Isanti County Parks and Recreation Plan (PDF)

Home , Interstate Park, Lake Maria State Park, Saint Croix State Park

IsantI County Parks & r eCreatIon Plan ISANTI COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION

FINAL REPORT JANUARY, 2008

PREPARED BY THE CENTER FOR RURAL DESIGN, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Isanti County Parks and Recreation Plan Study Team Members/Roles: Principal Investigator: Dewey Thorbeck, Director, Center for Rural Design Center for Rural Design Team Members: Steve Roos, Senior Research Fellow Tracey Sokolski, Research Fellow

Steering Committee Members: Bill Carlson, Co-Chair Joe Crocker, Co-Chair Maureen Johnson, Secretary Bonita Torpe Carol Urness George Larson George Wimmer Heidi Eaves Joan Lenzmeier Larae Klocksien Maurie Anderson Myrl Moran Steve Nelson Tom Pagel Wayne Anderson Dennis Olson

Acknowledgements: This project could not have been accomplished without the cooperation and knowledge of the Isanti County Steering Committee. In addition, we owe thanks to the Isanti County Parks and Recreation Commission especially Co-Chair Bill Carlson, Co-Chair Joe Crocker and Secretary Maureen Johnson for facilitating the Committee’s work and the community workshops.

January 2008 Center for Rural Design College of Design and College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resources Sciences University of Minnesota t aBle oF Contents

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION Pg. 9

SECTION 2: RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES IN ISANTI COUNTY Pg. 19

SECTION 3: GOALS AND POLICIES Pg. 85

SECTION 4: PLANNING AND ACQUISITION Pg. 97

SECTION 5: FINANCIAL SUPPORT Pg. 109

SECTION 6: BENEFITS Pg. 115

SECTION 7: NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Isanti County MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION Pg. 121

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: REFERENCES & ABBREVIATIONS Pg. 125

APPENDIX B: TREND DATA Pg. 129

APPENDIX C: SYNOPSIS OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT Pg. 133

ADDENDUM 1: ISANTI COUNTY PARKS AND BIKE PATH MASTER PLAN

Parks Plan 2008 1 InDeX o F FIGures

Figure 1. Image of Isanti County’s Rural Figure 12. Isanti County Recreation/Open Character, Carol Urness. 2006. Space Sites with County or Regional Significance, CRD, 2007. Figure 2. Isanti County Context Map, CRD, 2007. Figure 13. Isanti County Park Map, Isanti County, 2007. Figure 3. Northern County Population Projections, Regional Parks for Figure 14. Not Used. Minnesota’s New Urban Areas, Orning and Wietecki, 2007. Figure 15. Not Used. Figure 4. Isanti County Household Figure 16. Anoka-Isanti County Game Refuge, Projections, U.S. Census, 2000. Cedar Creek Natural History Area and Cedar Creek Forest Reserve, Center for Rural Design, Figure 5. Isanti County Ecology Context 2007. Map, CRD, 2007. Figure 17. Dalbo Wildlife Management Area, Figure 6. 2007 Isanti County Parkland Center for Rural Design, 2007. Per 1000 People, CRD, 2007. Figure 18. Cranberry Wildlife Management Figure 7a. 2030 Parkland Acres Based Area, Center for Rural Design, 2007. on 2007 County Parkland Per 1000 People CRD, 2007. Figure 19. Dobe Wildlife Management Area, AMA, Center for Rural Design, 2007. Figure 7b. Parkland Acres Needed for 2030 Population, CRD, 2007. Figure 20. Spectacle Lake Wildlife Management Area, AMA, Center for Rural Figure 8a. Existing Park Space for Design, 2007. Metropolitan Ring Counties Graph, Data based from Regional Parks for Figure 21. Crooked Road Wildlife Minnesota’s New Urban Areas, Orning Management Area, Center for Rural Design, and Wietecki, 2007. Altered by Steve 2007. Nelson, Isanti County. Figure 22. Marget Lake Management Area, Figure 8b. Acreage Needed per Metro Center for Rural Design, 2007. Ring County to Meet 25 Acres per 1000 People, Data based from Regional Figure 23. Athens Wildlife Management Area, Parks for Minnesota’s New Urban Areas, Center for Rural Design, 2007. Isanti County Orning and Wietecki, 2007. Altered by Steve Nelson, Isanti County. Figure 24. Shubring Wildlife Management Area, Center for Rural Design, 2007. Figure 9. Project Approach and Time line, CRD, 2007. Figure 25. Rice Creek Wildlife Management Area, Sanders Wacker Wehrman Bergly, Inc., Figure 10. Image of Public Workshop 1995. One, Tracey Sokolski, 2007. Figure 26. German Lake Game Refuge & Figure 11. Regional Recreational School Trust Land, Sanders Wacker Wehrman Opportunities for Isanti County, CRD, Bergly, Inc., 1995. 2007. 2 Parks Plan 2008 Figure 27. Elizabeth Lake Game Refuge, Braham, 2007. Sanders Wacker Wehrman Bergly, Inc., 1995. Figure 44. City of Cambridge Park Figure 28. Isanti County Recreation / Open Space Site with County or Regional Funding Chart, City of Cambridge, 2007. Significance Table Continued, Center for Rural Design, 2007. Figure 45. Not. Used Figure 29. Recreation / Open Space Sites Figure 46. Becklin Homestead Park / with Regional Significance, Sanders Wacker WMA Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Wehrman Bergly, Inc., 1995. Figure 47. Becklin Homestead Park / Figure 30. Walbo River Access, Sanders WMA Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Wacker Wehrman Bergly, Inc., 1995. Figure 48. Becklin Homestead Park / Figure 31. Isanti County Recreation / Open Space Sites with County or Regional WMA Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Significance, Center for Rural Design, 2007. Figure 48a. Becklin Homestead Park / Figure 32. Not Used. Wildlife Management Area, Hoisington Koegler Inc., 1995. Figure 33. Not Used. Isanti County Figure 48b. Dalbo Park Map, Hoisington Figure 34. Not Used. Koegler Inc., 1995. Figure 35. State School Trust Land, Trails & Figure 49. Dalbo Park Context Image, T. Waterways Lands, Sanders Wacker Wehrman Sokolski, 2007. Bergly, Inc., 1995. Figure 36. Not Used. Figure 50. Dalbo Park Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Figure 37. School Trust Land & Township Park (Use Deed) Land, Sanders Wacker Wehrman Figure 51. Not Used Bergly, Inc., 1995. Figure 52. Irving and John Anderson Figure 38. Isanti County Fairgrounds, Sanders Park Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Wacker Wehrman Bergly, Inc., 1995. Figure 53. Irving and John Anderson Figure 39. Snowmobile Trails, Sanders Wacker Park Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Wehrman Bergly, Inc., 1995. Figure 40. Isanti County - Parks Inventory Figure 54. Irving and John Anderson Table, Center Rural Design, 2007. Park Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Figure 41. City of Isanti Park Map, City of Figure 55. Hackberry Island Park Isanti Reserve Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Figure 42. City of Cambridge Parks, City of Cambridge, 2007. Figure 56. Hackberry Island Park Reserve Context Image, T. Sokolski, Figure 43. City of Braham Parks, City of 2007. Parks Plan 2008 3 Figure 57. Liberty Lake Park Context Figure 73. Vegsund Family County Park Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Figure 58. Liberty Lake Park Context Figure 74. Not Used. Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Figure 75. Wayside Prairie County Park Figure 59. Liberty Lake Park Context Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Figure 76. Wayside Prairie County Park Figure 60. Liberty Lake Park Context Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Figure 77. Wayside Prairie County Park Figure 61. Liberty Lake Park Context Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Figure 77a. Wayside Prairie County Park Map, Figure 62. Liberty Lake Park Context Hoisington Koegler Inc., 2005. Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Figure 78. Wayside Prairie County Park Figure 63. Springvale County Park Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Figure 79. Wayside Prairie County Park Figure 64. Springvale County Park Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Figure 80. Wayside Prairie County Park Figure 65. Springvale County Park Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Figure 81. Not Used. Figure 65a. Springvale Park Map, Hoisington Koegler Inc., 2005. Figure 82. Isanti County Park Fees Table, Steve Nelson, 2007. Figure 66. Springvale County Park Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Figure 83. Recreation Open Space Classification System, Sanders Wacker Figure 67. Springvale County Park Wehrman Bergly, Inc., 1995. Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Figure 84. Image of Isanti County Lake, Joe Figure 68. Springvale County Park Crocker, 2006. Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Figure 85. Image of Isanti County Roadscape, Figure 69. Springvale County Park Carol Urness, 2006. Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007.

Isanti County Figure 86. Natural Areas Map, Center for Figure 70. Not Used. Rural Design, 2006. Figure 71. Vegsund Family County Park Figure 87. Rural Character Map, Center for Entry Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Rural Design, 2006. Figure 72. Vegsund Family County Park Figure 88. Isanti County Parks and Recreation Limited Trails Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Planning Regions Map, Center for Rural Design, 2007. Figure 72a. Vegsund Family County Park Map, Ingraham Associates., 2004. Figure 89. Public Workshop One, Exercise 4: Proposed Corridor Facilities Graph, Center for Rural Design, 2007.

4 Parks Plan 2008 Figure 90. Public Workshop One, Exercise 4: Figure C12. Public Workshop Two -Con- Proposed Site Facilities Graph, Center for tinuum 1 - Team and Individual Results, Rural Design, 2007. CRD, 2007. Figure 91. Tools and Funding Sources for Park Figure C12a. Comprehensive Plan - Pub- Land Acquisition Excerpt, MFRC Landscape lic Meeting Input Questionnaire, Biko Program, Local Forestry Institution, 2007. Associates, 2007.

APPENDIX A Figure C13. Public Workshop Two -Con- tinuum 2 - Team and Individual Results, No Figures Used CRD, 2007.

APPENDIX B Figure C14. Public Workshop Two -Con- tinuum 3 - Team and Individual Results, Figure B1. Visitor Data Trend Graphs, Park CRD, 2007. and Planning Guidelines, Fogg, 1992. Figure C15. Public Workshop Two -Con- Figure B2. Visitor Data Trend Descriptions. tinuum 4 - Team and Individual Results, Park and Planning Guidelines, Fogg, 1992. CRD, 2007.

PPENDIX A C Figure C16. Image of Public Workshop Isanti County Two Participants, Tracey Sokolski, 2007. Figure C1. Project Approach and Time Line, CRD, 2007. Figure C17. Public Workshop Two -Po- tential Facilities Dot-macracy - Team and Figure C2. Image of Public Workshop One Individual Results, CRD, 2007. Participants, Tracey Sokolski. 2007. Figure C18. Image of Public Workshop Figure C3. Public Workshop One - Exercise One Two Participants, Tracey Sokolski, 2007. Results, CRD, 2007. Figure C19. County Commissioners Ques- Figure C4. Not Used tionnaire - Question One, CRD, 2007. Figure C5. Significant Natural Areas Map, Figure C20. County Commissioners Ques- CRD, 2007. tionnaire - Question Two, CRD, 2007. Figure C6. Significant Rural Character Areas Figure C21. County Commissioners Ques- Map, CRD, 2007. tionnaire - Question Three, CRD, 2007. Figure C7. Public Workshop One - Recreation Figure C22. Parks and Recreation Com- and Parks Plan Purpose, CRD, 2007. mission Questionnaire - Question One, CRD, 2007. Figure C8. Public Workshop One - Exercise 4, Existing Corridor Facilities, CRD, 2007. Figure C23. Parks and Recreation Com- Figure C9. Public Workshop One - Exercise 4, mission Questionnaire - Question Two, Proposed Corridor Facilities, CRD, 2007. CRD, 2007. Figure C10. Public Workshop One - Exercise 4, Existing Sites, CRD, 2007. Figure C24. Parks and Recreation Com- mission Questionnaire - Question Three, Figure C11. Public Workshop One - Exercise CRD, 2007. 4, Proposed Sites, CRD, 2007. Parks Plan 2008 5 Figure C25. Township Board’s Questionnaire - Question One, CRD, 2007. Figure C26. Township Board’s Questionnaire - Question Two, CRD, 2007. Figure C 27. Township Board’s Questionnaire - Question Three, CRD, 2007. Figure C28. Township Board’s Questionnaire - Question Four, CRD, 2007. Isanti County

6 Parks Plan 2008 e XeCutIVe s uMMary

The Isanti County Parks and Recreation Plan strives to protect and enhance the quality of life for the present and future. The Plan envisions both enjoyment of recreation areas and protection of significant features of the landscape for its residents. Primary to the success of the Parks Plan is collaboration within Isanti County jurisdictions (the county, cities and townships), adjoining counties, state and federal recreation and open space administrations. This plan was originally commissioned by the County Commissioners in 1970, then the Parks and Recreation Commission in 1995, to provide a framework for the identification and process of parkland acquisition. This 2007 update of the Isanti County Parks and Recreation Plan seeks to build on the success of the first and second plans and provide a community and administrative vision for parkland acquisition and development in Isanti County.

The community and administrative vision for the Parks Plan was developed through a joint partnership with Parks and Recreation Commission and Isanti County Active Living. The Parks and Recreation Commission’s role is to maintain, develop and obtain new acquisitions of parkland for the County. Isanti County Active Living is part of Active Living by Design (ALbD), a national advocacy group for the enhancement of built environments that seeks Isanti County to integrate healthy living choices. The joint beginnings of the Parks and Recreation Commission and Isanti County Active Living started with a similar interest in recreation and public space. The relationship developed through two efforts that are meant to be utilized together; the Isanti County Parks and Recreation Plan and the Isanti County Active Living Master Plan. The Isanti County Parks and Recreation Plan focuses on park property and the Active Living Master Plan focuses on trail connections between the cities of Isanti, Cambridge and Braham and the County parks.

The Isanti County Parks and Recreation Plan update was developed by the Isanti County Community with the help of the Center for Rural Design at the University of Minnesota and with the guidance of the Isanti County community Steering Committee, two public workshops, administrative questionnaires and web-based community engagement.

The preservation of Isanti County’s significant rural landscape areas are critical to providing clean air and water for future generations. Isanti County is among the first ring counties that surround the seven county metropolitan area and is currently facing higher than average rates of development stress in the southern half of the County. According to Orning and Wietecki in the 2007 “Regional Parks for Minnesota’s New Urban Areas”, development in rural areas is significantly different than in urban areas. Rural areas urbanize at a low density, consuming great areas of land in contrast to urban areas that develop compactly, utilizing less square footage of land. As such, rural development has a greater impact on the rural landscape. The Parks Plan identifies strategies for parkland Parks Plan 2008 7 acquisition and development to preserve and protect the Rum River, natural areas, and farmland.

Factors that contributed to the priorities, goals, statements and recommendations that are within this plan includes:

Population Growth- According to the 2000 US Census Isanti County’s population will increase by 35% by 2030. The seven county metro area’s population will increase by a million people by 2030.

Rising Land Prices- Increases in land prices are mostly due to consumer demand and minimally due to inflation. There is more willingness and desire of individuals to buy land in the country at higher prices. As a result, developers follow population demand and land speculation increases. The time to buy the cheapest land is now.

The Rate of Land Consumption vs. Development Density- Rural areas develop at a high rate of land consumption and at low density as compared to urban development.

Economic Development- Land values increase when the quality of life increases. By developing existing parkland and acquiring new land, more choices are available for residents and tourists.

Sense of Urgency- Isanti County is a collar county of the seven county metropolitan area with excellent transportation on I-35 and MN 65 for commuting. Since the metropolitan area and Isanti County are increasing in population, actions need to be taken now to preserve and protect the rural areas for tomorrow. Isanti County

Figure 1. Image of Isanti County’s Rural Character, Carol Urness. 2006. 8 Parks Plan 2008 IntroDuCtIon

The Isanti County Parks and Recreation Plan (Parks Plan) strives to protect and enhance the quality of life for the present and future. The Parks Plan envisions both enjoyment of recreation areas and protection of significant features of the landscape for its residents. The Parks Plan was commissioned by the Parks and Recreation Commission and is supported by Isanti County Active Living (ICAL). The Parks Plan aims to provide strategies for the development of existing County parks and the acquisition of new park land for the current and future generations. The Parks Plan was originally commissioned by the Parks and Recreation Commission in 1970, then in 1995 to provide a framework for the identification and acquisition of parkland. This 2007 update of the Parks Plan seeks to build on the progress of the second plan and provide a community and administrative vision for park land acquisition and development in the County. The previous Parks Plans were named “Recreation/Open Space System Plan.” The Parks Plan name changed “open space1” to “parks2” because the character of the land maybe open space but the County’s land holdings are considered and planned as parks. The Parks Plan update was developed by the Isanti County Community with the help of the Center for Rural Design at the University of Minnesota and with the guidance of the Isanti County Community Steering Committee (Steering Committee), two public workshops, administrative questionnaires and Isanti County web-based community engagement.

