result of the planation and abandonment inherent in the footprint the historic Mississippi River left on the land. Specific to the park, three main terraces are carved in the Saint Peter Sandstone and form a contrast to the steep bluffs on the east end of the park. These terraces represent an area where the thick Platteville Limestone cap that protects the eastern bluffs was thinner and more readily eroded, allowing the river more freedom in its bedrock valley to planate the Saint Peter below. As base level for the Mississippi lowered over geologic time, the river bed was sequentially abandoned in three main episodes, leaving behind the three terraces characteristic of the park today. This lowering of the river water Green ash swamp at the base of the central ravine. level in turn lowered the local base level for small tributary streams in the park.
51 Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 DAKOTA COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE NATURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY
These streams have since carved small, steep sided ravines into the Saint Peter and industrial land where many species, including plants, cannot exist or cross. sandstone as they drop in elevation to the meet the base level of the Mississippi. Regardless of the quality of the park’s habitats, they will only support species to the extent that plants and animals can move in and out of the park. Soils Figure 3.10 illustrates the park’s soils textures. Much of the western park is sand Birds terrace, which transitions to several classes of silty loam at the eastern end of the The park provides feeding and nesting habitat to a great diversity of birds. Many park. Soils range from well- to excessively-drained. Loamy sand is concentrated migratory birds -- including common loons, egrets, ducks, geese, swans, grebes, along the heads of major ravine branches. Silt loam covers much of the flat land gulls, terns and pelicans -- feed and rest at the park. The prairie and forest of above bluff lines. Soils in low areas near the river’s edge are seasonally inundated the park are home to a variety of migratory bird species including passerines with water. Bluff lines and ravine sides are composed of steep, well drained (perching birds), raptors and owls. In 2018-2019 forty-seven avian species were soils and bedrock outcrops. From an ecological perspective, restored plant counted in the annual breeding bird count conducted by County staff. Eleven communities must be consistent with the inherent soil characteristics. species of warblers were identified in the park (2019 Minnesota Breeding Bird Atlas), and the ovenbird, American redstart and common yellowthroat nest within Soil erodibility can limit park development (see Figure 3.10), especially on steep the park’s deciduous forests. Several birds found in the park are identified in slopes, in poorly vegetated areas, and adjacent to hard surfaces where runoff can the 2015-2025 MN DNR, Minnesota Wildlife Action Plan; Species of Greatest concentrate. Particular attention must be given to soils with trail development Conservation Need (SGCN) including Dickcissel, field sparrow, lark sparrow, and placement. Ravines, steep slopes, and bluffs pose severe constraints on grasshopper sparrow, eastern towhee, and brown thrasher. development and are best left undisturbed. Existing development generally is located where the soils can support built structures. New facilities must only be The park provides habitat for the northern saw-whet owl, great horned owl, and proposed for areas where soils offer the least limitations. the long-eared owl, which use deciduous forest for cover and open grasslands for hunting. Red-tailed hawks can be seen hunting open prairie or using thermals WILDLIFE rising from the bluffs for soaring. Eagles, vultures and other buteos (soaring Wildlife diversity and health are directly related to the quality and connectedness birds) also use these thermals. Other unique species in the park include red- of habitats within and outside of the park. The diminishing quality of the park’s headed woodpecker and loggerhead shrike (state listed special concern), both are plant habitats is discussed in detail in the next section. Connectedness refers to listed under the SGCN and their populations are in decline due to habitat loss and the degree to which a habitat ‘patch’ or island (the park) has links to other habitats fragmentation. These species rely on healthy habitats including open savanna, through surrounding developed lands. Landscape Ecologists describe habitat forest and grassland habitats. connectedness as the relationship between patches and corridors. The park has two habitat advantages: 1) it is a large patch at1,100 acres, and 2) it connects Grassland birds have been rapidly declining in Minnesota. With restoration of over to other patches through the forests and marshes along the Mississippi River. 200 acres of park prairie, nesting opportunities have been provided for species Southward, the park ‘patch’ is separated from other habitats by agricultural fields like dickcissel, grasshopper sparrow, lark sparrow, and field sparrow, and could
EXISTING CONDITIONS Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 52 NATURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY
Figure 3.8 Topography
53 Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 DAKOTA COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE NATURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY
be expanded with further restoration of prairie and the expansion of oak savanna. fire patterns are important ecological processes that have been eliminated. Disturbance from random patterns of mob grazing by indigenous species Mammals increases native plant diversity and prevents savannas from becoming forests. Several bat species have been reported in Dakota County, including the northern long-eared bat (NLEB), tri-colored bat, big brown bat, little brown bat, evening Amphibians and Reptiles bat, silver-haired bat, hoary bat, and red bat. Several of these species use the Reptiles and amphibians can be found in the park. Snakes include fox, red belly, park’s limestone bluffs and roost within its forested areas. Cave dwelling bat and garter snakes. Race runners have been found near the park. A few frogs and hibernacula may exist within the crevices and caves. Calling surveys conducted by toads exist, but the lack of ephemeral ponds limits their populations. The northern park staff in 2017 detected abundant NLEB calls. Further surveys could document cricket frog has been seen in river wetlands near Hastings and it may exist in local populations trends and inform measures to accommodate these species. the park. Painted turtles have been documented near the park, although the park Hibernacula suitability, habitat quality, and effects of white-nose syndrome on the lacks sufficient clear streams and open water to provide habitat for a variety of park’s cave dwelling bats would be important wildlife management information turtles. since many bat species are in drastic decline in Minnesota. Insects The park provides suitable habitats for small mammals including pocket gophers, Prairie restoration has improved habitat for insects, especially pollinators, ground squirrels, shrews, voles and mice, which are prey for raptors and larger which have been declining due to habitat loss and agricultural pesticide use. furbearers. Abundant local prey near suitable resting/denning sites favors Park prairies can provide habitat for the rusty patched bumblebee (Federally furbearers, including fisher and badger. Fishers are indicators of quality habitat Endangered). The park is within the federally-designated Primary Dispersal Zone and have been identified through trail camera surveys within the park. They use for conservation of this bumblebee. The park’s prairie and forest edges support structurally complex forest habitats with mature forest features, which are found Monarch butterflies, which also have declined and are under consideration in the park. for protection by the US Fish and Wildlife Service for 2020. Monarchs rely on milkweed, found throughout the park’s open areas. Additional prairie restoration Park deer populations fluctuate and are influenced by the population on lands and maintenance are needed to enrich pollinator diversity. surrounding the park. When park populations are elevated and/or potential exists for increased in-migration from outside of the park, park managers authorize Rare Wildlife Species annual deer control hunting. Keeping deer populations under control allows for The 2015-2025 MN DNR Minnesota Wildlife Action Plan emphasizes wildlife vegetation regeneration in the park and ensures that habitat is provided for many species of greatest conservation need (SGCN). These species, habitats, or other species. populations are at risk of declining within a significant portion of their range. Associated SGCN habitats are typically rare or declining due to farming and Bison development. SGCN can also include those species whose populations are stable Bison do not exist in the park but likely had roamed the area prior to Euro- within Minnesota but are declining is a significant portion of their range outside of American settlement. Grazing by indigenous species like bison and natural the state.
EXISTING CONDITIONS Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 54 NATURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY
U.S. Lock & U.S. Lock & U.S. Lock & U.S. Lock & Dam #2 Pool Dam #2 Pool Dam #2 Pool Dam #2 Pool
Spring Spring Spring Spring Lake Lake Lake Lake 42 456742 456742 4567 456742
42 456742 456742 4567 456742 2 2 S 2 S S 2 C C S C R R
:
R C :
r : r R e r
e : s e r s s U e U
s
U
d d U x d
x x d m . m x . m e . e r m e r . r u e u t u t r x t x u e x t e T e x T
l
T e i l
i l T i o
o l S o i S
S 55 o - 55 - 55 S
-
X 55 X -
X
e
e r X e r r u u e u r g i g i g u F i F \ g F \ i s \ s t F s t \ r t r s r o t o o r p p e p o e e R p R \ R e \ s \
s 42 R
s 42 p 4567 \ 42 p 4567 a p s 4567
a 42 a
p 4567 M M a \ M \ 6 \ M 6 6 1 \ 1 4 1 6 4 4 1 1 1 \ 1 4 \ \ 9 1 9 1 9 55 \ 1
\ 55 1 9 55 \ 3 \ 1 3 55 55 3 2 55 \
2 55 \ 2 3 \
s 55 \ s 2 t s t \ c t c s e c t j e j e c j o 42 o 42 e o 42 4567 4567 j P r
4567 P r o
\ 42
P r 85 : \ 85
: 4567 I \ 85 4567 I : P r 4567 :
I 4567 \ :
85 : e :
I 4567 l e
i l e : i l F i e F
l
F i 1
1 F 1 3
: The Unified soil classification system (USCS) classifies mineral Spring Lake Park Clay of Low Plasticity - Silt 3
: The Unified soil classification system (USCS) classifies mineral 3 Spring Lake Park C1 lay of Low Plasticity - Silt 0 : Spring Lake Park Clay of Low Plasticity - Silt The Unified soil classification system (USCS) classifies mineral 0 3 0 1 Figure 3.9 Soil textures found across the park : Spring Lake Park Clay of Low Plasticity - Silt The Unified soil classification system (USCS) classifies mineral 1
1
0 and organic mineral soils for engineering purposes on the basis 8 and organic mineral soils for engineering purposes on the basis 8
and organic mineral soils for eng1 ineering purposes on the basis 8
- 2 USCS Clay of Low Plasticity and organic mineral soils for engineering purposes on the basis 8 - 2 USCS Clay of Low Plasticity
0 of particle-size characteristics, liquid limit, and plasticity index. - 2 USCS Clay of Low Plasticity 0 N of particle-size characteristics, liquid limit, and plasticity index.