The preservation of Isanti County’s significant rural landscape areas are critical to providing clean air and water for future generations. Isanti County is among the first ring counties that surround the seven county metropolitan area and is currently facing higher than average rates of development stress, especially in the southern parts of the county. According to Orning and Wietecki in the 2007 “Regional Parks for Minnesota’s New Urban Areas”, development in rural areas is significantly different than in urban areas. Rural areas urbanize at a low density, consuming great areas of land in contrast to urban areas that develop compactly, utilizing less land. Rural development has a greater impact on the rural landscapes therefore, this report identifies strategies for parkland acquisition, development and the preservation and protection of the Rum River, natural areas, and farmland.

1. Open space is defined as undeveloped land that is protected from development by legislation (dictionary.com, 2007).

2. Parks are defined as an area of land, usually in a largely natural state, for the enjoyment of the public, having facilities for rest and recreation, often owned, set apart, and managed by a city, state, or nation (dictionary. com, 2007). Parks Plan 2008 9 ConteXt

Isanti County, Minnesota is located just north of the seven county metropolitan area, within the east central part of the State. Cambridge, Isanti and Braham are the major communities within the County. State Highways 65, 95 and 47 and Interstate 35 provide easy accessibility to and from the Twin Cities.

People are drawn to Isanti County for its forest-rich rural landscape, the acclaimed Rum River and undulating hills of the Anoka Sand Plain. The wealth of open space, vitality of small town life and abundance of recreation activities make Isanti County an ideal place to visit and live.

The Parks Plan considers the county’s proximity to the metro, ease of transportation and significant rural landscape important to making parks and recreation decisions. Isanti County

Figure 2. Isanti County Context Map, CRD, 2007. 10 Parks Plan 2008 DeMoGraPHICs

Isanti County’s population and social economic data provides another part of the complex picture that influences the Parks Plan. The population and social economic data includes residential and household estimates in Isanti County. Since the Parks Plan seeks to provide parks and recreation opportunities for current and future resident needs, it is significant to consider that:

Isanti County’s population is growing and residential development is significantly dispersed. According to Figure 3 in 2000, Isanti County had a population of 31,287 and according to the US Census is projected to have a population increase of 35% by 2030. The population has grown 23% from 2000 to 2007 with a population estimate of 38,437 (Isanti County, 2007). Isanti County’s 2000 population has 21,390 (nonfarm) rural residents, 8,327 urban residents and 1,570 rural farm residents. This suggests that there is a large population of Isanti County living in unincorporated areas.

Isanti County’s population is growing older. In 2000, a large percent of the population were between the ages of 5-18 and 35-49. It is projected that in 2030 the age cohorts1 will change slightly, suggesting that there will be a greater percentage of 30-54 year old Isanti County and 60 + citizens.

Isanti County’s households are increasing. There is an approximate 50% increase in the number of households projected from 2000-2030. 1. Cohort is defined as a group of persons sharing a particular statistical or demographic characteristic: the cohort of all children born in 1980 (dictionary.com, 2007). Northern Collar Counties Population Projections: 2000-2030 County 2000 Census 2030 Projection Percent Change Chisago 41,101 69,540 69% Isanti 31,287 42,350 35% McLeod 34,898 41,580 19% Wright 89,986 139,010 54% East Sherburne 44,268 83,700 89%

Total Population 241,540 376,180 55% Figure 3. Northern County Population Projections, Regional Parks for Minnesota’s New Urban Areas, Orning and Wietecki, 2007.

Isanti County Household Projections Household Type 2000 2030 Percent Change Household 11,236 17,140 52.50% Figure 4. Isanti County Household Projections, U.S. Census, 2000. Parks Plan 2008 11 l oCal l anDsCaPe

In addition to the Isanti County demographics, the County’s landscape impacts planning decisions of the Parks Plan. This landscape is characterized by the Rum River, forested horizon lines, meandering rivers and level farmland. The beautiful rural landscape has pockets of housing, farmlands and miles of low traffic roads. The Rum River is a significant feature of the County landscape, and flows from Mille Lacs County in the west to Anoka County down south. The river provides drainage to the Mississippi River and recreational opportunities for the citizens east central Minnesota.

Isanti County is located within the Anoka Sand Plain, which is the result of outwash from glacier melt steams that left sediment and sand in their wakes. The Anoka Sand Plain impacts the landscape by providing well drained soil conditions and in some cases sand dunes. Isanti County resides within two biomes: the Laurentian Mixed Forest and Eastern Broad leaf Forest. (As seen below in yellow and green). The biomes provide a glimpse into the presettlement vegetation communities. Isanti County’s presettlement vegetation ranged from well drained and wet forest to oak savanna plant communities. Isanti County’s rolling topography is due to the major watersheds of the Upper Mississippi River and the St. Croix River Basin. The eastern portion of the county is the ridge line or high point between the two watersheds and the western portion of the county generally slopes to the southwest. Isanti County

12 Parks Plan 2008 Figure 5. Isanti County Ecology Context Map, CRD, 2007. County ParklanD

Isanti County’s parkland holdings total approximately 835 acres and provide a range of low impact activities from public water access to hiking and biking. The parkland is dispersed, allowing accessibility for residents in all four quadrants of the county. (A full inventory is provided in the Isanti County Parks and Recreation Opportunities and the Appendix). Pertinent to meeting the mission and goals of the Parks Plan is some understanding of how much parkland will be needed for an increase of residents and preservation of natural areas. A primary question then is:

As population increases and development pressure grows, will the acreage of parkland meet the needs of the residents?

Key to the Parks Plan is comparing the relationship between the existing Isanti County parkland holdings to projected parkland needs and natural area preservation. Determining the future parkland and natural preservation area needs for Isanti County is not straightforward. There is little research in the field of rural parkland needs. A major factor to consider is: Isanti County • Does Isanti County plan to “stay the course,” meaning will acquisition of parkland in Isanti County maintain patterns into the future that are similar to the present?

• If Isanti County plans to go beyond current acquisition patterns how can the Parks and Recreation Commission gauge the amount of parkland holdings needed for the future population and preservation efforts?

Staying the Course Planning to maintain current practices is one approach. Determining the projected parkland needs would include looking at current visitor trends. Figure 6 shows that with the 2007 population estimates and the current park inventory of 835 acres, Isanti County has 21. 75 acres of parkland per 1000 residents. Figure 7a. shows that if current parkland acquisition maintains at the 2007 rate then approximately 920 acres will be needed for the projected population of 2030. Isanti County will need to add 85 acres of parkland to maintain the 2007 rate of parkland acquisition for the projected population of 2030 (Figure 7b.).

Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix B show trend data that contribute to calculations for parkland acquisition.

Parks Plan 2008 13 2007 County Parkland Per 1000 People

2007 Isanti 2007 County 2007 County Parkland Per Population Population / Parkland 1000 People Estimate 1000 (X) Acres (Y) (Y/X) 38,437 38.44 835 21.72 Figure 6. 2007 Isanti County Parkland Per 1000 People, CRD, 2007.

2030 Parkland Acres Based on 2007 County Parkland Per 1000 People 2030 County 2030 2030 Isanti Parkland Per Population Population / County Parkland 1000 People Projection 1000 People (X) Acres (Y) (Y/X) 42,350 42.35 920 Approx. 21.72 Figure 7a. 2030 Parkland Acres Based on 2007 County Parkland Per 1000 People CRD, 2007. Parkland Acres Needed for 2030 Population 2007 Isanti Parkland needed for County Parkland 2030 Isanti County the 2030 Population (Y- Acres (Y) Parkland Acres (Y) Y) 835 920 Approx. 85 Acres Figure 7b. Parkland Acres Needed for 2030 Population, CRD, 2007.

Higher Expectations Planning with higher expectations in mind would entail more aggressive calculations to meet the needs of the future population and preserve natural areas. Since Isanti County is impacted from development pressures of the growing Twin Cities region, using the 1974 Metropolitan Council’s guidelines would be aggressive but would not overestimate acquisition potential. The metro guideline for projected parkland need is 25 acres per 1000 people. This is a good guideline to follow because Isanti is a highly desirable rural county to live in and population projections for 2030 are significant. Excerpted( from the

Isanti County Regional Parks for Minnesota’s New Urban Areas, Orning and Wietecki, 2007. Originally from the Technical Appendices 2030 Regional Parks Policy Plan, Metropolitan Council, 2005.)

Figure 8a. shows that in 2000 there are 18 acres per 1000 residents and in 2030 there is projected to be 13 acres of parkland per 1000 residents. Figure 8b. shows the acreage needed to meet the 1000 people per 25 acres. The extra parkland acreage needed to meet the 25 acres to 1000 residents metro standard in 2000 is 415 and projected for 2030 is 286. That is a total of 701 additional park land acres in addition to the acreage holdings in 2000. 14 Parks Plan 2008 Existing Park Space for Metropolitan Ring Counties Year 2000: Year 2030: Acres/1000 Acres/1000 Area Park Name Acreage Residents Residents Dennis Frandsen County Park, Chisago Fish Lake County Park 117, 152 7 4 Cannon Valley Wilderness Goodhue Area 780 18 15 Springvale County Park, Becklin Homestead 211, Isanti Park/WMA, Anderson Park 189, 174 18 13

Lake Washington Park, Ney LeSueur Environmental Learning Center 152, 340 20 17 Lake Marion Regional, Pioepenberg Regional Stahls 86, 156, McLeod Lake Park 127 11 9 Cannon River Wilderness Rice Area 850 15 11 Beebe Lake Regional Park,

Clearwater/Pleasant County Isanti County Park, Otego Robert Ney Memorial County Park, 70, 210, Schroeder Regional Park, 308, 70, Harry Larson Park, Stanley 600, Eddy Memorial Park Reserve, 170, Wright Montissippi County Park 660, 170 25 16 Grams Regional Park, East Sherburne Fremont Park (in planning) 108, 114 5 3 Figure 8a. Existing Park Space for Metropolitan Ring Counties Graph, Data based from Regional Parks for Minnesota’s New Urban Areas, Orning and Wietecki, 2007. Altered by Steve Nelson, Isanti County.

Acreage Needed per Metro Ring County to Meet 25 Acre per 1000 2000 2030 Extra Acreage Extra Acreage County Acreage Census Projection Needed 2000 Needed 2030 Chisago 269 41101 69540 705 1470 Isanti 549 31287 42350 415 286 McLeod 369 34898 41580 503 671 Wright 2258 89986 139010 0 1217 East Sherburne 222 44268 83700 885 1871 Figure 8b. Acreage Needed per Metro Ring County to Meet 25 Acres per 1000 People, Data based from Regional Parks for Minnesota’s New Urban Areas, Orning and Wietecki, 2007. Altered by Steve Nelson, Isanti County. Parks Plan 2008 15 PUBLIC PROCESS

The Parks Plan and the Isanti County Active Living (ICAL) Master Plan used one public engagement process. The ICAL project, already underway, examines recreational opportunities and facilities from a specific point of view: “to support healthy lifestyles through physical activity, both recreational activity and normal daily activity”. This portion of the ICAL project focuses on the enhancement of recreational and commuter trail systems in the County. The scope and range of facilities and activities examined go beyond those supported by the Parks Plan, to include all regional systems. As such, a joint effort is somewhat separate, but very closely related, in that Isanti County facilities become a significant component of the ICAL master plan. Therefore, it was proposed and determined that both efforts be conducted in tandem to facilitate a cohesive vision for the Parks Plan, resulting in a complimentary set of plans.

The Isanti County Parks and Recreation Commission (concurrently with the cities of Isanti, Cambridge and Braham) through the ICAL project, have identified the following goals for integrating physical activity into daily life:

1. Develop and maintain an effective partnership to promote physical activity 2. Increase community awareness of the health and other benefits of active living 3. Increase access to and availability of diverse opportunities for physical activity 4. Enhance policy and organizational supports for physical activity 5. Improve man made and natural environments to support active living

The public engagement process (as shown in figure 9) began with the creation of the Steering Committee and included three major phases: a research phase, a documentation phase and an analysis phase. The Steering Committee included community members from the Isanti County Parks and Recreation Commission, County Commissioners, Township Boards, local organizations and citizens at large. Efforts were made to have as diverse of a steering committee as possible. Steering Committee diversity provides needed insight into multiple perspectives and opinions from people in the County. The role of the Steer- Isanti County ing Committee was to provide insight and guidance to the Center for Rural Design for the Parks Plan development.

The research phase included four steering committee meetings, inventory of the natural and rural character resources and Public Workshop 1. The Steering Committee discussed the mission of the Parks Plan, significant and potential locations for expansion, likes and dislikes of the Parks Plan, financing, interjurisdictional collaboration and much more. Natu- ral and rural character resource maps were used for inventory and analysis in both the

16 Parks Plan 2008 steering committee meetings and in Public Workshop 1. The Natural Areas Map shows areas within the County that have environmental integrity1. The Rural Character Map shows areas within the County that are visually pleasing. Public Workshop 1 focused on identifying broad community values on natural resources and rural character, the Parks Plan’s purpose, services, and areas of significance.

The documentation phase included: data from Public Workshop 1 and the Comprehen- sive Plan process, a steering committee meeting, administrative questionnaires and Public Workshop 2. Public Workshop 1 and the Comprehensive Plan community input results provided insight into the importance and thrust of the Parks Plan in Isanti County. The Steering Committee meeting reviewed the results and helped to shape the format and activities for the second Public Workshop. Public Workshop 2 used the results of the previous Workshop to provide a platform from which new questions were developed. This workshop focused on the prioritization of the community values and asked the community members to

1. Environmental integrity reflects a state of the environment wherein air, water, and biologic systems function Isanti County adequately to be self-sustaining. In this state the environment can also provide services that sustain human health and well-being (Steve Roos, Center for Rural Design, 2007).

Figure 9. Project Approach and Time Line, CRD, 2007. Parks Plan 2008 17 come to consensus about numerous issues. Similar to Public Workshop 1, a series of administrative questionnaires were presented to the County Commissioners, the Park and Recre- ation Commission and the Township Boards. These questionnaires asked willing participants questions about the mission, jurisdictional interest and finance of the Parks Plan.

The analysis phase included Public Workshop 2 documentation, two steering committee meetings, development of the Parks Plan and presentation of the Parks Plan to the Parks and Recreation Commissioners and the County Commissioners. The Steering Committee reviewed the results from Public Workshop 2. The public workshop results, administrative questionnaires and Steering Committee feedback were then combined, analyzed and interpreted in the creation of the Parks Plan. The Steering Committee worked hand in hand with the Center for Rural Design and reviewed each section of the report. Isanti County

Figure 10. Image of Public Workshop One, Tracey Sokolski, 2007. 18 Parks Plan 2008 Isanti County s eCtIon 2. r eCreatIonal o PPortunItIes In IsantI County

Parks Plan 2008 19 The Isanti County Parks and Recreation Plan (Parks Plan) includes an introduction, an inventory, park classification, goals and policies, planning and acquisition, financial support, benefits and natural resource management, maintenance and protection sections. This section of the report covers the inventory section and details the regional, county, township and cities park and recreational holdings in and around Isanti County.

RECREATION PROVIDERS The outdoor recreation and park needs of Isanti County residents are met by a variety of providers: national, state, regional, county, local (school districts, townships and cities), and private. All of these providers are currently functioning in Isanti County and each has separate, loosely-defined functions to perform.

National The National U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is actively assisting landowners to restore prairies and waterways in Isanti County with multi-year commitments of no recurrence of cropping or removal of restoration work.

State State facilities are typically provided through the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).

Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) Wildlife Management Areas have site resources that are managed to protect wildlife habitat. A number of WMAs are designed to accommodate visitors - lake access, hunting, fishing, hiking, picnicking, camping, wildlife viewing, etc.

Water Access Sites Water Access Sites are provided on many of the County’s lakes and the Rum River for a variety of water activities.

Isanti County State Game Refuges State Game Refuges are commonly areas set aside to protect wildlife from hunters and trappers. Unlike WMAs, they are mostly held in private ownership with State jurisdiction over some public activities.

State Campgrounds (None currently in Isanti County) State Campgrounds provide sites for camping on the County’s rivers and lakes either in conjunction with one of the above primary site functions or as separate camping facilities.

20 Parks Plan 2008 State Parks (None currently in Isanti County) State parks are most often natural resource-oriented. However, since historically-related sites with statewide significance are under the jurisdiction of the State Historical Society, many sites reflect a combination of the resource and historical aspects. User fees partially offset the maintenance and operation of State recreation facilities.

Regional (None currently in Isanti County) By virtue of their proximity, Isanti County residents have access to a number of regional recreation resources in the adjoining Twin Cities Metropolitan Area (TCMA). The Min- nesota Zoo, regional parks, regional park reserves and regional trails all provide recreational opportunities not normally available at the County or City level. Recreation open space sites in the regional system have “regional significance” either in the nature of land resources (the Cedar Creek Natural History Area in south Isanti County is an example, although it is not part of the Regional Recreation Open Space System), historical relevance or as a regional attraction (Como Park). In the TCMA, regional parks or the larger park reserves are largely owned, maintained and administered by the County in which they are located with a few owned, maintained and administered by the larger Cities. User Isanti County fees help to defray the costs of operating regional parks but acquisition and development costs are the responsibility of the cities, counties, Metropolitan Recreation Open Space Commission and the state.

County Isanti County has approximately nine park sites and is in the process of making facility improvements for expanded use. As noted above in “Regional” facilities, Counties are commonly (about 50 of 64 sites) the owners and operators of the Regional Parks. In some cases, adjoining Counties jointly own the parks and share in the operating costs. Because of the low population density in Isanti County and only three incorporated communities, park acquisition and development for County-wide use has not been a high priority item in the County. Normally, Counties are called on to fill the gap between state parks (depending on the proximity of nearby state parks) and local city or township parks. Growth of the TCMA is putting development pressures on the County - especially the southern tiers of townships and the three communities of Isanti, Cambridge and Braham. Outside of the TCMA, counties acquire, construct and operate their parks with county funds and potentially some state grants.

Parks Plan 2008 21 Local The three cities in Isanti County provide most of the park facilities and services to County residents. Approximately 20 of these parks are now available. Facilities in city parks and on school sites are generally oriented to meet the recreational needs of all ages but are most heavily used for organized or programmed sports. Spirit River Nature Area in Cambridge is an exception with 200 acres of floodplain open-space and no development other than trails.

Due to the increasing development pressure on some townships and the “new” population’s need for local recreation, townships now have more pressure to provide parks. The dens- er, urbanizing areas (like Athens Township) are seeing a need for parks more like those found in cities. Others are providing resource-related parks like Lyndon Cedarblade Park in Stanford Township that is much more like traditional County parks.

Funding of the local park systems is by the local jurisdiction involved and by some state grants. Occasionally the local units will provide the sites with development by private organizations (Red Birds Field in Isanti and the new East Playfield in Cambridge). Ordinarily, user fees are not used to support local parks.

The School Districts provide a significant segment of the local recreation in the three communities. Although the schools primary responsibility is to serve the needs of their students, adult and summer recreation programs reach a broad range of ages. The community recreation programs also utilize the school facilities.

Private Demand for certain types of recreation makes it possible for private enterprise to enter the market. Golf courses, campgrounds, marinas, ski facilities, theme parks, professional sports, resorts, snowmobile clubs, etc. all contribute to the recreational resources available to County residents. With increased concern about public spending, it is likely that private Isanti County organizations will be providing more and more of the recreational facilities. Most private facilities are acquired, developed and operated by user fees.

22 Parks Plan 2008 r eGIonal ConneCtIons

The “Recreational Opportunities in Isanti County Section” covers regional, county, township and city park holdings. The regional recreational opportunities include regional planning initiatives and State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) sites and corridor holdings. The regional planning initiatives include a review of the existing Regional Parks for Minne- sota’s New Urban Areas Report and an introduction of the proposed Ring County Green Space Collaboration.

The “Regional Parks for Minnesota’s New Urban Areas” Report focuses on the projected needs of open space and recreation areas in counties not managed by the Metropolitan Council. The basis for this inquiry was to determine a balance of park space acreage between out state urban complexes and the seven County metro area. Population, development patterns and existing park land holdings were compared to Metropolitan Park Land Acquisition standards and were the determinants of the projected needs of park land to be proposed. The report used study areas that targeted regional groupings of counties that were faced with similar development situations. Isanti County was grouped in “The Ring” study area which included a northern section: Chisago, Isanti, McLeod, Wright and eastern Sherburne County and a southern section: Goodhue, LeSueur and Rice Counties. Isanti County

The Ring of Counties face challenges that are significant because the metro area is quickly expanding, creating heavy development stress along transportation corridors such as Inter State 94 and the proposed North Star Train Line. According to the “Regional Parks for Minnesota’s New Urban Areas” Report, “It is projected that these people will develop the region at rates that are less dense than current development patterns. This projected development pattern will result in an increasing rate of land consumption.” As such, it is even more crucial to have a regional plan for park and recreational areas. The report states that Isanti County ranks sixth highest for population projections from 2000-2030 within the Ring Counties. The current acreage needed to meet the Metropolitan Council Park Stan- dards for existing population of the Northern section of the ring counties is 2,347 acres. The projected acreage needed for the population of 2030 is 5,738 acres, more than two times the current park land holdings. The report suggests areas for acquisition prioritization. Isanti County is not within any of the current priority acquisition areas, but is none the less significant because of the local development pressures previously noted.

The State Department of Natural Resources regional site and corridor holdings, shown in Figure 11 includes: State Forest Campgrounds, DNR State Trails, Scientific and Natural Areas and Wildlife Management Areas.

Parks Plan 2008 23 State Forest Campgrounds in the areas surrounding Isanti County are: Sand Dune State Forest’s Ann Lake Campground, located southwest of Isanti County, Snake River Camp- ground located northeast of Isanti County, Boulder Campground and Tamarack Horse Campground located northeast of Snake River Campground, Gafvert Campground and Willow River Campground located in northern Pine County.

The major DNR State Trail in the areas surrounding Isanti County is the Willard Munger Trail.

Scientific and Natural Areas in the areas surrounding Isanti County are: Uncas Dunes SNA, Boot Lake SNA, the Helen Allison Savanna, Rush Lake Island SNA.

State Parks and Recreation in the areas surrounding Isanti County are: Mille Lacs Kathio Father Hennepin State Park, Banning State Park, Saint Croix State Park, Wild River State Park, William O’Brien State Park, Lake Maria State Park and Interstate Park.

Wildlife Management Areas in the areas surrounding Isanti County are: Rice Creek WMA, Bethel WMA, Carlos Avery WMA, Kunkel WMA, Mille Lacs WMA. Isanti County

24 Parks Plan 2008 Carlton Gafvert Campground Regional Recreational Willow River and DUA y

r Campground a Opportunities a itkin d Crow Wing n u

h l for Isanti County t r

u T l

r u

D g -

Banning n

y u Mille Lacs Kathio e State Park M Father Hennepin ckl n Pine i Boulder Campground State Park H

l r and DUA T

I r

- Tamarack Horse e

g 9

6 Campground

Mille Lacs M Morrison S Kettle River U WMA SNA k anabec Mille l acs Saint Croix State Park Snake River Campground Rice Creek WMA

- U Benton 5 S

I 1 Bethel WMA 6

9 -

Kunkel - 5 D

3 WMA I Wild River U Isanti State Park Shubring WMA S 1 I94-D 0 -I Chisago Carlos Avery WMA stearns I9 sherburne 4- U Legend I S 1 US8-I 0 Uncas Dunes - D Sand Dunes D - State Forest Campgrounds SNA 8 State Forest's S Lake Maria Boot Lake U Ann Lake DNR State Trails State Park U SNA S Campground

a noka 6

1 Scientific and Natural Areas

I William O'Brien -D - State Parks and Rec W E State Park Wright 35 5 I 3

I Meeker State Trails Isanti County D Washington -

- E

5 y a Wildlife Management Area Boundary S12-D US12 W U -I 3 I w

Hennepin 5 te 3 a I I - r amsey G Isanti

4 Line 9 ce 4 Lu I I394-D Y Municipalities Mcl eod Carver Figure 11. Regional Recreational Opportunities for Isanti County, CRD, 2007. Parks Plan 2008 FIGURE 12. ISANTI COUNTY RECREATION/OPEN SPACE SITES WITH COUNTY OR REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE 1 (miles) Gazebo Restrooms Campsites Picnic Sites Swim Area Swim Boat Ramp Bath House Playgrounds Tennis Courts Soccer Fields Canoe Ramp Fishing Docks Amphitheater Nature Areas Softball Fields Football Fields Baseball Fields Group Shelters War Memorials War Equestrian Trails Swimming Pools Swimming Horseshoe Courts Horseshoe Volleyball Courts Basketball Courts Education Centers Skateboard Parks Recreation Centers Historical Structures

Fig. 12 See Fig. Multi-purpose Fields Area Multi-purpose Courts Group Pavilions Picnic Jogging/ Walking Trails Facility Map No. (acres) Practice Fields/ Backstop

County Parks Becklin Homestead Park / WMA (Co only) 39 Future 8 Future Future Future Future Future 1 Future Blomford Park Reserve Land 20 Dalbo Park 40 Future 2 Future 2 Future Irving and John Anderson Park 174 Hackberry Island Park Reserve Land 33 Springvale County Park 211 Future 5 1 4 11 Vegsund Family County Park 80 Future Future 2 Future Future Future Future Wayside Prairie County Park OS.1 14, 22 80 1 2 1 1 Liberty Lake Park 9 Twin Lakes Flowage Reserve Land 6 Subtotal 692 0 1 0 0 11 0 0 0200 100000 0 0006000020 1 0 000 Trails & Waterways Lands (T & W) State of MN DNR Rum River (S 11 W Athens Township) 15 Rum River (S 15 W Athens Township) 44 Rum River (S 17 Cambridge Township) 24 Rum River (S 18 Cambridge Township) 10 Rum River (S 29 Cambridge Township) 10 Rum River (S 5 Spencerbrook Township) 5 Rum River (S 1 Spencerbrook Township) 21 Rum River (S 22 Springvale Township) P.3 35 14

Rum River (S 29 Springvale Town / TaxFor) C.5 33 18 Rum River (S 18 Isanti Township) 22 Subtotal 183 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 000000 0 0000000000 0 0 000 Aquatic Management Areas (AMA) & School Trust Fund Lands MN DNR AMA (S 36 Wyanett Township) 17 AMA (S 22 Wyanett Township) 76 AMA (S 34 Dalbo Township) 29

School Trust (S 36 Spencerbrook) 40 2 01 School Trust (S 36 Springvale) 40 1 School Trust (S 16 W Stanford) 120 Subtotal 322 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0000 000000 0 0000000000 1 0 000 Wildlife Management Areas (WMA's) State of MN DNR Wildlife Athens WMA WMA 23 192 Cranberry WMA WMA 18 317 Crooked Road WMA WMA 21 381 Dalbo WMA WMA 7 3042 Isanti County Dobe WMA WMA 19 100 Marget Lake WMA WMA 22 488 Marvin W. Shubring WMA WMA 24 285 Rice Creek WMA WMA 25 63 Spectacle Lake WMA WMA 20 511 Maple Ridge WMA WMA 40 Becklin Homestead WMA (State only) WMA 150 Subtotal 5569 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 000000 0 0000000000 0 0 000

Grand Total 6766 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0000 000000 0 0000000000 1 0 000 Parks Plan 2008 Figure 12. Isanti County Recreation/Open Space Sites with County or Regional Significance, CRD, 2007. Isanti County Parks

Dalbo Park: Co Hwy 4 Vegsund Family Park: 40 acres on County 80 acres. Will open in Vegsund Braham Hwy 57 in Dalbo Family 2008-2009, with 2 miles Township, 3/4 mile Park of walking trails, fishing

south of Dalbo Co Hwy 24 dock, picnic shelters, Baptist Church. bog walk and scenic Co Hwy 3 north

There are 2 miles of Hwy 47 o overlooks. lb trails and over 400 a D feet of bog walks.

Dalbo Park Grandy Becklin Homestead Park / WMA 5 Springvale 6 Park y 2 Miles Co Hwy 57 Co Hwy w

H Hwy 47 345th Ave * springvale Park: Hwy 95 1 Mile

205 acres on state Hwy Holly St 339th Cambridge Co 14 Co Hwy 95 in Springvale Vale Dr Hwy 95 Township, 2 miles east Becklin Homestead Park/WMa: of State Hwy 47. r e Presently 150 acres, with potential expansion in Recent improvements v rum river i 2008 that could bring it over 330 acres. Will open include parking lot, r H w in 2008 – 2009, with 6 miles of walking trails, paved trail to m y Bradford u 95 canoe launch, picnic shelter, and bird observation observation point, r Co Hwy 10 Co Hwy platforms. Park will be periodically closed during native plant restoration, the fall and spring to allow hunting by disabled and 5 miles of hiking Co Hwy 5 Co Hwy 5 Co Hwy 5 Co Hwy 5 hunters. trails. 5 Co Hwy

8 Wayside 1 Prairie y w Park Isanti H Irving & John o C Hwy 47 Anderson Co Hwy 9 Park Co Hwy 9 Co Hwy 71 Co Hwy 8 Co Hwy Co Hwy 56 Lyndon 8 Collin Cedarblade Township Township Park

Park Hwy 65

Wayside Prairie Park: The Parks Commission continues to work with conservation The Parks Commission encourages Irving & John anderson Park: 80 acres with picnic shelter, tables, grills and easements, the establishment of land trusts and other green donations/bequests of land. There This 174 acre park is being developed. trails on County Hwy 10 in Bradford Township. space protection options in the pursuit of the goals and can be tax advantages in the objectives of the 1996 plan and information from the 2001 donation of private land for Includes native plant demonstration garden, Isanti County wetland boardwalk and prairie restoration community forums, and 2007 parks planning workshops community purposes and use. project. To see the latest park information on the internet go to www.co.isanti.mn.us/parks.htm 4-27-2007

Figure 13. Isanti County Park Map, Isanti County, 2007. Parks Plan 2008 InVentor y

County-Wide Sites Isanti County contains a substantial number of park and recreation opportunities. Each facility will not be discussed individually, but considerable information on the sites will be presented in both tabular and map form. The various sites have been grouped in eight categories to differentiate the type of facility:

(1) Open Space Sites (2) Wildlife Management Areas (3) Game Refuges (4) Water Access Sites (5) Golf Courses (6) Campgrounds (7) Historic Sites (8) Other Public Lands

Due to the large number of sites, these eight categories will be presented in three groupings: Isanti County

(a) Categories 1, 2 and 3 (16 sites); (b) Category 4 (25 sites); and (c) Categories 5, 6, 7 and 8 (30 sites)

Each grouping contains:

(a) A List of sites in the grouping showing the I.D. Number on the succeeding maps, site name, jurisdiction, size, Township and section in which it is located. (b) A Location Map identifying the type of facility and the location of each site in the grouping. (c) Individual maps of each site. The individual site maps show topographic contours at a 10 foot interval, wetlands, streams, structures, some existing property uses, and the boundaries of the major site and other recreation sites in close proximity.

The snowmobile trail developed by the Drift Dusters, Mystic Riders and Northern Lights Snowmobile Clubs is included.

Parks Plan 2008 25 FIGURE 16. ANOKA - ISANTI COUNTY GAME REFUGE, CEDAR CREEK NATURAL HIS- TORY CENTER AND CEDAR CREEK FOREST RESERVE Isanti County

Figure 16. Anoka-Isanti County Game Refuge, Cedar Creek Natural History Area and Cedar Creek Forest Reserve, Center for Rural Design, 2007. 26 Parks Plan 2008 FIGURE 17. DALBO WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA Isanti County

Figure 17. Dalbo Wildlife Managment Area, Center for Rural Design, 2007. Parks Plan 2008 27 FIGURE 18. CRANBERRY WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA Isanti County

Figure 18. Cranberry Wildlife Management Area, Center for Rural Design, 2007.

28 Parks Plan 2008 FIGURE 19. DOBE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA, AMA Isanti County

Figure 19. Dobe Wildlife Management Area, AMA, Center for Rural Design, 2007. Parks Plan 2008 29 FIGURE 20. SPECTACLE LAKE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA, AMA Isanti County

Figure 20. Spectacle Lake Wildlife Management Area, AMA, Center for Rural Design, 2007. 30 Parks Plan 2008 FIGURE 21. CROOKED ROAD WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA Isanti County

Figure 21. Crooked Road Wildlife Management Area, Center for Rural Design, 2007.

Parks Plan 2008 31 FIGURE 22. MARGET LAKE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA Isanti County

Figure 22. Marget Lake Management Area, Center for Rural Design, 2007. 32 Parks Plan 2008 FIGURE 23. ATHENS WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA Isanti County

Figure 23. Athens Wildlife Management Area, Center for Rural Design, 2007. Parks Plan 2008 33 FIGURE 24. SHUBRING WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA Isanti County

Figure 24. Shubring Wildlife Management Area, Center for Rural Design, 2007.