0 of particle-size characteristics, liquid limit, and plasticity index. - 2 USCS Clay of Low PlasNticity
- 1 N
; 0 of particle-size characteristics, liquid limit, and plasticity index. - 1 !
9 !; - 1 N
!; 9 9 1
- 1 SOIL TEXTURE
1 !; SOIL TEXTURE Silty Gravel Peat 0 1 Silty Gravel Pe9 at SOIL TEXTURE Silty Gravel Peat 0 0 2 1 The various groupings of this classification correlate in a SOIL TEXTURE 2 The various groupings of this classification correlate in a , Silty Gravel Peat
2 0
, The various groupings of this classification correlate in a
0 500 1,000 1,500 , 1
2 0 500 1,000 1,500 . 1 ThSe pvrairniogus Lgarkoeup Pinagsr kof this classification correlate in a
0 500 1,000 1,500 . 1 , Spring Lake Park . 7 general way with the engineering behavior of soils. This Spring Lake Park . 0 500 1,000 1,500 Silty Sand 7 general way with the engineering behavior of soils. This 1 . 7 Silty Sagnedneral way with the enginee. ring behavior of soils. This . Silty Sand 0 Spring Lake Park 0
7 general way with the engineering behavior of soils. This 1 0 . Silty Sand 1 correlation provides a useful first step in any field or laboratory
1 0 correlation provides a useful first step in any field or laRborsaetomry ount, MN S correlation provides a useful first step in any field or laboratory Rosemount, MN S I Feet 1 Rosemount, MN I S Feet correlation provides a useful first step in any field or laboratory I G Clayey Sand Feet Rosemount, MN S G Clayey Sand investigation for engineering purposes. It can serve to make I c G Clayey Sand Feeitnvestigation for engineering purposes. It can serve to make c r investigation for engineering purposes. It can serve to make c r G Clayey Sand r A investigation for engineering purposes. It can serve to make c A
: r
A some general interpretations relating to probable performance :
some general interpretations relating to probable performance r
: some general interpretations relating to probable performance r A e r Clayey Sand - Silty Sand : e some general interpretations relating to probable performance t Clayey Sand - Silty Sand e t Clayey Sand - Silty Sand r of the soil for engineering uses. t o of the soil for engineering uses. e o of the soil for engineering uses. Clayey Sand - Silty Sand o t o o
F of the soil for engineering uses. o o F
F r o
r
r Silt F r
r Silt
a
r Silt a r FIGURE X a B
r Silt FIGURE X
B FIGURE X B a FIGURE X 55 Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 B DAKOTA COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE NATURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY
Prairie restoration has expanded park habitats since the 2003 plan. Other ECOLOGICAL QUALITY habitats have degraded due to a lack of fire and the encroachment of invasive A. High Quality - Important to Protect and Preserve. Highest quality plant species. Undisturbed habitat is critical for many species. Limiting development communities with less than five percent invasive plant species and little or no in the central portion of the park would protect existing habitats. Other habitats evidence of human disturbances such as logging, grazing, or soil compaction. could be restored to host wildlife species. See Chapter 5: Stewardship Plans for These communities should be preserved and any disturbance such as trail recommendations for habitat regeneration. placement should be undertaken with extreme care. Monitor for invasive species and control as they establish. CURRENT PLANT COMMUNITIES Natural resource field investigations were conducted in summer, 2019 to review B. Degraded Remnant Native Plant Communities - Excellent Potential for the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) data, assess plant Restoration to Enhance Biodiversity. Natural communities showing signs of community ecological quality, and evaluate other issues such as erosion, soil disturbance since Euro-American settlement, but are still clearly recognizable as degradation and invasive species. native plant communities. Invasive species encroachment is currently low (5- 50 percent). Primary natural disturbances such as intentional burning and mob Figure 3.11 highlights the ecological communities of the park today. The park has grazing by bison have been suppressed in recent times. These areas should be evolved from an oak savanna pre-settlement landscape to forest, aided by fire carefully managed to avoid further damage. Native plant community restoration is suppression and elimination of elk and bison. Although most of the original oak highly feasible. savanna has degraded to forest, more than 200 acres of agricultural land has been restored to prairie since 1995. C. Lowest Quality Native Plant Community - Require Aggressive Stewardship to Increase Plant Diversity, Wildlife, and Aesthetic Value. Sites that were highly Native plant community restoration projects since 1995: disturbed by a previous land uses such as clearing and over grazing, with very • 2015, Plateau Prairie and Woodland Restoration low plant species diversity. Shrub and/or groundcover layers are dominated by • 2014, Mississippi River Flyway Restoration invasive species (>50 percent), with low diversity of native plant species. Natural • 2014 & 2016, Archery Range Restoration processes have been altered by soil tilling or compaction, fire suppression, or • 2012, Prairie near Maintenance Shop altered hydrology. The community may not resemble any naturally occurring • 2010 – 2011, Church’s Woods by FMR. community as described by the MN DNR Natural Heritage Database. In forested • 2010, Prairie south of the previously planted Youth Lodge prairie areas, mid-story and ground layers are primarily invasive species. Grasslands are • 2009-2010, Prairie around the Gathering Center dominated by non-native cool season grasses with minimal wildflower diversity • 2003, Prairie east of the Youth Lodge off of Pine Bend Trail and abundance. These communities are restorable, but a greater effort is required • 1995, Prairie by the Youth Lodge to restore native plant diversity. These areas are the most appropriate for trails and recreational features.