34 Parks Plan 2008 FIGURE 25. RICE CREEK WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA Isanti County

Figure 25. Rice Creek Wildlife Management Area, Sanders Wacker Wehrman Bergly, Inc., 1995. Parks Plan 2008 35 FIGURE 26. GERMAN LAKE GAME REFUGE & SCHOOL TRUST LAND Isanti County

Figure 26. German Lake Game Refuge & School Trust Land, Sanders Wacker Wehrman Bergly, Inc., 1995. 36 Parks Plan 2008 FIGURE 27. ELIZABETH LAKE GAME REFUGE Isanti County

Figure 27. Elizabeth Lake Game Refuge, Sanders Wacker Wehrman Bergly, Inc., 1995. Parks Plan 2008 37 FIGURE 29. RECREATION / OPEN SPACE SITES WITH REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE Isanti County

Figure 29. Recreation / Open Space Sites with Regional Significance, Sanders Wacker Wehrman Bergly, Inc., 1995. 38 Parks Plan 2008 FIGURE 28. ISANTI COUNTY RECREATION/OPEN SPACE SITES WITH COUNTY OR REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE 1 (miles) Gazebo Restrooms Picnic Sites Swim Area Boat Ramp Boat Ramp Boat Bath House Bath Playgrounds Soccer Fields Soccer Tennis Courts Tennis Fishing Docks Fishing Amphitheater Nature Areas Nature Softball Fields Football Fields Baseball Fields Group Shelters Group War Memorials Equestrian Trails Equestrian Swimming Pools Volleyball Courts Volleyball Basketball Courts Basketball Horseshoe Courts Education Centers Education Skateboard Parks Recreation Centers Recreation Historical Structures Historical

Fig. 29 See Fig. Area Multi-purpose Fields Multi-purpose Courts Multi-purpose Group Picnic Pavilions Jogging/ Trails Walking Facility Map No. (acres) Backstop Fields/ Practice

Water Access Sites German Lake (NE 1/4 Sec 1 Stanford Township) Isanti County Carry-in L.22 26 1 Little Stanchfield Lake (SE 1/4 Sec 5 Cambridge Township) Isanti County 7 1 Rum River / Martin's Landing (S 25 Bradford ) DNR T & W L.25 18 1 Upper Rice Lake (NW 1/4 Sec 4 Stanchfield Township) DNR T & W L.2 25 1 1 Francis Lake (S 22 Bradford Township) L.24 36 Rum River (S 18 Cambridge Township) L.9 1 1 Broberg's (S 30 Cambridge Township) L.17 1 1 Elizabeth Lake (S 3 Bradford Township) L.8 27 0 Undevel Green Lake (S 28 Wyanett Township) L.5 20 2 Krans Lake (S 6 Fish Lake Chisago Co) L.11 Private Long Lake (S 4 Cambridge Township) L.10 33 1 Mud Lake (DNR T & W S 33 Spencerbrk) L.21 21 1 South Stanchfield Lake (S 33 Dalbo) Easement owned by Township 7/15/59 L.3 1 1 Fannie Lake (S 2 Isanti Township) L.13 38 1 1 Lory Lake (S 5 Maple Ridge Township) L.1 18 1 1 Blue Lake (S 31 Spencerbrook Townshp) L.19 21 1 Blue Lake (S 6 W Stanford Township) L.20 21 1 1 Fannie Lake (S 35 Cambridge DNR T & W) L.14 38 1 1 Florence Lake (S 8 Cambridge DNR T & W) L.15 Green Lake (S 26 Wyanett DNR T & W) L.4 20 2 1 Long Lake (S 32 Bradford DNR T & W) L.23 22 2 1 Rum River (S 15 Spencerbrook DNR T&W) L.16 1 1 Skogman Lake (S 25 Cambridge DNR T/W) L.12 1 1 Spectacle Lake (S 25 Wyanett DNR T & W) L.6 20 1 1 Walbo Ferry (S 27 Springvale DNR T & W) L.7 30 1 1 Long Lake (S 28 Bradford Township) L.23 22 Isanti County

Subtotal 440 000 0 00000000000000000000 9 1000000

Figure 28. Isanti County Recreation/Open Space Site with County or Regional Significance Table Continued, CRD, 2007.

Parks Plan 2008 FIGURE 30. WALBO RIVER ACCESS Isanti County

Figure 30. Walbo River Access, Sanders Wacker Wehrman Bergly, Inc., 1995.

Parks Plan 2008 39 FIGURE 35. STATE SCHOOL TRUST LAND, TRAILS & WATERWAYS LANDS Isanti County

Figure 35. State School Trust Land, Trails & Waterways 40 Parks Plan 2008 Lands, Sanders Wacker Wehrman Bergly, Inc., 1995. Section 4 Isanti 14 Isanti 29 Isanti 7 Athens 7 Oxford 2 Stanford 9 Wyanett 35 Bradford 32 Bradford 25 Springvale 29 E. Stanford 1 Stanchfield 2 CambridgeCambridge 30 Cambridge 29 Cambridge 33 32 W. Stanford 10 North Branch 10 640 1510 50 Cambridge 27 DNR DNR Public Private Private Private Private Sep-41 Wyanett 35 Closed 2004 Society Private/ Co. 2 Bradford 22 Hist. Society Hist. Society Private --- Oxford W ½ Fair Board/Ag Ch. Store River) School School Church County Dayton Private Unknown Unknown Isanti Co. Gravel Pit Isanti Co. 79 Brunswick 32 Courthouse Sandbrook Private Cozy Oaks Private (Rum River) Closed 2004 Facility Name Jurisdiction Acres Township Section Activities Spencer Brook Spencer Brook West Riverside Minnesota’s First Martin's Landing Cambridge (Rum Country Camping Private St. John's Lutheran Linden Round Barn Private White-Indian War Herlinger Grocery Originates in Isanti Erickson Farmstead Private Oscar Olson House Private Church of Bradford Cambridge Lutheran Cedar Creek Natural History Area (U of M) Anoka/Isanti County Game Refuge Grounds 33 Deer Run Private 56 Cambridge 9 No. See Fig. P.6 21 Gravel Pit Isanti Co. 78 Spencer Brook 32 C.7 C.8 C.9 22 Sunrise ResortH.1 Private H.2 H.3 H.4 H.5 H.6 H.7 H.8 H.9 C.1 20C.2C.3 Manke's Resort/ 20C.4C.6 Buckhorn Resort 35 Private Springvale Private 100 Springvale 1 G.1G.2 33 33G.3 Grandy Nine Purple Hawk Private Private 40 149 Cambridge Cambridge 8 9, 10 P.11 38 Isanti County Fair Map C.10C.11 23 Blue Lake H.10 H.11 H.12 OS. 4 16 OS. 5 16 Fig. 32 FIGURE 31. ISANTI COUNTY RECREATION/OPEN SPACE SITES WITH OR REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE CAMPGROUNDS HISTORIC SITES GOLF COURSES OTHER PUBLIC LANDS Figure 31. Isanti County Recreation / Open Space Sites with County or Regional Significance, CRD, 2007. Isanti County

Parks Plan 2008 FIGURE 37. SCHOOL TRUST LAND & TOWNSHIP PARK (USE DEED) LAND

toWnsHIP Park (use DeeD) lanD Isanti County

sCHool trust lanD

Figure 37. School Trust Land & Township Park (Use Deed) Land, Sanders Wacker Wehrman Bergly, Inc., 1995. Parks Plan 2008 41 FIGURE 38. ISANTI COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS Isanti County

Figure 38. Isanti County Fairgrounds, Sanders Wacker Wehrman Bergly, Inc., 1995.

42 Parks Plan 2008 FIGURE 39. SNOWMOBILE TRAILS Isanti County

Figure 39. Snowmobile Trails, Sanders Wacker Wehrman Bergly, Inc., 1995.

Parks Plan 2008 43 InVentor y

Local Sites Parks within the three incorporated communities vary widely in size and function. They provide nearby recreation for the urban population in the County or about one-fourth of the total County population.

Figure 40, Park Facility Inventory, describes each developed park in terms of acreage and type of park facilities/functions provided.

Parks in the three communities are shown as follows:

Figure 41: Isanti Figure 42: Cambridge Figure 43: Braham

Figure 80, (see page 75) shows the types of parks normally found at the community level and most of the local (City) parks in the County meet the defined criteria. The one park category on Figure 80 that does not fit the defined size criteria is “Neighborhood Park/ Playground”. The size criteria is for urban areas where there would be several neighborhoods (each with 4,000 to 5,000 residents) in a community. None of the communities in Isanti County are large enough to fit this category. Isanti County

44 Parks Plan 2008 Figure 40. Isanti County - Park Facilities Inventory 1 (miles) Gazebo Restrooms Campsites Picnic Sites Boat Ramp Boat Swim Area Bath House Bath Playgrounds Tennis Courts Canoe Ramp Canoe Soccer Fields Fishing DocksFishing Amphitheater Nature Areas Softball Fields Softball Football Fields Football Baseball Fields Baseball Shelters Group War Memorials Equestrian Trails Equestrian Swimming Pools Horseshoe Courts Basketball Courts Basketball Courts Volleyball Education Centers Education Skateboard Parks Recreation Centers Recreation Historical Structures Historical Multi-purpose Fields Multi-purpose

Area Courts Multi-purpose Group Picnic Pavilions Group Jogging/ Walking Trails Trails Walking Jogging/ Facility (acres) Backstop Fields/ Practice

City Parks Northwest Park (Braham) 2.00 1 1 1 Future High Point Park (Braham) 0.53 Freedom Park (Braham) 1.40 1 1 1 1 Northeast (Hidden) Park (Braham) 1.60 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pleasantview Park (Braham) 8.00 Rose Garden (Braham) 0.50 1 High School (Braham) 25.00 1 1 1 1 Southview Elementary (Braham) 5.00 1 Loren Erickson Memorial Park (Cambridge) 1.50 1 Brown Park (Cambridge) 9.30 12 1 1 Peterson Park (Cambridge) 3.50 11 1 1 11 1 1 Cambridge Athletic Complex (Cambridge) 23.70 1 1 1 1 1 33 2 22 1 City Park (Cambridge) 80.00 1 4 2 2 2 213 111 11 4 Spirit River Nature Area (Cambridge) 200.00 3 1 3 111 1 Skate Parks/Pine Village Ballfiled (Cambridge) 3.00 1 1 0 Water Tower Park (Cambridge) 1.50 1 2 Pioneer Park (Cambridge) 12.00 1 0.5 1 1 1 11 1 1 Honeysuckle Park (Cambridge) 2.50 1 11 1 11 1 1 Central Green (Cambridge) 3.50 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 Wood Duck Preserve (Cambridge) 3.50 0.5 1 1 Silver Oak Park (Cambridge) 4.00 0.25 Oak Circle Preserve (Cambridge) 2.50 0.25 1 Woodhaven Acres (Cambridge) 2.00 Joes Lake Preserve (Cambridge) 65.00 High School (Cambridge) 22.00 1.0 1 111 1 11 1 11 Middle School (Cambridge) 2.00 3 1.0 2 12 1 22 1 11 Middle School (Isanti) 34.00 1 1 Intermediate School (Isanti) 20.00 1 1 Riverside Park (Isanti) 3.89 1 1 Bluebird Park (Isanti) includes Ice Arena, Soccer Fields, BMX site - as of 04.2007 - still under development 72.83 11 11 11 1 Whisper Ridge Park (Isanti) 11.17 1 1 Rum River Meadows Park (Isanti) 0.52 1 1 VFW Park 0.07 1 1 1 Mattson Park (Isanti) 4.00 1 11 11 11 1 Isanti Hills Tot Lot Park (Isanti) 0.70 1 1 Red Birds Field (Isanti) 2.00 1 Unity Park (Isanti) 30.00 1 1 1 Eagle Park (Isanti) 0.30 1 Elementary School (Isanti) 1.00 Subtotal 666.01 1 4 6 23 14 8 0 4 9 8 6 10 11 3 10 10 3 062236102111 210000

Township Parks

Lyndon Cedarblade Park & Reserve land 420 1 3 1 1 Isanti County Lawrence Collin Park (Athens) 10 1 1 2 1 Dewey Anderson Park (Athens) 40 Bradford Estates (Bradford) 8 Oxtrail Hill (S 24 Bradford) 32 Curtis Park (Wyanett) 0 1 Fred & Rose Cross Nature Area 10 1 Subtotal 520 0 2 0 1 6 0 0 1000 000000 0 0000000000 2 0 100

Grand Total 1186 1 6 6 24 20 8 0 5 9 8 6 10 11 3 10 10 3 062236102111 230100

Figure 40. Isanti County - Parks Inventory Table, CRD, 2007. Parks Plan 2008 Isanti County

Figure 41. City of Isanti 2007 Zoning Map, McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 2007. Parks Plan 2008 45 Isanti County

Figure 42. City of Cambridge Parks, City of Cambridge, 2007. 46 Parks Plan 2008 Isanti County

Figure 43. City of Braham Parks, City of Braham, 2007. Parks Plan 2008 47 Communities and Townships with park administration responsibilities in Isanti County were contacted regarding various aspects of park operations. Information is summarized as follows:

CITY OF ISANTI Contact: Carla Vita, Economic Development Coord.

Organizational Structure: a. The Park and Recreation Board was organized in 1993. It has five members and meets monthly.

b. The Park and Recreation Board functions include planning of new facilities and activities in new and existing parks with the assistance of the Administrator, Deputy Clerk and Public Works Director. Occasionally they have work days where they invite neighbors to assist them in minor park construction activities.

Park Funding: a. No formal budgeting for parks (although there is still $2,500 available that was budgeted in 1994).

b. Parks recieve some revenue from budget surpluses, which are spent on specific park equipment.

c. The Park Board has no budget of its own and must get Council approval for any expenditure.

d. The City has a park land or money in lieu of land requirement in subdivision or dinance. This park dedication fee is 10% of the un-platted land value. Although requiring fees from commercial development is allowed, the City Isanti County normally waives the fee and instead uses a site landscaping requirement to fulfill the developer’s obligation for park funding. These park funds must be used in the park nearest the subdivision regardless of size or need.

e. Various organizations in Isanti have contributed considerably for park improv ements - Lions Club, VFW, etc. Although this source of funding has been good in the past it is not seen as a steady, reliable funding source.

48 Parks Plan 2008 Maintenance: a. The Public Works Department maintains City parks on a regular basis along with maintaining streets and utilities. An individual on the Maintenance Crew is on the Park and Recreation Board.

Current Projects: a. Improvements in Isanti Hills Tot-lot Park, dedicated as part of a new 300 lot subdivision that was underway in 1995. The Planning Commission negotiates for the land in their plat review process and the Park and Recreation Board, along with City staff, plan for improvements.

Other Recreation: a. The Fire Relief Association is responsible for the Rodeo Organizations and Pro grams: facility and functions. Money generated at the Rodeo has paid for the facility and pays for periodic improvements. b. The “Red Birds” baseball organization is generally considered the “town team”. It Isanti County constructed the baseball field north of the rodeo on City-owned property. Parking for the ball field and rodeo is a turf area between the facilities. The Red Birds maintain the field and fund any needed improvements. Some Community Education programs are conducted at the site and occasional “pick-up” games are played there but generally the use is controlled by the Red Birds. c. A Hockey Association, Soccer Association and Little League group are just getting organized in Isanti and will likely impact the direction of future improvements and programmed activities. d. Local 4-H clubs and churches sponsor softball leagues and provide other recre ation opportunities.

CITY OF CAMBRIDGE Contact: Tyler Sinclair, City Planner and Steve Wegwerth, Director of Public Works

Mission: The mission of Cambridge Parks, Trails and Recreation department is to promote environmental stewardship through recreation and education in a natural resources-based park system.

Parks Plan 2008 49 About Cambridge Parks: Just as the size of Cambridge’s parks vary greatly, so do the amenities offered at each. Expect to find paved trails, picnic tables, benches and playground equipment in most. Others have a tighter focus, facilitating specific activities such as basketball, baseball, soccer, tennis and skating. The city’s extensive trail system connects Cambridge’s many parks, offering residents the opportunity to get around via bicycle, inline skate, snowshoe, cross- country skis, snowmobile or their own two feet.

Organizational Structure

The City Parks Trails and Recreation Commission was established to review and to make recommendations to the City Council on the development and organization of the City parks, trails and recreation programs. The Commission consists of seven (7) members appointed by the City Council from among the residents of the City of Cambridge. Of the seven members, at least one (1) member shall be appointed from the City Council, at least one (1) member from the Cambridge - Isanti Independent School District and one (1) youth representative.