EXISTING CONDITIONS Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 56 NATURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY
Figure 3.10 Natural Resource Inventory—Existing Ecological Communities
57 Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 DAKOTA COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE NATURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY
Figure 3.11 Ecological Communities Ranking
EXISTING CONDITIONS Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 58 EXISTING PARK CONDITIONS
OVERVIEW SUMMARY PARK LOCATION FACILITY / AMENITY DESCRIPTION YEAR BUILT Spring Lake Park Reserve is a linear park atop the Mississippi River bluffs, with facilities serving a Upper Schaar’s Bluff Gathering Center 3,500 sq ft, gathering space for 75, 2008 range of public recreation needs. The park has two lobby with interpretation, kitchen, and restrooms. Net-zero-energy distinctively-defined program areas: Upper Spring building. Lake Park Reserve (Schaar’s Bluff) and Lower Spring Lower Camp Spring Lake Retreat Center Overnight , 4-season facility. 1994 Lake Park Reserve (West Trailhead). The Mississippi Lodge, 10 group-campsite, outdoor River Greenway (MRG) connects these two ends of the classroom. park. Lower Archery Picnic Shelter & Archery Restroom, parking, horseshoe pit, 1994 Trails grills, archery trails, capacity 150 PARK-WIDE ASSESSMENT Upper East Picnic Shelter (Small) Capacity of 150 people, electricity, 1980 Issues and opportunities identified at the park scale grills, restrooms, picnic tables, relate to circulation and connectivity, recreation parking, fire pit offerings, and outdoor education. Upper West Picnic Shelter (Large) Capacity of 80 people; electricity, 1986 grills, restrooms, picnic tables, CIRCULATION & CONNECTIVITY parking, fire pit Issues Upper Community Garden Plots 66-0 by 30 foot plots 1980 • Unpaved trails are not intuitively laid out, limited Upper Playground Play Equipment, seating, sandbox 1996 in distance, and subject to erosion. Upper Sand Volleyball Courts 1996 • Park boundaries are difficult to discern and Throughout Mississippi River Trail 5.4 miles with bridge crossings, 2015 signage indicating private properties is limited. Park overlooks, seating • Public interest in expanding trails and Throughout Softscape Trails 9 miles of trails 1972 recreational uses (mountain biking) raises Park concerns about vegetation loss and compositional Upper Overlooks Located on the MRT, interpretive 2015 changes, soil compaction, erosion, and disruption signage of wildlife. Upper, via Hilary DNR Boat Launch not available • The MRG is the only means traveling the full Path length of the park. Lower Water Trail Small watercraft water trail Established • There is a lack of clear wayfinding and traversing the Spring Lake Islands 2012 orientation associated with trail use, especially in Upper SLPR. Trailheads and access points are not Table 3.1 Spring Lake Park Reserve Facility Inventory
59 Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 DAKOTA COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE EXISTING PARK CONDITIONS
UPPER SLPR ENLARGEMENT PLAN 1 PICNIC AREA
SCHAAR’S BLUFF GATHERING CENTER MRG
OVERLOOK LOWER SLPR ENLARGEMENT PLAN 3 DNR BOAT ARCHERY PAVILION SPRING LAKE LAUNCH
CAMP SPRING LAKE RETREAT CENTER MIDDLE SLPR ENLARGEMENT PLAN 2
MRG
.25. 5 mi
Private Inholding Mississippi River Bluff Impact Zone Buildings Park Boundary Mississippi River Greenway Unpaved Trail Figure 3.12 Existing Conditions Map
EXISTING CONDITIONS Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 60 EXISTING PARK CONDITIONS
clearly identified nor is trail experience linking • Nonmotorized watercraft or bike rentals to help east and west sections of soft-surfaced trails in people enjoy the park. Upper SLPR. • Expanded camping opportunities. • A year-round facility to support winter recreation. Opportunities • Expand the unpaved trail network to create OUTDOOR EDUCATION summer and winter loops for day users and Issues events such as cross country running and cross- • Outdoor education programs are limited by low country ski meets. capacity facilities and visitation levels. • Create loops that connect to the MRG to expand • Lake and River access is limited, which limits the east-west park connections. ability to hold water focused programs. • Clarify the park boundary through identity, • Self-guided interpretation is limited to the wayfinding, and branding. Schaar’s Bluff area and signs on the MRG Trail. • Use the park’s proximity to Hastings as an asset • Significant historic and cultural resources are not and programming opportunity. interpreted or accessible to the public. • Connect the MRG to other trails outside the park • Services that appeal to under-represented in the future to increase park visitation. communities are lacking.