The City Parks, Trails and Recreation Commission powers and duties include, but are not limited to, the study of and recommendation to the City Council on the following:

1. To hold meetings of its members, to consider such matters pertaining to parks, trails and public recreation programs in the City as shall be referred to the Commission by the Council, or as the members of the Commission themselves deem proper. 2. Recommend capital park and trail projects to Council subject to available funding sources; 3. Recommend policies affecting the use of the City’s park and trail system; 4. Recommend the allocation of park fields in a fair and equitable manner, based on recommendations from users and City staff; Isanti County 5. Work with a variety of organizations to ensure the offering of an appropriate ar ray of recreation opportunities for the youth and adults of the City. 6. Prepare and recommend a comprehensive plan for the future development of the City park, recreation and trail system, to be submitted to the City Council for implementation, and to maintain said plan, and recommend amendments of the plan to the City Council, as may become necessary or desirable. 7. To act in an advisory capacity to the Council in all matters relating to park, recreation, and trail programs in the City. 8. Any other plans and programs as may be assigned by the City Council from time to time. 50 Parks Plan 2008 Park Funding a. Park Dedication: The City park dedication ordinance requires that all new a. Parkresidential, Dedication: commercial The and City industrial park dedicationsubdivisions, ordinance dedicate requirespark land that for allpublic new residential,recreation space.commercial Specifically and industrial the ordinanc subdivisionse requires dedicate that at paleastrk landten (10) for publicpercent recreationof the area space. subdivided Specifically be dedicated the ordinance to the City requires to satisfy that this at leastrequirement. The tenCity (10) may percent also elect of theto havearea to subdivided property ownerbe dedicated make a parkto the cash City contribution to satisfy in thislieu requirement. of or in combination The City with may land also dedica elect tionto have based the on property the number owner of residential make aunits park or cash commercial/industrial contribution in lieu acreage of or in incombination the development with land at time dedication of final plat.based on the number of residential units or commercial/industrial acreage in the develop- b. mentBudget: at time of Thefinal following plat. is a summary of the City park expenditures and funding or the past four years by category: Description 2004 2005 2006 2007 YTD TO 7/18/07 City Funded Expenditures Parks General Maintenance $94,271 $117,603 $126,204 $81,002 Ice Rink General Maintenance 5,927 6,602 8,596 $2,425 Isanti County Park Capital Expenditures: Mowing Equipment 21,794 29,929 0 $68,607 Playground Equipment 18,482 $37,237 Drinking Fountains 3,590 Subtotal City Funded Expenditures $125,582 $172,616 $134,800 $189,271 Park Dedication Fee Funded Expenditures New Playstructure Equipment at $82,333 Brown, Peterson and City Park Picnic Table and Trash 14,976 Receptacles 16th Avenue Trail $144,951 $875 Skateboard Park 67,611 Park Signage 9,798 $312 New Playstructure Equipment $16,402 at City Park Other Park Improvements $3,453 4,846 Subtotal Park Dedication Fee Funded $97,309 $3,453 $227,206 $17,589 Expenditures Total Park Expenditures $222,891 $176,069 $362,006 $206,860

Note—2007 amounts are preliminary. Figure 44. City of Cambridge Park Funding Chart, City of c. Maintenance: General park maintenance is provided by the City Public Works Cambridge, 2007. Parks Plan 2008 51 Department.

d. Current Projects: In 2007 the City completed a Parks, Trails and Recreation webpage and replaced the large playground equipment in City Park. b. Budget: The following is a summary of the City park expenditures and funding for the past four years by category:

c. Maintenance: General park maintenance is provided by the City Public Works Department.

d. Current Projects: In 2007 the City completed a Parks, Trails and Recreation web page and replaced the large playground equipment in City Park.

CITY OF BRAHAM Contact: Sally Hoy, City Clerk/Administrator

Organizational Structure:

a. The City has a five member Park Board appointed by the City Council.

b. The Park Board chairperson establishes the meeting times and dates based on the need to meet.

c. The Park Board’s main function is to make recommendations to the City Council regarding park improvements as per Ordinance 253.

Park Funding:

a. The Park Board has a budget set by the City Council, and must get Council approval for any expenditures.

b. The Park and Recreation budget is currently $12,816. Some of the specific categories in the budget are: Per Diems, Capital Outlay, Equipment Replacement Isanti County Reserve, and NE Skating Rink.

c. In residential subdivisions, the City requires the Developer to dedicate $750 per residential unit, with $550 dedicated for parks and $200 dedicated for trails.

d. Participates in the Braham Area Summer Recreation Program.

52 Parks Plan 2008 Maintenance: a. The City street crews maintain the City’s parks on a regular basis. Park Board members will sometimes complete specific park projects/maintenance.

Current Projects: a. Currently developing Northwest Park, which includes a Skateboard Park and play ground area. b. The City is currently participating in the Isanti County Active Living By Design Pro- gram, which has helped fund Pie Walking Loops throughout the City of Braham. Isanti County

Parks Plan 2008 53 County Parks BeCklIn HoMesteaD Park / WMa 34605 HOLLY ST NW

Becklin Homestead Park, covering 188 acres, is located northwest of the city of Cam- bridge in Isanti County. Becklin is jointly own by the County and the State. At present the park is closed and there is limited signage.

Becklin Homestead Park/WMA is an undeveloped land holding. There is limited development of roads and signage.

Figure 46. Becklin Homestead Park/ WMA Image, T. Sokolski, 2007.

At the entry of the Park the neighboring dairy farm affords views of pasturing cows.

Figure 47. Becklin Homestead Park/ WMA Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Isanti County

Large expanses of prairie provide a view of the horizon and nearby forest.

Figure 48. Becklin Homestead Park/WMA Image, T. Sokolski, 2007.

54 Parks Plan 2008 Isanti County

Figure 48a. Becklin Homestead Park / Wildlife Management Area, Hoisington Koegler Inc., 2005. Parks Plan 2008 Isanti County

Figure 48b. Dalbo Park Map, Hoisington Koegler Inc., 2005. Parks Plan 2008 DalBo Park 37405 HELIUM ST NW

Dalbo Park, covering 40 acres, is located south of the town of Dalbo in Isanti County. The Park offers expansive views of prairie and glimpses of cows in the neighboring pasture. It is undeveloped and has little signage but a lot of potential.

Signage and entry to Dalbo Park. Isanti County

Figure 49. Dalbo Park Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007.

Mowed trails.

Figure 50. Dalbo Park Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Parks Plan 2008 55 Ir VInG anD JoHn a nDerson Park 27201 FURMAN ST NE

Irving and John Anderson Park, covering 174 acres, is located in the southeast part of Isanti County. This park is next to Horseshoe and Horseleg Lakes. This newly acquired park is yet to be developed.

Forest edge surrounding nearby Horseshoe Lake.

Figure 52. Irving and John Anderson Park Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. An abundance of open space.

Isanti County Figure 53. Irving and John Anderson Park Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007.

Potential trail to the two lakes.

Figure 54. Irving and John Ander- son Park Context Image, T. Sokolski, 56 Parks Plan 2008 2007. HaCkBerr y IslanD Park r eser Ve 2607 327TH LANE NW

Hackberry Island Park Reserve Land, spanning approximately 32 acres, is located west of the City of Cambridge in Isanti County. The park is well forested and potentially difficult to navigate because of undulating landform and wetlands. Originally named “Maywood Estates Park Reserve Land,” Hackberry Island was dedicated to the County via the Sub- divison developed as Maywood Estates. On the east side of the park there is a 2 acre island in the swamp that is mostly forested with Hack- berry, Basswood, Black Ash and Yellow Birch trees. There is boundary access and only signage. The park is undeveloped and has a limited or no entry.

Hackberry Island Park Isanti County Reserve is forested and has signs along its boundaries that line the road. Figure 55. Hackberry Island Park Reserve Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007.

There is a sizable right of way for the adjacent road and little to no entry points to the park.

Figure 56. Hackberry Island Park Reserve Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Parks Plan 2008 57 l IBerty l ake Park 300 322ND LANE NW

Liberty Lake Park, covering 10.00 acres, is located west of the City of Cambridge. This park is adjacent to a lake, wetland, grassland and forested areas. This park has limited signage and trails, no road development and undeveloped public water access.

Liberty Lake Park includes (undeveloped) access to public water.

Figure 57. Liberty Lake Park Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007.

The signage and road development is limited. Isanti County Figure 58. Liberty Lake Park Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007.

Trail development at the Westbriar Park is mainly undeveloped except for a rugged trail along the wetland’s edge. Figure 59. Liberty Lake Park Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. 58 Parks Plan 2008 No development of a parking lot. Isanti County

Figure 60. Liberty Lake Park Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Wetland buffer.

Figure 61. Liberty Lake Park Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007.

Residential units within close proximity.

Figure 62. Liberty Lake Park Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Parks Plan 2008 59 s PrInGVale County Park 3361 HWY 95 NW

Springvale Park, covering 211 acres, is located west of the City of Cambridge in Isanti County. This park offers signage on Highway 95, paved parking lot and trails, a port-a- potty, canoe access, picnic tables and a view of Johnny’s Lake.

Springvale Park offers a modest paved parking lot and accessible paved trails.

Figure 63. Springvale County Park Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007.

Springvale Park offers a quarter mile of accessible paved trail and five miles of mowed trails.

Figure 64. Springvale County Park Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Isanti County

The park has a toilet facility that is housed in a pleasing wooden structure.

Figure 65. Springvale County Park Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. 60 Parks Plan 2008 Isanti County

Figure 65a. Springvale Park Map, Hoisington Koegler Inc., 2005. Parks Plan 2008 The park’s pedestrian and bike path is well maintained and provides a pleasant experience.

Figure 66. Springvale County Park Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007.

The lake adjacent to the park provides public water access and great views. Isanti County

Figure 67. Springvale County Park Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. The park has a couple of picnic tables with views of the lake.

Figure 68. Springvale County Park Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007.

The park provides a mix of experiences that include rolling prairies, oak savanna, northern hardwood forest and lake land.

Figure 69. Springvale County Park Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Parks Plan 2008 61 VeGsunD FaMIly County Park 39961 POLK ST NE

Vegsund Family County Park, covering 80.00 acres, is located southeast of Braham in Isanti County. The park is partially forested, undeveloped and has limited signage.

Vegsund Family County Park is an undeveloped land holding. There is limited development of roads and signage.

Figure 71. Vegsund Family County Park Entry Image, T. Sokolski, 2007.

Vegsund Family County Park is a beautiful park with potential for trails, nature enjoyment and

Isanti County education, etc.

Figure 72. Vegsund Family County Park Limited Trails Image, T. Sokolski, 2007.

62 Parks Plan 2008 Isanti County

Figure 72a. Vegsund Family County Park Map, Ingraham Associates., 2004. Parks Plan 2008 Isanti County

View of the old farmhouse driveway. Figure 73. Vegsund Family County Park Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007.

Parks Plan 2008 63 Way sIDe PraIrIe County Park 27800 VERDIN ST NW

Wayside Prairie Park, covering 80 acres, is located southwest of the City of Isanti and four miles east of Long Lake. The park includes a large picnic shelter, picnic tables, visible signage and a gravel parking lot.

The park’s signage is larger and easily readable from riders in passing cars.

Figure 75. Wayside Prairie County Park Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. The park’s large gathering space and picnic shelter includes four picnic tables and a well maintained shed enclosure.

Figure 76. Wayside Prairie County Isanti County Park Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007.

The parking lot provides ample room for at least 8 cars.

Figure 77. Wayside Prairie County Park Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. 64 Parks Plan 2008 Isanti County

Figure 77a. Wayside Prairie County Park Map, Hoisington Koegler Inc., 2005. Parks Plan 2008 Additional picnic tables are located across the parking lot from the large picnic shelter. Isanti County Figure 78. Wayside Prairie County Park Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007.

The secondary picnic table area includes a small log shelter.

Figure 79. Wayside Prairie County Park Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007.

The park has two miles of trails developed.

Figure 80. Wayside Prairie County Park Context Image, T. Sokolski, 2007. Parks Plan 2008 65 o tHer County l anD HolDInGs

The County land holdings also include Blomford Park Reserve Land, the Twin Lakes Flowage Reserve Land, and an inactive gravel pit in Spencer Brook Township.

Blomford Park Reserve Land, formerly called Biglake Bjorn Park Reserve Lands, is a 20 acre parcel in the Blomford swamp and northwest of the hamlet of Blomford.

The Twin Lakes Flowage Reserve Land is 6 acres deeded to Isanti County via a Medical Assistance claim in 2003. The 6 acres is either open water or wetlands and inaccessible from the nearby county road. It does contain the main open water flowage area that connects the drainage of the Twin Lakes area going southward or flowing into Typo Lake.

Isanti County owns an inactive gravel pit in Spencer Brook Township approximately 78.8 acres in size. Based on current assessments, the pit no longer contains viable amounts of sand or gravel for extraction and has been inactive for more than 20 years. While not formally reclaimed much of the site currently supports regenerating plant communities. These plant communities have not been assessed for quality. Isanti County

66 Parks Plan 2008 l oCal Park a DMInIstratIon By JurIsDICtIon DALBO TOWNSHIP Contact: Kathleen Benson, Township Clerk

Meetings 8 p.m. second Tuesday of the Month The Township has no park/recreation facilities and no budget for parks. As of 12/31/06, the Township has about $ 6,800 in dedicated park funding.

MAPLE RIDGE TOWNSHIP Contact: Lorri Gambino, Township Clerk

Contact Clerk for meeting dates & times The Township has no existing or future park/recreation plans or facilities at this time. As indicated in Table 5, the Township has about $ 4,900 in dedicated park funds.

STANCHFIELD TOWNSHIP Contact: Valerie Marty-Anderson, Township Clerk

Organizational Structure: Isanti County a. Stanchfield Township does not have a Park Board. The Board of Supervisors controls and oversees the Township’s Park and Recreation property and budget. b. The five member Board is comprised of three supervisors, one clerk and one trea- surer. c. The Board meets at 7:00 p.m. on the first Thursday of each month at the Town Hall. d. Duties of the Town Board include overseeing the maintenance of the Township’s roads and buildings, elections, setting levies, as well as controlling park expenditures.

Park Funding: a. The Township has an annual budget which is voted on at the Annual Meeting. There is not a separate park and recreation budget. b. Park dedication funds total approximately $3,500, according to Figure 79, 12/31/06 Park Fund Summary. Approximately $1000 is used annually from the Township levy to maintain the softball field and provide other services. c. Participates in funding both the Cambridge-Isanti Area Summer Youth Program and the Braham Community Education Summer Recreation and Swimming Pro- grams. Parks Plan 2008 67 Maintenance: a. A private service and the Town Board provide maintenance to the softball field such as liming the ball field, mowing the grass and repairing the fence and bleachers and maintaining the Town Hall Park play equipment - (swing set, slide and picnic table).

Current Projects: a. None.

Other Recreation a. Local 4-H clubs and churches sponsor softball leagues.

Organizations and Programs: a. Provide other recreation opportunities. Stanchfield Township also participated in the Cambridge-Isanti Area Summer Youth Program as well as the Braham Commu- nity Education Summer Recreation and Swimming Programs.

WYANETT TOWNSHIP Contact: James McGlaughlin, Township Clerk

Organizational Structure: a. Wyanett Township does not have a Park Board or a Park Committee. The Board of Supervisors controls and oversees the Townships Park and Recreation property and budget.

b. The five member Board is comprised of three supervisors, one clerk and one trea- surer.

c. The Board meets at 8:00 p.m. on the second Tuesday of each month at the Town Isanti County Hall.

d. Duties of the Town Board include overseeing the maintenance of the Township’s roads and buildings, elections, setting levies, as well as controlling park expenditures.

Park Funding: a. The Township has an annual budget which is voted on at the Annual Meeting. There is not a separate Park and Recreation budget. There is about $ 12,000 of Dedicated park funding according to Figure 79, 12/31/06 Park Fund Summary. 68 Parks Plan 2008 b. The Township spends approximately $400 per year to service/maintain the swimming beach on Spectacle Lake. This money comes out of the Township’s road budget.

Maintenance: a. The six acre Nacre Street Park is for the most part an undeveloped property and thus requires only periodic mowing. The swimming beach area (Curtis Park) has little to no grass to be mowed, but the Township does pay for the trash pick-up, installation and maintenance of the buoys, toilet rental and occasional grading of the site. The Township does charge $ 1 per adult for swimming at Curtis Park.

Current Projects: a. There are no current park projects the Township is undertaking at this time, however, many ideas including tennis courts, play equipment, basketball courts, swings and picnic tables have been discussed, regarding the future development and/or improvements to Nacre Street Park. Liability insurance and the lack of money are two concerns that have caused the Township to hold off pursuing any of these Isanti County ideas. b. Another suggested idea has been the need to set aside additional land for future park and/or recreation purposes.

Other Recreation: a. Local 4-H clubs and churches sponsor softball leagues and Organizations and Pro grams: provide other recreation opportunities.

SPRINGVALE TOWNSHIP Contact: Michelle Kleven, Township Clerk

Organizational Structure: a. Springvale Township does not have a Park Board. The Board of Supervisors controls and oversees the Township’s Park and Recreation property and budget. The Board does, however, defer any park or recreation related issues or questions to Supervisor McNear for his review and recommendations. b. The five member Board is comprised of three supervisors, one clerk and one trea- surer. c. The Board meets at 6:30 p.m. on the first Wednesday of each month at the Town Hall. Parks Plan 2008 69 d. Duties of the Town Board include overseeing the maintenance of Township roads and buildings, elections, setting levies, as well as controlling park expenditures.