RECREATION Opportunities Issues • Year-round outdoor education. • Public river access is limited and the park lacks • Expanded outdoor education programs for adults swimming and shore fishing. focused on birds, photography and history. • Four-season recreation is limited: ski trails are • Close proximity to Hastings provides short and the park has no warming house or opportunities for partnerships. changing facility. • Interpretation celebrating cultural and natural • The park does not offer equipment rental to features in an integrated way. support trail use and water access. • More interactive and tactile interpretive features • Camping opportunities are limited to group to reach youth or others with limited ability to offerings at Camp Spring Lake Retreat Center. read the existing signs. • Spring Lake not suitable for larger boats as it is • Expanding interpretation that appeals to more very shallow. diverse populations and under-represented Opportunities groups
61 Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 DAKOTA COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE EXISTING PARK CONDITIONS
UNPAVED TRAILS
MRG PICNIC AREA
SCHAAR’S BLUFF Parking Lot- complex entry Entry Lawn- large gathering, GATHERING CENTER with two disconnected lots, view of river divides the site
127th St E Idell Ave
OVERLOOK
DNR BOAT Schaar’s Bluff Gathering East Shelter LAUNCH Center- bathrooms, office, 6 picnic tables storage
INHOLDING
MRG Shelter Playground Horseshoes Park Boundary Tall Grass Prairie Bike Trailhead Picnic Area Fire Ring Mississippi River Greenway Short Grasses Restrooms Volleyball (Sand Court) Archery Farmland Retreat Center i Information Center Inholding Developed Area West Shelter Playground Woodlands Figure 3.13 Upper Spring Lake Park Reserve Enlargement Plan, Existing Conditions 10 picnic tables nearing the end of life span
EXISTING CONDITIONS Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 62 EXISTING PARK CONDITIONS
UPPER SPRING LAKE PARK kitchen space, refrigeration and food staging areas). This area, commonly known as Schaar’s Bluff, offers the most amenities and is » Underground utilities run through use areas at Schaar’s Bluff, which may most heavily-used by visitors. Amenities include Schaar’s Bluff Gathering Center, limit alterations and uses. picnic shelters, a playground, sand volleyball courts, community garden plots, • Playground MRG trailhead, an overlook, benches, fire pits, an interpretive cultural trail, and » Built in 1996, the playground is reaching end of life. It is becoming more picnic tables and grills. Issues and opportunities follow. difficult to source replacement parts. Recent improvements will likely last 5 more years. Issues » The playground is far from the picnic pavilions and offers little shade. • Park Entry: » The parking lot separates the picnic area from the playground and » The parking lot separates the picnic area from the playground and gathering center. gathering center, limiting visual and physical connectivity between two • District Maintenance Facility / Former Schaar’s Farm: primary amenities. » Currently fenced off, the maintenance facility is disconnected from park » The entry drive sequence from 127th St East to Schaar’s Bluff causes facilities. confusion with two disconnected parking lots. » Maintenance facilities will relocate to an off-site location within 10 years. • Bluff fence is visually bulky and in need of repair. • DNR Boat Launch: • Schaar’s Bluff Gathering Center: a gathering and event space that holds » Open for public use but difficult to access via Hillary Path, which is 80 people, with a small office, storage, rear loading area, lobby with minimally maintained and heavily eroded. In addition, the water near the interpretation, serving kitchen, and restrooms. boat launch is shallow with unpredictable currents and abundant snags. » As a trailhead, it lacks expected provisions such as maps, orientation and program information. Opportunities » The office is very small and windowless, a limitation to staffing and a • Updating picnic shelters to align with current standards and increase use. safety concern. • With maintenance relocation, the barn, silo and outbuildings could be re- » The facility is only open by reservation, and does not serve park visitors purposed with new program opportunities. on a consistent basis. • Redesigning the entry drive and parking lot sequence would result in a more » Rentable space is small, accommodating up to 80 people. intuitive and an aesthetically pleasing arrival experience. » The building is not suited to hosting events and serving the general public as it lacks a dedicated dressing room or mother’s room (for weddings), MIDDLE SPRING LAKE PARK and kitchen amenities for catering are limited. The center of the park is maintained for natural resources and the Mississippi • Picnic Area: East and West Picnic shelters, for up to 150 and 80 people River Greenway (MRG). respectively. Both shelters have electricity with nearby restrooms and drinking water. Issues » Shelters are outdated, limited in the range of sizes offered, and do not • The park middle is dedicated primarily to natural resources, lacks amenities, provide contemporary amenities (drinking fountains/jug filler, serving and is only accessible by the MRG.
63 Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 DAKOTA COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE EXISTING PARK CONDITIONS
INHOLDING
MRG BIKE BRIDGE
MRG MRG MRG trail construction created small gathering and significant cut and fill interpretation stops along it
Wetland and Springs Spring Lake
Shelter Playground Horseshoes Park Boundary Tall Grass Prairie Bike Trailhead Picnic Area Fire Ring Mississippi River Greenway Short Grasses Restrooms Volleyball (Sand Court) Archery Farmland Retreat Center i Information Center Inholding Developed Area Woodlands Wetland Figure 3.14 Middle Spring Lake Park Reserve Enlargement Plan, Existing Conditions Floodplain Woodlands MRG Bike Bridge
EXISTING CONDITIONS Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 64 EXISTING PARK CONDITIONS
• The MRG bisects the park into two long, thin halves, reducing adjacent habitat Opportunities quality. • Bud’s Landing is well-suited for river access and new facilities. • There are no soft surface trails in the center of the park, which limits hiking, • Expanding partnerships and marketing with the YMCA. snowshoeing, and trail running opportunities. • Adding river activities for older campers. • Partnering with the Rotary Club for small boat fishing excursions. Opportunities • Updating the archery picnic shelter to County standards. • Introduce a mid-point destination along the MRG with a restroom facility or • Partnering with regional bow shops on 3D targets and archery events. other amenities to expand use of the trail for shorter distances. • Providing bow and broadhead target rentals to expand audience and increase • Add a soft surface trail to the center of the park to provide access to the use. natural areas and to connect the existing soft surface trails in the upper and • Increasing trail access and views to river. lower park. • Expanding camping opportunities with cart-in, bike-in, and canoe in-in • Increase river views. primitive camping. • LOWER SPRING LAKE PARK Lower Spring Lake Park includes: Camp Spring Lake Park Retreat Center, campground facilities, MRG trailhead, archery trail, picnic shelter, Bud’s Landing (a seasonal waterfowl hunting water access point), and fire pits.
Issues • Camp Spring Lake Retreat Center and Camp Ground: has overnight accommodations, four-season facility for up to 50 people, 10 group campsites, outdoor classroom, and amphitheater. » Outdoor fire pits need light repair. » The facility is exclusively rented during summer months by the YMCA for a summer camp, excluding public use. • Archery Picnic Shelter: capacity of 150, restrooms, horseshoe pit, grills. » The shelter is outdated and does not meet new County standards. • Archery Trail: various target distances along a prairie and forest trail. » The archery trail is underused. » The archery trail is open to the public, with potential for user conflicts. • Parking: gravel road with 90-degree parking spaces. » Paving material may present challenges to increased traffic and opportunities for expanded program offerings.