Park Funding: a. The Township has an annual budget which is voted on at the Annual Meeting. There is not a separate park budget. Park expenditures of plat and permit fees totaling roughly $16,000 was spent at the Springvale Co Park for trails, from 2000 until 2006.

b. The 12/31/06 Park Fund for Springvale is about $ 3,500 and is summarized in Figure 79.

c. Participates in the Cambridge-Isanti Area Summer Youth Recreation Program.

Maintenance: a. Maintenance for the Town Hall property (2 acres) is provided by a person who is hired to mow the grass.

Current Projects: a. None.

Other Recreation a. Local 4-H clubs and churches sponsor softball leagues.

Organizations and Programs: a. Provide other recreation opportunities. Springvale Township also participates in the Cambridge-Isanti Area Summer Youth Program.

Isanti County CAMBRIDGE TOWNSHIP Contact: Melvin Larson, Township Clerk

Organizational Structure: a. Cambridge Township does not have a Park Board or a Park Committee. The Board of Supervisors controls and oversees the Township’s Park and Recreation property and budget.

b. The five member Board is comprised of three supervisors, one clerk and one trea- surer.

70 Parks Plan 2008 c. The Board meets at 7:00 p.m. on the second Monday of each month at the Jaycee Building located at the County Fairgrounds. d. Duties of the Town Board include overseeing the maintenance of 55 miles of Township roads, building maintenance, elections, setting levies, as well as controlling park expenditures.

Park Funding: a. The Township has an annual budget which is voted on at the Annual Meeting. b. Park dedication funds total approximately $24,000 according to Figure 79, 12/31/06 Park Fund Summary. c. Participates in the Cambridge-Isanti Summer Youth Program.

Maintenance: a. The Isanti County Fair Association maintains the Township Park which is located Isanti County within the Fairgrounds.

Current Projects: a. The Township completed a $7,500 park improvement project within the County Fairgrounds property. Improvements include a walking path around the pond and some picnic tables. The Board paid for this project by using park fund money ($800) and money from the Annual Budget ($6,700). The project was completed by the spring/summer of 1995.

Other Recreation a. Local 4-H clubs and churches sponsor softball leagues.

Organizations and Programs: a. Provide other recreation opportunities. Cambridge Township participates in the Cambridge-Isanti Area Summer Youth Program.

SPENCER BROOK TOWNSHIP Contact: Jennifer Jenkins, Township Clerk

Organizational Structure: a. Spencer Brook Township does not have a Park Board or a Park Committee. The Board of Supervisors controls and oversees the Township’s Park and Recre- ation property and budget. Parks Plan 2008 71 b. The five member Board is comprised of three supervisors, one clerk and one trea- surer.

c. The Board meets at 7:00 p.m. on the second Monday of each month at the Town Hall.

d. Duties of the Town Board include overseeing the maintenance of the Townships roads and buildings, elections, setting levies, as well as controlling park expenditures.

Park Funding: a. The Township has an annual budget which is voted on at the Annual Meeting. There is not a separate park and recreation budget.

b. The Township has about $ 7,000 in its Park Dedication Fund according to Figure 79, 12/31/06 Park Fund Summary.

c. The Township spends less than $500 annually to help maintain the ball field.

Maintenance: a. A minimal amount of maintenance is needed at the ball field that Spencer Brook and Bradford Townships jointly operate and use.

b. The Bradford Sportsmen’s Club contributes to the maintenance and cost of operating the ball field (material contribution - equipment).

c. The Township has used STS (Sentence to Serve) in the past to help maintain the ball field and the two lake accesses (one on Blue Lake and one on Baxter Lake). Main- tenance includes cleaning up area, mowing grass and cutting back brush. Isanti County Other Recreation a. Local 4-H clubs and churches sponsor softball leagues.

Organizations and Programs: a. Provide other recreation opportunities.

Current Projects: a. None.

72 Parks Plan 2008 BRADFORD TOWNSHIP Contact: Thomas Anderson, Township Clerk

Organizational Structure: a. Bradford Township does have a Park Committee. The Board of Supervisors controls and oversees the Township’s Park and Recreation property and budget. b. The five member Board is comprised of three supervisors, one clerk and one trea- surer. c. The Board meets at 7:00 p.m. on the second Monday of each month at the Town Hall. d. Duties of the Town Board include overseeing the maintenance of the Township’s roads and buildings, elections, setting levies, as well as controlling park expenditures.

Park Funding: Isanti County a. The Township has an annual budget which is voted on at the Annual Meeting. There is not a separate park and recreation budget. b. Park Dedication Funds total approximately $34,000 according to Figure 79, 12/31/06 Park Fund Summary. c. The Bradford Sportsmen’s Club sponsored a fund raiser to purchase a lawn mower which was then donated to the Township approximately seven or eight years ago.

Maintenance: a. Thomas Anderson volunteers to maintain the ball field. Maintenance includes rak- ing down gopher mounds, mowing the grass and fixing the fences and bleachers. b. Groups using the ball field are not charged a users fee but are expected to clean up after themselves.

Other Recreation a. Local 4-H clubs and churches sponsor softball leagues.

Organizations and Programs: a. Provide other recreation opportunities. Bradford Township has provided some space for the Cambridge-Isanti Area Summer Youth Program to operate their site. Parks Plan 2008 73 Current Projects: a. None.

ISANTI TOWNSHIP Contact: Dean Boettcher, Township Clerk

Organizational Structure: a. Isanti Township does not have a Park Board or a Park Committee. The Board of Supervisors controls and oversees the Township’s Park and Recreation property and budget.

b. The five member Board is comprised of three supervisors, one clerk and one trea- surer.

c. The Board meets at 7:30 p.m. on the second Tuesday of each month at the Town Hall.

d. Duties of the Town Board include overseeing the maintenance of the Township’s roads and buildings, elections, setting levies, as well as controlling park expenditures.

Park Funding: a. The Township has an annual budget which is voted on at the Annual Meeting. There is not a separate park and recreation budget.

b. The Township’s Park Dedication Fund totals about $37,000 (end of 2006). The 1995 Annual Meeting devoted a lot of time on how this money could/should be spent according to Figure 79, 12/31/04 Park Fund Summary.

Maintenance: Isanti County a. Money to maintain the 8 acre Town Hall property (6 acres are used for crop pro- duction) and the boat landing on Lake Fannie comes out of the Township’s road and bridge budget.

b. Maintenance includes cutting weeds, mowing grass, repairing the two picnic tables and other minor services.

Other Recreation a. Local 4-H clubs and churches sponsor softball leagues.

74 Parks Plan 2008 Organizations and Programs: a. Provide other recreation opportunities. Isanti Township did not participate in the 1994 Cambridge-Isanti Area Summer Youth Program.

Current Projects: a. None. Ideas that have been discussed for the Town Hall site including installation of horse shoe pits and swing sets.

NORTH BRANCH TOWNSHIP Contact: Shawn Williams, Township Clerk

Organizational Structure: a. North Branch Township does not have a Park Board. However, in March 1994, three people volunteered to form a committee to look into establishing a park in the Township. The Board of Supervisors controls and oversees the Township’s Park and Recreation property and budget. Isanti County b. The five member Board is comprised of three supervisors, one clerk and one trea- surer. c. The Board meets at 7:45 p.m. on the first Thursday of each month at the Town Hall. d. Duties of the Town Board include overseeing the maintenance of the Township’s roads and buildings, elections, setting levies, as well as controlling park expenditures.

Park Funding: a. The Township has an annual budget which is voted on at the Annual Meeting. There is not a separate park and recreation budget. b. The Township’s current Park Dedication Fund total is about $30,000. A committee is looking at using this money to establish a park in the Township according to Figure 79 12/31/06 Park Fund Summary. c. Participates in the Cambridge-Isanti Area Summer Youth Program.

Parks Plan 2008 75 Maintenance: a. The Town Hall property (2-3 acre site) is the only land the Township maintains. Maintenance is provided by a private service and including lawn mowing, painting, changing light bulbs and other general maintenance needs.

Other Recreation a. Local 4-H clubs and churches sponsor softball leagues.

Organizations and Programs: a. Provide other recreation opportunities. North Branch Township participates in the Cambridge-Isanti Area Summer Youth Program.

Current Projects: a. The Town Board is waiting for the Park committee to present their findings on establishing a park within the Township.

STANFORD TOWNSHIP Contact: Barb Vogtlin, Township Clerk

Organizational Structure: a. Stanford Township does not have a Park Board or a Park Committee. The Board of Supervisors controls and oversees the Townships Park and Recreation property and budget.

b. The five member Board is comprised of three supervisors, one clerk and one trea- surer.

c. The Board meets at 7:30 p.m. on the first Monday of each month at the Town Hall.

Isanti County d. Duties of the Town Board include overseeing the maintenance of the Township’s roads and buildings, elections, setting levies, as well as controlling park expenditures.

Park Funding: a. The Township has an annual budget which is voted on at the Annual Meeting. There is not a separate park and recreation budget, although the Board is talking about establishing one.

76 Parks Plan 2008 b. Approximately $2,000 is budgeted for maintaining the Stanford Township Blue Lake Park and the Lyndon Cedarblade Park ball field according to 79, 12/31/06 Park Fund Summary. c. There is about $ 24,000 in the Township’s Park Dedication Fund (12/31/06)

Maintenance: a. The Township hires one person to maintain the Blue Lake Park for the summer and another person to mow the grass at the Town Hall ball field. b. S T S and Sheriff’s Youth Program crews have been used to help clear trails and rebuild bridges at the Lyndon Cedarblade Park.

Other Recreation a. Local 4-H clubs and churches sponsor softball leagues.

Organizations and Programs: Isanti County a. Provide other recreation opportunities.

Current Projects: a. The Township is looking at adding tennis courts and horseshoe pits at the Town Hall site on land just south of the ball field.

ATHENS TOWNSHIP Contact: Barb Kilpatrick, Park Board Chair

Organizational Structure: a. Athens Township does have a Park Board. It is a five member advisory committee appointed by the Town Board. The Athens Town Board oversees the Township’s park committee and the park budget. Athens Town Hall sits on a ten-acre tract of land given to the Township by the Erickson Family. The area behind the hall is Collin Park, named after Lawrence Collin who was the Town Clerk for 50+ years. The park has on-going developments. Funds for the park come from two cell towers located on township land. There is a half-mile paved walking path that meanders around the outside perimeter for walking, skateboarding, bicycling or rollerblad- ing. No motorized vehicles are allowed, other than motorized wheelchairs. There are many evergreen and other trees planted along the outside edges of the path, as well as several benches along the way to

Parks Plan 2008 77 take a quiet break. In the front southwest corner of the walking path is a state-of-the art Little League-quality regulation baseball field paid for by tower funds as well as many donations of volunteer hours, cash and materials, grants and awards. The field was designed by and construction of it managed by Russ Mann. There is also a playground and picnic area.

In addition, Athens has two other parks with some development and some small parcels with no development. Dewey Anderson Park is a 40-acre tract with a landing to the Rum River. Anderson Park is open to horseback riding, responsible 4-wheelers and hiking. Fred and Rose Cross Nature Center is a 10-acre tract of woods and lowland with paths for 4-wheelers at idle speed, hiking and nature-watching.

Park Funding: a. The Township has an annual budget which is voted on at the Annual Meeting. Money from Cell Phone Towers is collected quarterly and goes to improvements on the 10 acre Lawrence Collin, 40 acre Dewey Anderson, and 10 acre Fred & Rose Cross Township Parks / Nature Area.

b. The Township’s Park Dedication Fund currently totals about $______. (information pending)

Maintenance: a. At this time, the Township has no park property or facilities to maintain.

Other Recreation a. Athens Township supports Isanti County Active Living (ICAL) by adding parks and recreational equipment that currently include walking paths, playground equipment and the baseball field as well as by enhancing road design to incorporate wider Isanti County shoulders for walkers and bikers.

b. Local 4-H clubs and churches sponsor softball leagues.

Organizations and Programs: a. Provide other recreation opportunities.

Current Projects: a. Researching future options for the Dewey Anderson River Park and additional recreational opportunities at Lawrence Collin Park. 78 Parks Plan 2008 OXFORD TOWNSHIP Contact: Linnea Lentz, Township Clerk

Organizational Structure: a. Meets 7:30 p.m. the second Tuesday of month

The Township does not have any existing park or recreation facilities or property. Ideas for installing playground equipment at the Town Hall site have been discussed at recent meetings. Oxford Township did participate in the Cambridge - Isanti Area Summer Youth Program. They have about $ 1,000 in park funds as of 6/1/07. The Township contributed $ 10,000 of its Park Funds towards the acquisition and development of the 174 acres of the Irving & John Anderson County Park. Isanti County

Isanti County Park Fees - 2007 New New Permits Permits Prior Balance as Park Fee Old Plats Township of 12/31/05 2006 Park Fee Interest Totals Athens Bradford $6,225.00 $900.00 $19,890.00 $6,396.37 $33,411.37 Cambridge $4,475.00 $400.00 $9,714.55 $9,566.88 $24,156.43 Dalbo $3,475.00 $600.00 $2,450.00 $256.44 $6,781.44 Isanti $4,850.00 $975.00 $5,534.77 $25,264.06 $36,623.83 Maple Ridge $3,400.00 $0.00 $1,225.00 $233.45 $4,858.45 North Branch $5,025.00 $300.00 $9,145.70 $14,818.70 $29,289.40 Oxford $3,200.00 $700.00 $5,315.00 $1,575.15 -$10,000.00 $790.15 Spencer Brook $3,800.00 $400.00 $2,315.00 $377.25 $6,892.25 Springvale $2,720.00 $600.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,320.00 Stanchfield $2,637.50 $700.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,337.50 Stanford $7,150.00 $1,500.00 $11,755.00 $3,768.10 $24,173.10 Wyanett $6,325.00 $1,300.00 $2,928.62 $1,036.46 $11,590.08 Totals $53,282.50 $8,375.00 $70,273.64 $63,292.86 $185,224.00 Provided by the Isanti County Auditor Figure 82. Isanti County Park Fees Table, Steve Nelson, 2007.

Parks Plan 2008 79 Park ClassIFICatIon

Although Isanti County is not within the seven County TCMA, the classification system used in the Metropolitan Area (modified slightly) will be helpful to understand the relationship of various providers with the various types of facilities and services offered. It will also help to clarify terminology used in the Isanti County Parks and Recreation Plan. The following Table 6 defines:

(a) The various “levels” (“Components” column) of parks.

(b) The jurisdiction that is commonly responsible for each level (“Components” column).

(d) The service area from which most of the users will be drawn. NOTE: The table is designed for a relatively dense urban development so some of the distances will not be appropriate for Isanti County’s low concentration of residents. (“Service Area” column).

(e) The normal site size for the various types of parks. (“Site” column).

(f) The type of site characteristics most appropriate for each type of park (“Site At tributes” column).

(g) General location criteria for each type of facility (“Site Location” column). Isanti County

80 Parks Plan 2008 FIGURE 80. RECREATION OPEN SPACE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Isanti County

Figure 83. Recreation Open Space Classification System, Sanders Wacker Wehrman Ber- gly, Inc., 1995.

Parks Plan 2008 81 IsantI County ’s r ole

The role of Isanti County in the Parks and Recreation Plan is to maintain, acquire and/or expand parks that preserve and protect natural areas, provide passive recreation opportunities for residents, strive to maintain the rural character of the County and promote the health, well-being and quality of life for residents of the County.

The typical Isanti County resident will utilize several of these levels of recreational opportunities. Normally, the smaller, more often visited sites are used by the typical family more often than the large open space parks or the special use parks. The age of family members will often determine the extent to which various types of parks are used. Families with young children will be focused on tot-lots with play equipment. As the children get older, organized, competitive sports will get more attention. Adults need a wider variety of activities to meet diverse interests - from competitive sports to hiking and biking, to environmental education, to hunting and fishing.

ACTIVE OR PASSIVE RECREATION: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?

Definitions vary by author and purpose. Often, resource agencies focus on the extractive element of recreation (hiking is passive, hunting is active). Others focus on the facilities element (mountain biking is passive, soccer is active). Still others focus on the team-sport element (bird-watching is passive, baseball is active). For purposes of this document a hybrid definition is used that incorporates all of these areas and includes aspects of environmental stewardship. Isanti County Passive recreation as defined for this document includes walking, hiking and other non- motorized outdoor recreational activities that do not materially alter the landscape, nor degrade environmental quality, nor involve commercial recreational use.

Active recreation includes outdoor recreational activities that require specific facilities to be built and maintained that are space intensive and materially alter the landscape in a fun- damental manner. Typically active recreation also includes a formal organization structure that is best served through these facilities. Examples of these facilities include athletic fields suitable for organized sports. 82 Parks Plan 2008 The sector of recreational open space provided by the County should be aimed at family and adult participation activities that are attractive to young and old alike. The role of the County is to provide passive recreation parks and special programming parks such as a swimming beach. Activities should not intentionally overlap those generally provided at the local level, and should contain a range of passive recreation including non-programmed space for informal active recreation.