65 Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 DAKOTA COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE EXISTING PARK CONDITIONS
ARCHERY TRAIL
ARCHERY PAVILION
PROPOSED COMPLETION OF THE MRG
CAMP SPRING LAKE BUD’S LANDING MRG RETREAT CENTER Entry Signage Parking Lot archery trail rules & fees, compacted gravel paybox
Archery Shelter Horseshoes
Fahey Ave 9 tables, bathrooms, & grill adjacent to picnic tables & shelter
Shelter Playground Horseshoes Park Boundary Tall Grass Prairie Bike Trailhead Picnic Area Fire Ring Mississippi River Greenway Short Grasses Restrooms Volleyball (Sand Court) Archery Farmland Retreat Center i Information Center Inholding Developed Area Archery Station Archery Signage Woodlands wood structure identifies targets & shoot Figure 3.15 Lower Spring Lake Park Reserve Enlargement Plan, Existing Conditions distance
EXISTING CONDITIONS Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 66 EXISTING OUTDOOR EDUCATION & EVENTS
OVERVIEW and expanded trail networks for trail-based activities Spring Lake Park Reserve is popular for birding and running meets. and nature programs, from wildflower walks to owl banding. Self-guided interpretive opportunities tell PARTNERSHIPS the stories of the land and people who have lived on Dakota County partners with a diverse group of it for thousands of years. The park has hosted small national, regional, and local organizations, including: trail running events held by outside organizations Hastings Park and Recreation, AARP, Boy Scouts, Girl with County assistance. In 2017 and 2019, the park Scouts, Carpenter Nature Center, REI, Surly, ECFE, the offered popular Candlelight Walk events. National Park Service, and local art organizations. These partnerships create ongoing opportunities to Examples of past park events include a community expand program offerings that reach a broader range music festival, high school cross-country meets and of communities and interest groups in the region. a kite flying festival. These events have stopped for various reasons, including disruptions caused by the MRG construction, noncompetitive rental fees, and inconsistent participant turn-out.
OUTDOOR EDUCATION PROGRAMS Stakeholders, community members, and staff have voiced interest in expanding the park’s education program offerings. Family nature nights, ski lessons, school field trips, adult nature-inspired craft classes and nature-based birthday parties are popular at other County parks and could be expanded to Spring Lake Park Reserve. The 2017 Visitor Services Plan identified to expand outdoor education programs. Additional recreation programs could be introduced if the necessary supporting facilities and amenities are identified as priorities. These include paddling programs, warming space to support winter activities, Trails by Candlelight Event, 2017
67 Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 DAKOTA COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Drawn from the park assessments; service area 5. The park’s natural resources are degraded by demographics; recreation trends; community forces outside the park boundary, including engagement; and input from staff, elected officials, erosion, water contamination, and viewshed Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, and key interruptions. Working with landowners on stakeholders; the following key considerations inform best management practices, considering river the park vision, guiding principles, and development management, and conducting view analyses can concepts in the following chapter. protect the park’s natural resources. 6. As a reserve required to maintain 80 percent 1. The park is a unique cultural and natural of its land for natural resources, there is great Restored Prairie, 2019 landscape with great experiential potential. potential in outdoor education that focuses on the Celebrating the park’s unique natural resources park’s diverse plant communities. while honoring its cultural significance to 7. The park could accommodate a greater range Indigenous people can create a singular of visit lengths, from short visits for families destination. to overnight trips. Expanding camping can 2. The park is not well known. Building partnerships serve local visitors and improve the park as a across national, state, regional and community destination for those traveling farther. organizations can diversify programming, expand 8. Highlighting the park’s cultural, natural, and visitation, focus the park’s identity on its natural recreational assets will increase the appeal of and cultural assets, and improve branding. the park as a unique regional destination. Church’s Woods, 2019 3. The park is on the Mississippi River but has limited connectivity to water. Improving the physical connection to the river will increase opportunities for education, interpretation, and recreation to reach more diverse users. 4. Visitors appreciate the trails, but recreational uses are limited. Expanding the unpaved trail network can improve the visitor experience and support more trail activities including snowshoeing, shorter family hikes, and nature walks. Bremer Village Site, 2019
EXISTING CONDITIONS Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 68 CHAPTER 4: VISION & GUIDING PRINCIPLES VISION AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES
OVERVIEW AND PURPOSE GUIDING PRINCIPLES The Vision Statement and Guiding Principles set the stage for concept 1. Protect, restore, enhance, and maintain natural resources. Respect Spring development and initiatives. The Vision describes what the park will be in the Lake Park as a “reserve” with a maximum development footprint of 20% of future while the Guiding Principles suggest how the park will achieve that vision. the park land. Ensure natural resources are enhanced as of new recreational and educational programming is introduced. VISION STATEMENT Spring Lake Park Reserve showcases the ecological and cultural integrity of the 2. Create an engaging gateway to the treasures of the Mississippi River Valley. land to provide a regional destination where visitors can experience the integral Preserve and enhance existing habitat for birds and wildlife, preserve bluff relationship between humans and the landscape. views, and give visitors an opportunity to access and experience one of the greatest regional and national assets.
3. Become a regional, four-season destination. Develop programming and facilities that are welcoming to visitors of all ages and abilities throughout all four seasons. Connect to the regional tourism network.
4. Celebrate the area’s rich cultural heritage. Maximize educational opportunities to tell the past, present and future stories of the park’s cultural and ecological assets.
5. Integrate ecological, cultural, educational and recreational experience. Consider innovative approaches to integrate recreational and educational activities with resource preservation and protection for a more connected park. Strengthen connectivity through the park to increase access and provide for more diverse experiences.