Isanti County recognizes the cities and township’s role in providing specific recreational opportunities to citizens throughout the County. In addition, the County recognizes that the State and adjoining counties play a regional role in preserving and protecting sensitive natural areas and providing recreational opportunities to its citizens. The Parks and Rec- reation Plan seeks collaborative opportunities with all other jurisdictions that support this Plan. Isanti County

Derived from definitions by the Parks and Recreation Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, California.

The terms active and passive recreation describe activities, not sites or facilities. HIGH-INFRASTRUCTURE SITES AND LOW-INFRASTRUCTURE SITES

To differentiate between facilities like ball fields and wildlife preserves, we use the terms high- infrastructure site and low-infrastructure site. Clearly, both active and passive recreation can occur at either high-infrastructure or low-infrastructure sites. Stargazing from a baseball field at night is an example of passive recreation conducted at a high-infrastructure site; whereas mountain biking is clearly active recreation conducted at a low infrastructure site.

Georgia Parks: A Resource for Living, A Refuge for Life May 9, 2007. Outdoor Recreation Strategies to Enhance Georgia’s Future for Health and Livability, Economic Vitality, and Re- source Conservation, Georgia Department of Natural Resources.

Parks Plan 2008 83 Isanti County

84 Parks Plan 2008 Isanti County s eCtIon 3. Goals anD PolICIes

Parks Plan 2008 85 MIssIon

The role of Isanti County in the Parks and Recreation Plan is to maintain, acquire and/or expand parks that preserve natural areas, provide passive recreation opportunities, strive to maintain the rural character of the County, and promote the health, well-being and quality of life for residents of the County. Isanti County

Figure 84. Image of Isanti County Lake, Joe Crocker, 2006. 86 Parks Plan 2008 PurPose

The purpose of the Isanti County Parks and Recreation Plan (Parks Plan) is to:

(a) Inventory the outdoor recreational opportunities in the County that are now provided by state, county, city, township and school district levels. Inventory outdoor recreational opportunities within the ring counties that surround Isanti County.

(b) Continue the process of investigation and planning to meet the outdoor recreation and land preservation needs of future generations.

(c) Define the types of outdoor recreational opportunities for which the County should be responsible in meeting the total outdoor recreational needs of County residents.

(d) Establish a framework to guide decisions regarding future planning, acquisition, development and maintenance of the County’s outdoor recreation.

(e) Set short and long term goals for the Parks Plan. Isanti County

(f) Prioritize recreation/open space acquisition and development to meet the needs of present and future County residents.

(g) Provide suggestions for implementation strategies.

(h) Document the public participation process and utilize the public input in the Parks Plan.

(i) Coordinate with the Isanti County Comprehensive Plan and Isanti County Active Liv- ing (ICAL).

Parks Plan 2008 87 Goals anD PolICIes

GOALS

The following goals, policies and site selection criteria have been used to guide specific planning, acquisition, improvements and management throughout the development of the Parks Plan.

It is important to note that Isanti County Parks and Recreation Commission’s role and the focus of its efforts in the following goals will be to provide primarily for County park and trail facilities.

These facilities will focus on low-infrastructure, passive uses or special use facilities as deemed appropriate by the Parks and Recreation Commission, and do not include those types of recreational opportunities and activities normally provided by local units of government.

These goals, based on public input from the Parks Plan and Comprehensive Planning Pro- cess, are not prioritized and are intended to be considered together when making decisions:

1. To protect and enhance the quality of life for this generation and generations to come.

2. To preserve and restore unique or sensitive environments, bio-corridors and resources for wildlife habitat, human enjoyment and environmental education while maintaining a balance between natural systems and human intrusion.

3. To protect essential hydrologic resources for use by present and future residents.

4. To preserve and protect the land adjacent to the Rum River. Isanti County 5. To preserve and protect significant geological sites which provide a link with our past.

6. To preserve and enhance significant cultural and historical resources that put our present habitation of the land in context with our heritage.

7. To provide areas and facilities that help meet the recreation needs of this generation and provide flexibility to meet the potential needs for generations that will follow. 88 Parks Plan 2008 8. To provide appropriate public use of water resources for use and enjoyment by the public.

9. To promote the health and well-being of the citizens of the County by providing opportunities for active living and healthful recreation.

10. To work with the cities and townships within Isanti County to identify opportunities for collaboration in providing for the full range of recreational needs of the citizens of the County.

11. To work with the State and adjoining counties to identify opportunities for collaboration on a regional recreational system that meets the needs of the citizens of the region.

12. To work with willing land-owning residents and developers to create non-public open space that complements public space as connected buffers or separate additional open spaces adjacent to roads or public areas, natural vistas, Isanti County bio-corridors and water.

13. To provide walking, hiking and biking paths within the parks to encourage healthy recreation and active living.

14. To provide non-motorized linkages between the cities of Isanti County and from the cities to parks.

Parks Plan 2008 89 Figure 85. Image of Isanti County Roadscape, Carol Urness, 2006. 15. To seek out ways to connect safe biking and walking routes in Isanti County with trails and safe biking and walking routes in adjoining counties.

16. To provide attractive signage on trails and stopping points for education, interest and enjoyment.

PLANNING POLICIES

1. Isanti County will continue to acquire land and develop facilities in the Parks Plan to work toward the above goals.

2. Isanti County will use the Parks Plan as the planning guide for the County-owned parks as a group. It must be reviewed and amended periodically to ensure that it is useful, current and relevant.

3. Isanti County has prepared a project master plan for each component of the system that is the basis for acquisition, development and management. The master planning process includes citizen participation, review by the affected local units of government and review and adoption by the County Board. New plans will be developed for any additions to the Parks Plan and will be prepared with the master planning process. The plans documented are: • Becklin Homestead Park/WMA • Dalbo Park • Springvale County Park • Vegsund Family County Park • Wayside Prairie Park

4. The Isanti County Parks and Recreation Commission will maintain and annually Isanti County update or amend a five-year Capital Improvements Program for all acquisition and development of the Parks Plan.

5. The Isanti County Parks and Recreation Commission will maintain and periodically update a comprehensive ordinance for controlling and managing the Parks Plan.

6. The Isanti County Parks and Recreation Commission will continue a public awareness program coordinated with other recreation providers to keep its residents informed of available parks and recreation opportunities.

90 Parks Plan 2008 7. The Isanti County Parks and Recreation Commission will coordinate its planning efforts with various Isanti County commissions and task forces, governmental units, foundations, agencies and individuals that plan or provide for parks and recreation affecting Isanti County.

• Referring to the Central Minnesota Parks, Trails, and Open Space Coor- dinating Board (member counties: Stearns, Benton, Sherburne) as a model for cooperative and collaborative planning, The Isanti County Parks and Recreation Commission will actively pursue a similar relationship with Chisago, Wright and Sherburne Counties to coordinate planning ef- orts and state/federal level funding requests for park land acquisition and development.

8. The Isanti County Parks and Recreation Commission will refer to the 2001-2002 Minnesota Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP), March 2005 Forest Resource Management Plan for the East Central Landscape, the Metro Greenways Program, and other local surveys when planning facilities and Isanti County activities for guidance.

NEED/DEMAND POLICIES

1. Isanti County will meet the current needs of its residents first and recognizes that some of these needs may be met by park providers at various levels - federal, state, regional, municipal and private. (See the Recreation Opportunities in Isanti County Section)

2. Future needs will be determined and planned for through community profile projections that includes demographic and social economic data.

3. Assessment of current and future resident needs will be validated through a public input process convened at appropriate points in the implementation of the plan.

LAND ACQUISITION POLICIES

1. Preservation of Natural Resources: The Isanti County Parks and Recreation Commission recognizes that official public

Parks Plan 2008 91 controls and/or public ownership of significant and unique resources may be desirable in some cases essential to: • Protect a significant resource threatened by deterioration, neglect or inor- dinate increase in land value. • Preserve the intrinsic ecological, cultural and/or scenic value of a unique resource. • Preserve unique or significant examples of features in the landscape: o Geological features o Biological features o Hydrologic features, in particular, to protect water quality To achieve preservation of natural resources, the Isanti County Parks and Recre- ation Commission recognizes that land acquisition policy will need to focus on aggregating public land into larger parcels as a priority.

2. Preservation of Social and Cultural Resources and Opportunities • Preserve unique or significant examples of historical or cultural features in the landscape such as historically significant sites or archeologically significant sites. • Preserve opportunities to assure availability of additional recreational lands for future generations although the current need may not be imperative. • Preserve open space within natural settings as a relief from dense urban- ization and as an opportunity for healthful recreation. • Identify appropriate opportunities for special programming needs that might best be served by the County, e.g. a swimming beach, horse trail park, mountain biking park.

3. The Isanti County Parks and Recreation Commission will monitor opportunities as they arise and funding is available as the basis for determining the extent Isanti County and timing of acquisition.

4. The Isanti County Parks and Recreation Commission will schedule acquisition priorities in a five-year Capital Improvements Program with projections for 10 and 15 years.

5. The Isanti County Parks and Recreation Commission will maintain a reserve fund to acquire lands as they become available.

92 Parks Plan 2008 6. Tax forfeiture land that the MN DNR deems sensitive and therefore cannot be sold may, at the discretion of the County Board, come into the Parks Plan.

7. Land Acquisition - Methods of Acquisition To assure protection and availability, Isanti County will utilize various methods of acquisition, including but not limited to: • County purchase negotiated whenever possible. • Purchase by other state or local agencies. • Long-term leases. • Easements for use or protection. • Land dedication provisions in local or county land use regulations. • Land trades and development rights. • Assistance and/or cost-sharing with other agencies. • Donations, bequests and foundations. • Interim uses (land stewardship). • Tax forfeited land. • Grant programs through state, federal and private agencies and organiza- Isanti County tions. • Partnering with community groups, non profits, sportsmen clubs and asso- ciations.

8. Land Acquisition - Methods of Purchase Isanti County will utilize various purchase arrangements to obtain land with the most benefit to the County, land owner and governmental unit directly affected, including but not limited to the following:

• From willing sellers if possible. • Life tenancy of current owners. • Purchase - lease back. • Options/right of first refusal. • Relocation. • Tax advantages. • Land exchange.

9. Isanti County will use the master planning process as the basis for determining the extent and timing of acquisition.

10. Isanti County will provide necessary staff to accomplish these Acquisition Policies.

Parks Plan 2008 93 DEVELOPMENT POLICIES

1. Isanti County will use a project Master Plan for each site as the basis for determining facility/activity areas, protection of open space, intensity of development, access points, phasing and interim uses.

2. Isanti County recognizes resource protection as a primary consideration when determining the number and type of uses and the use intensity.

3. Isanti County will encourage compatible site development that provides for multiple use and multi-seasonal use, but recognizes that single-use facilities may also be appropriate in some cases, e.g., swimming beach.

4. Isanti County will provide development that is accessible to all segments of the population, including the aged and handicapped where feasible and appropriate.

5. Isanti County will provide park accessibility that accommodates modes of public transportation, e.g., bus parking.

6. Isanti County will schedule development timing in a five-year Capital Improvements Program with projections for 10 and 15 years.

7. Isanti County may provide park space and facilities that will accommodate the following types of outdoor recreation: swimming, picnicking, boating, fishing, camping, hiking, biking, cross-country skiing, interpretation of resources, sightseeing, scenic driving, equestrian activities, unstructured open field activities and specialized types of recreation.

Isanti County MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION POLICIES

1. The Isanti County Parks and Recreation Commission facilities will be maintained in a manner that provides a safe and attractive environment for users.

2. Isanti County will provide effective management and staffing of its resource base and facilities to ensure the continued quality of the natural system and the recreation experience.

94 Parks Plan 2008 3. Isanti County will make the system available to all persons regardless of race, religion, color, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation or place of residence.

4. Isanti County will rely largely on self-guided facilities for resource interpretation.

5. Isanti County will assist local units of government in providing fire and police protection and emergency medical services for users of County facilities.

6. Isanti County will provide necessary permanent and part-time staff to properly manage sites and facilities.

FINANCING POLICIES

1. The Isanti County Parks and Recreation Commission will vigorously pursue acquisition and development funding available through various state grants, federal grants and private agencies and organizations. Isanti County

2. The Isanti County Parks and Recreation Commission will continue to assess fees on new development within the County.

3. The Isanti County Parks and Recreation Commission will consider revenue generating opportunities, as appropriate and warranted, to assist in financing acquisition and operational costs. These opportunities could include but are not limited to: a. User fees, where appropriate, which typically include park entrance fees or activity fees. b. Dedication of a portion of the general tax levy to fund the acquisition, development, and maintenance of County facilities. c. State bonding opportunities toward acquisition and development of parks, trails, and recreational facilities. d. Place a bond referendum for parks, trails, and open space before the voters in a general election. This allows voters to have direct involvement on deciding how much money should be allocated to parks, trails, and open space. e. When feasible and appropriate, engage in other means of generating internal revenue, e.g., timber sales. f. When feasible and appropriate, continue to dedicate a portion of the sales of tax forfeit land to the Park General Fund.

Parks Plan 2008 95 s eCtIon 4. PlannInG & a CQuIsItIon Isanti County

96 Parks Plan 2008 Isanti County s eCtIon 4. PlannInG & a CQuIsItIon

Parks Plan 2008 97 The mission of the Isanti County Parks and Recreation Commission is to maintain, acquire and/or expand parks that preserve and protect natural areas, provide passive recreation opportunities, strive to maintain the rural character of the County and promote the health, well-being and quality of life for residents of the County.

These resources shall be used for the recreation, education and enjoyment of present and future generations of Isanti County citizens. Finding appropriate sites for county park facilities requires significant planning efforts. Many different factors must be considered when determining which sites are best suited to provide natural resource based outdoor recreational opportunities. These factors must also be balanced to create a system meeting the County’s current and long-term needs. The primary criteria on which these factors are based are size, geographic distribution and the presence of significant natural amenities. The factors listed below (not in order of priority) provide an overview of the primary considerations involved when identifying potential sites for the Isanti County Parks and Recreation Plan (Parks Plan).

Location Planning for and developing a system of parks and trails that are geographically distributed is a goal of the Parks and Recreation Commission. Since ideal and/or desirable sites having natural amenities, good availability and desirable acreages are not neces- sarily evenly distributed acquiring properties in a perfect geographic distribution may be impossible. However, areas of significance within the County were identified in the Public Workshops. Significant areas were identified on two maps, a Natural Areas Map and a Rural Character Map. The Natural Areas Map shows areas within the County that have environmental integrity1. The Rural Character Map shows areas within the County that are visually pleasing.

The outcome of the Natural Areas and Rural Character Significance Maps (shown in Fig- ures 86 and 87) is the Planning Regions Map (as shown in Figure 88). The Planning Regions Map focuses on areas of heightened natural function and areas of strong rural character. The significant natural and the rural character areas do not exist exclusive of each other but begin to shape the communities experience of these particular areas. The Planning Isanti County Regions Map is meant to serve as a guide to help acknowledge the diverse land use, opinions, needs and opportunities, while simultaneously taking into consideration the level of development pressure. Each of the regions reflect similar issues and opportunities that exist based on such things as zoning and land use, population density, geologic land forms, and demographics. With different planning regions identified, the key ecologic, historic, and educational sites within each region that have the most potential can be identified, prioritized and planned for.

1. Environmental integrity reflects a state of the environment wherein air, water, and biologic systems function adequately to be self-sustaining. In this state the environment can also provide services that sustain human health and well-being (Steve Roos, Center for Rural Design, 2007). 98 Parks Plan 2008 Lewis Stutz Ogilvie Rice Silberg Natural Areas

Lory 7 10 Isanti County, MN Upper Rice y Krone w H te The Natural Areas map identifies areas that have Matson ta S significant value to support environmental quality and Seventeen West Rush health in Isanti County. East Rush Diesslin Marsh Christenson Marsh Section Linderman Natural areas do not represent pristine wilderness – Grass Pine Trollin they represent, in relative terms, those areas that Stauffer Adams provide ecological function and are somewhat less Mud North Stanchfield impacted by human activity. Therefore, they need

Larson Marsh Miller Marsh Johnson Slough careful consideration in planning for the future. Long Greenly Johnsons Slough Goose South Stanchfield Rabiolia Marsh Shugren Little Stanchfield This map is based on six features: Krans Long Erickson Alexis Goose Neander - Natural Area Size (contiguous areas of forest, Gunnik Leasure Heath Mud brushland, grassland, & wetland), Twin Allquist Marsh Radke - Core Forest, Long Classon Snyder Hjelm Williams - Land Cover Coincidence (potential coincidence Sandy Johnson Marsh Mandall Rum Bear between pre-settlement vegetation and current Roos Marsh Rabour Hauge Dollar Asp Strege Swedeen Marsh State Hwy 95 Johnson Slough Peterson SloughJonason Little Horseshoe land cover), Erickson Horseshoe Putz Marsh Rasmussen - Sites of Significant Biological Diversity identified by Bloomgren Fish White Lee Marsh Spectacle Nelson Marsh the MNDNR. Green Brobergs Rudell Marsh Skogman - Shoreland Protection Zones and Buffer Areas around Stat Manke Marsh e Hw water bodies Line y 95 Little Pine Elizabeth - Human Disturbance (degree of disturbance from Fannie Mud human land use). Elms Big Pine Spring Florence Johnson Chain (South Portion) Boomer Chilman Marsh natural r esource Quality r anking

Rice Grass Lower Relative Quality Herman Slough Krueger Marsh

Mud Kluck Slough

Tennyson

BoetcherFrancis Moderate Higher Relative Quality Baxter Knute Cajima Marsh County Parks, Peterson Slough Splittstoeser Isanti County WMA, U of M Sandy Mud Sroga Slough Boettcher Marsh Roads and Streets Water Mud German Blue Input from Long 5 Areas of Interest

6 Mud Horseleg Workshop 1 Stahlberg Marsh Marget Stahlberg Marsh y

w Isanti County Recreation/Open Space System Plan Update: Public Workshop #1

Horseshoe H

7 Mud Results of 'Dot Exercise' for the Natural Areas Map

4 e

t - Numbers indicate the number of comments out of the total that referred directly or indirectly to each individual topic.