6. Provide inclusive, memorable, and relevant experiences for all. Improve the quality and types of access to the unique features of Spring Lake Park Reserve. Create a park that is welcoming to people of all abilities, races, and backgrounds.
View of the Mississippi River from the shores of Spring Lake Park Reserve
VISION & GUIDING PRINCIPLES Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 70 CHAPTER 5: MASTER PLAN LONG TERM CONCEPT PLAN
UPPER PARK - SCHAAR’S BLUFF THE FARM EVENT SPACE + OBSERVATION TOWER* EXISTING EAST *PHASED AS PART OF THE ISLAND CAMPING TRAILHEAD LONG-TERM PLAN)
EXISTING SCHAAR’S BLUFF GATHERING CENTER LOWER PARK - MISSISSIPPI DISCOVERY ZONE THE MILL RIVER USE AREA OVERLOOK MRG TO HASTINGS HUMPHREY POINT EXISTING WEST TRAILHEAD
GROUP CAMPSITES @ LEGEND EXISTING RETREAT CENTER park boundary current inholdings CAMPING AREA WATER TRAIL TO ISLAND CAMPING bluff impact zone RIVER LANDING woodland area USE AREA prairie area savanna area bison range INTERPRETIVE CENTER* buildings MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND BISON roads INTERPRETATION RAVINE accessible park trails *PHASED AS PART OF THE OVERLOOK soft-surface park trails MRG TO ST. PAUL LONG-TERM PLAN TERRACE multi purpose field OVERLOOK play area community gardens HILARY PATH 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 P 0 750 1,500 3,000 parking
Figure 5.2 Site-wide Concept Plan, Long-Term Development Plan
75 Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 DAKOTA COUNTY SPRING LAKE PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE LONG TERM DEVELOPMENT PLAN UPPER SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE- SCHAAR’S BLUFF
EXISTING PICNIC GROUND IMPROVEMENTS replace existing large with modern reservation shelter (150-person) replace existing small with modern reservation shelter (100-person) update restrooms 3 new small non-reservation sun shelters
NATURE THEMED PLAYGROUND & NATURE PLAY AREA relocated playground after existing equipment reaches end of life MRG TO HASTINGS reconfigure parking
EXISTING EVENT LAWN LEGEND park boundary SCHAAR’S BLUFF GATHERING CENTER current inholdings public trailhead bluff impact zone welcome desk woodland area equipment rentals prairie area staff office space FUTURE FARM savanna area USE AREA bison range part of the long- buildings term vision THE MILL RIVER USE AREA roads riverside use area (no vehicle access) accessible park trails interpretive site proposed soft-surface trails WATER TRAIL TO ISLAND small general use shelter CAMPING fishing dock multi purpose field day use boat landing play area vaulted restroom or portable community gardens existing MRG trail EXISTING COMMUNITY GARDENS i interpretive feature overlook play area sand volleyball EXISTING DNR BOAT LAUNCH archery IMPROVEMENTS picnic shelter remove when the River Landing Use area outdoor classroom launch is complete amphitheater camping bison range ACCESSIBLE PATH TO MILL SITE water access point ALONG HILARY PATH fishing pier 350 700 1,400 P parking
Figure 5.4 Upper Park / Schaar’s Bluff Enlargement, Long-Term Development Plan MASTER PLAN Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 78 LONG TERM DEVELOPMENT PLAN LOWER SPRING LAKE PARK RESERVE - MISSISSIPPI DISCOVERY ZONE
HUMPHREY POINT EXISTING ARCHERY TRAIL RIVER OVERLOOK EXISTING WEST TRAILHEAD WATER TRAIL TO ISLAND CAMPING TREE RIVER-ORIENTED CAMPSITES CANOPY 8-16 hike-in campsites WALK vault restrooms + water EXPERIENCE EXISTING RETREAT CENTER RIVER LANDING USE AREA youth lodge realigned access road 3-5 group camp sites fishing dock/water lab amphitheater small shaded outdoor classroom/picnic vault restrooms + water shelter picnic tables outdoor storage boat launch (small watercraft) pull-through (boat trailer) and day use parking vault toilet/restrooms
FUTURE GROUP MRG TO ST. PAUL CABINS long-term PRAIRIE LAB interactive / experimental restoration experience TERRACE REST STOP proposed interpretive node
CONTINUOUS TRAIL FUTURE soft-surface trail INTERPRETIVE interpretive rest stop CENTER long-term vision
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 accessible park trails picnic shelter proposed soft-surface trails sun shelter / rest stop MRG Trail 350 700 1,400 existing soft-surface trail Figure 5.7 Lower Mississippi Discovery Zone Enlargement, Long-Term Plan MASTER PLAN Preliminary Draft 11/12/20 84