Stony a Twin Hurley

t Dutcher Total Rum River Any Water Natural Beauty Natural Preserve Existing/New Recreational Existing/New w Upper Birch

S Comments Body Diversity Or Protect Trail Systems Opportunities Parks Isanti County H Lower Birch 142 25 75 32 46 26 21 44 18 West Hunter Tamarack Daudt Marsh e Stratton East Hunter t Total Respondents = 50

a Hoffman Numbers indicate the number of comments out of the total that referred directly or indirectly to each individual topic.

t Engberg Marsh Beckman Reimann Marsh S Reimann Marsh Long Twin Typo Cedar Bog Minard Fish Fish Fawn Miles ± 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Figure 86. Natural Areas Map, Center for Rural Design, 2006.

Lewis Stutz Ogilvie Rice Silberg Rural Character Lory Isanti County, MN Upper Rice Krone The Rural Character map identifies areas that have Matson significant scenic value related to the natural areas Seventeen West Rush and farming practices that fundamentally define the East Rush Diesslin Marsh Christenson Marsh rural landscape. Section Linderman Grass Pine Trollin While the perception of rural character can vary Stauffer Adams between individuals, in general, it is defined it is Mud North Stanchfield defined by the presence of both natural features and Larson Marsh Miller Marsh Johnson Slough agriculture blended in a complex and interesting visual Long Greenly Johnsons Slough Goose South Stanchfield Rabiolia Marsh pattern. Shugren Little Stanchfield Krans Long Erickson Alexis Goose Neander Gunnik Rural character can be assessed as a combination of two Leasure Heath Mud broad factors: Twin Allquist Marsh Radke LongClasson - Landform Complexity – represented by the shape of the Snyder Hjelm Williams Sandy Johnson Marsh Mandall land in the form of hills, valleys, knolls, and gullies. Rum Bear Roos Marsh Rabour - Landcover Complexity – represented in the form and Hauge Dollar Asp Strege Swedeen Marsh State Little Horseshoe Hwy 95 Johnson Slough Peterson Slough Jonason character of the things that sit on the land such as Erickson Horseshoe Putz Marsh Rasmussen Bloomgren woodlots, pastures, wetlands, and farmsteads. Fish White Lee Marsh Spectacle Nelson Marsh Green Brobergs Rudell Marsh Skogman Rural Character Value Rating Manke Marsh Line Lower Moderate Little Pine Elizabeth Fannie Scenic Value Mud

Elms Big Pine Spring Florence Johnson Chain (South Portion) Boomer Chilman Marsh Higher Rice Grass Herman Slough Krueger Marsh Moderate Scenic Value Mud Kluck Slough County Parks, Isanti County Tennyson WMA, U of M

BoetcherFrancis Roads and Streets Water Baxter Knute Cajima Marsh Input from Areas of Interest Peterson Slough Splittstoeser Workshop 1

Sandy Mud Sroga Slough Boettcher Marsh Analysis was performed at a scale of German

Mud 5 Blue

Long 40 acre (approximate) units. 6 Mud Horseleg

Stahlberg Marsh Marget y

Stahlberg Marsh Isanti County Recreation/Open Space System Plan Update: Public Workshop #1 w

7 Horseshoe Results of 'Dot Exercise' for the Rural Character Map H

4 Mud - Numbers indicate the number of comments out of the total that referred directly or indirectly to each individual topic. e

y Stony t Total Rural (mixed) Natural Agricultural Significance of Significance of Recreational Trail Existing/New Dutcher Twin Hurley

a Comments Scenery Scenery Scenery Agriculture Nature Opportunities Opportunities Parks w Upper Birch

t 130 64 27 15 34 67 29 12 14

H Lower Birch S West Hunter Daudt Marsh Stratton Tamarack Total Respondents = 46 East Hunter e

t Numbers indicate the number of comments out of the total that referred directly or indirectly to each individual topic. Hoffman a Beckman t Engberg Marsh Reimann Marsh Reimann Marsh S Long Twin Typo Cedar Bog Minard Fish Fish Fawn Miles ± 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Figure 87. Rural Character Map, Center for Rural Design, 2006. Parks Plan 2008 99 POTENTIAL PARK FACILITIES During the development of the Parks Plan two Public Workshops took place in which community members discussed the Parks Plan’s mission, types of parkland and park facilities. The resultant theme and thrust of the public’s opinion of the Isanti County Park Commis- sion (shown in Appendix C) was the management of natural resources in passive parks. The park facilities input included separate results for corridor and site facilities. The public input helped to gain insight into how people use and would like to use the Parks Plan, the type of parkland for future acquisition (passive or active) and the current development of existing park land.

Overall Objective- Natural Resource Management Of the utmost concern to the public is natural resource management shown in the Public Workshop results (Appendix C). According to definitions cited in federal law, natural resources are defined broadly to include land, fish, wildlife, biota, air, water, ground water, drinking water supplies and other such resources. These items are more than just amenities that contribute to the quality of life, they are the fabric of our society. Natural resources can make the difference in how people view a region, a community, and a backyard. Their presence can make the difference in how far people are willing to travel for viewing, hiking and simply being at these sites. Identifying and protecting the unique natural resources of Isanti County is a primary goal of the Parks Plan. Determining the appropriate natural resource sites that are most representative of the area and best capture Isanti County’s landscape requires well researched planning using a variety of resources and maps. Ideal sites can compete in being legitimate choices for people to visit and can serve as an economic draw to the region. Among some of the county’s top natural resources are its rivers, lakes, floodplain forests, oak savannas, wet and dry prairies.

Local Needs, Interest, and Opportunity With growth patterns significantly different between southern and northern Isanti County, local needs and demands for parks and trails can be quite different based on population, housing densities and available park opportunities. At the same time, good opportunities Isanti County that arise in less developed areas need to be strongly considered before they become cost prohibitive and/or no longer available. Local interest and support will also influence the type of projects pursued. The results from Public Workshop One and Public Workshop Two in Figures 89 - 91 indicate large support for connective bike trails, picnic areas, a swimming beach and public water fishing access sites.

Connective Bike Trails Connective bike trails are multi-use paved trails or on-road designations that provide limited infrastructure (trail and signage) to connect significant areas together. Within Isanti

100 Parks Plan 2008 PUBLIC WORKSHOP ONE: POTENTIALexercise 4: ProposedCORRIDOR Coordior FACILITIES Facilities

Canoe Dog Parks Park Sites Historic and Scenic Cooridors Signage Trails (In General) Unpaved Trails Trails (Motorized) Paved Shoulders for Biking Sidewalks in the Cities Trails (Non-Motorized) Accessible Trails Swimming Beaches Horse Camp Horse Trails Campsites River Trails Biking Trails Ski Trails Interpretive Trails Hiking Trails Walking Trails

0 5 10 15 20 25

Figure 89. Public Workshop One, Exercise 4: Proposed Corridor Facilities Graph, Center Isanti County for Rural Design, 2007. PUBLIC WORKSHOP ONE: POTENTIALexercise SITE 4: Proposed FACILITIES sites

Art and Music Facility Sidewalks Band shell Exercise Equipment Overnight Shelter for Bicyclists Water Park Sport Center Environmental Education Horse Trails Playgrounds Campgrounds Mountain Bike Trails Access to Public Lands Motorized Trails Fishing Piers Boat Launches Horse Campgrounds Dog Parks Public Access on Fishing Lakes Connective Trails (non motorized) Youth Activity Places Frisbee Golf Baseball Parks Arboretum Garden Landscaping in Parks Collaboration with U on Cedar Creek Interpretive Signage Historic Sites Picnic Area Hunting Public Swimming Beach Protected Wildlife Areas Skiing Hiking

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Figure 90. Public Workshop One, Exercise 4: Proposed Site Facilities Graph, Center for Rural Design, 2007. Parks Plan 2008 101 PUBLIC WORKSHOP TWO: POTENTIAL CPotentialORRIDOR Facilities AND SITE FACILITIES

Swimming Beach Art and Music Facility Band Shell Exercise Equipment on Trails or Parks Overnight Shelter for Bicyclists Water Park Sport Center Environmental Education Playgrounds Mountain Bike Trails Access to Public Lands Fishing Piers Boat Launches Public Access on Fishing Lakes Youth Activity Places Frisbee Golf Baseball Parks Arboretum Garden Landscaping in Parks Collaboration with U on Cedar Creek Interpretive Signage for Parks and Trails Historic Sites Picnic Area Designated Places for Hunting Camp Sites River Trails Biking Trails Skiing Trails Walking/Hiking Trails Protected Wildlife Areas Dog Parks Park Sites Historic and Scenic Corridors Motorized Trails Paved Shoulders for Biking Sidewalks in Cities Camp Sites w/Horse Accessibility Horse Trails Fishing Connective Trails (Non-Motorized) Biking/Hiking 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Figure 91. Public Workshop One, Exercise 4: Proposed Corridor Facilities Graph, Center for Rural Design, 2007.

County trail connections between Braham, Cambridge, Isanti and the Isanti County Parks are of high importance according to the Public Workshops and input from Active Living Isanti County.

Picnic Areas Picnic Areas are places designed to host various gatherings that usually consist of a parking lot, bathroom facility, picnic shelter, barbecue pit and some portion of mowed area for activity. The Parks Plan provides various levels of picnic areas at all of it park holdings. According to the public workshops park development of existing parks was significant and should be considered when funding becomes available.

Isanti County Swimming Beach A swimming beach is a designated area that is open to the public to swim at their own discretion. Swimming beach facilities can consist of a changing and bathroom facility, a payment booth and parking lot. According to the public workshops there is a significant interest in having a designated publicly owned swimming beach.

Public Water Fishing Access Sites Public water fishing access sites may consist of a boat launch and signage. Isanti County has some public water fishing access sites. According to the public workshops public water fishing access sites could be increased when funds become available. 102 Parks Plan 2008 ACREAGE AND PARCEL SIZE The following guidelines are applied by Isanti County for the selection and acquisition of county parks and trails relating to size. The guiding principles are summarized below.

1) Parks should be at least 100 acres in size. Larger sites of 200 acres or more are preferred. Sites that are sustainable, provide high quality wildlife habitat, and feature opportunities for natural resource based recreation will generally involve larger parcels.

Exceptions to that include sites that offer or provide: a) water based recreation or water access b) historic, cultural, or geologic significance to the site c) a special use that would not be otherwise available within a reasonable distance d) significant, sensitive, or unique natural resources e) good potential for future expansion of parks or open space via adjacent property

2) County Parks should contain a diversity of resources, either natural or artificial, that contribute to the outdoor recreation experience. Sites should be able to

provide natural resource based recreation and, where possible, contain unique or unusual Isanti County geologic features or have historical significance.

3) County Parks should consider the proximity to similar public facilities owned by federal, state, city, township, or other local units of government. a) Isanti County should avoid the duplication of services and park uses that are otherwise planned or currently provided by local units of government. b) Isanti County should consider sites that would be contiguous to other local units of government if it is supported by affected parties and would enhance the value and desired use of the sites in question.

4) Land acquired for public trail use should meet the minimum requirements established by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Minnesota Department of Trans- portation regarding necessary trail width for safe public use.

5) Land that serves as or helps establish, a local or regional trail connection for public trail use should be strongly considered.

6) Facilities within any site needs to provide universal access to diverse parkland resources and experiences as required by Minnesota statues.

Parks Plan 2008 103 FUNDING AND LEVERAGING Finding new sites and projects that are cost-effective is an ultimate goal of the county. Desirable sites for future parks and trails cannot be considered simply on the merits of protecting a rare ecosystem nor can they be ruled out based on their acquisition costs. Natural resources are finite, non-renewable amenities that cannot be replaced or re-cre- ated. Being responsible, resourceful and effective with available public funds is critical in helping acquire and develop cost-effective parks and trails. Being in a position for the County to leverage its resources as opportunities arise is equally important and can result in significant cost savings. Leveraging local funds and resources with available grants, programs, donations and interested partners should be considered whenever possible to best allocate the financial resources. One way to leverage funds and acquire new parkland in the County is to engage developers interested in housing developments. The County could encourage conservation developments, outlined in the following pages by the Minnesota Land Trust and University of Minnesota’s Center for Urban and Regional Affairs. Conser- vation Developments intend to be sensitive to the natural and rural environment and in most cases set aside part of the development for park land.

With the acquisition of parks, users of these parks will come from throughout the geographic region. Although a park may be located within a particular township or city, residents from local communities surrounding it will also share in its use and its benefits. In addition, it is safe to assume that a county park may not be feasible or practical to acquire in every township or city of the county. Therefore, to foster and promote good relationships among local units of government, Isanti County encourages the collaboration and shared use of resources from a geographic perspective.

Level of Urgency Prioritizing potential sites for parks and trails is subject to the landowner’s intentions and plans for the property, geographic location and function, connectivity value and activities affecting imminent land exchange. As changes occur affecting availability, size, cost or ecologic value, sites must be re-evaluated to identify potential changes in its desirability. Isanti County

104 Parks Plan 2008 WHAT IS CONSERVATION DESIGN? In its simplest form, conservation design is a broad term for the process of developing a particular parcel of land in a manner that respects the site’s natural and cultural features. It usually addresses new residential developments in rural or suburban settings. This process first asks questions about specific features of value to the community. For example, are there mature woodlands on the site worth protecting? Are there trout streams or native prairie? Is the development within an important scenic viewshed? Then, the buildings, roads and lots are arranged in such a manner to protect these resources and to minimize the overall impact of the development to the site itself and to the greater community. The result? Often, land is set aside in permanent open space (frequently between 40 and 80% of the site). This open space protects or restores the identified conservation values and provides the residents with a common area for their enjoyment. “Golf course development without the golf course” is how conservation design is often described. And just as good golf courses are laid out with impeccable attention to their form and function, good open space design requires a similar seriousness of purpose, albeit for vastly different conservation and community purposes. Isanti County

Conservation design is not an entirely new nor complex concept. In the 1960s and 1970s, developments like Keya Paha in Rice County and Jonathon in Chaska tested the feasibil- ity of protecting lakeshore and other natural features for all the residents to enjoy, rather than parceling it off for the exclusive appreciation of a few homeowners. Unfortunately, many of these innovative approaches were sidelined in subsequent building booms and busts. Now, however, there is a new resurgence in alternative development patterns.

There are many names and variations of conservation design: Cluster Development, Cluster Design, Open Space Development, Conservation-Based Development, Growing Greener and others. These terms have some differences, but by and large all of these concepts are attempts to improve how we develop land. Because conservation developments are oc- curring in places with unique political contexts and housing markets, comparing them can sometimes be quite difficult. Therefore, conservation design is perhaps best thought of as a process, rather than a standard product. In fact, one of the primary differences in this approach from conventional platting is that the ecological and cultural context for the development should help direct the design. This should result in different goals and thus different development outcomes.

Parks Plan 2008 105 HOW WOULD CONSERVATION DESIGN FUNCTION IN A RURAL SETTING? In many cases, landowners desire to keep farming, logging or otherwise using their land. They also desire to preserve its natural features. However, they often wish or need to derive some income from the sale of several lots. This scenario is quite common, as many landowners do not wish to fully develop their property. The land, however, is their only real asset for retirement or other future financial needs. This is an opportunity for Limited Rural Development.

Many zoning ordinances in rural settings require that land be broken up into 5-, 10- or 20-acre parcels, which makes continued farming or forest management difficult. With limited development, the areas most appropriate to keep in open space are identified first. In this case, the farmland, forest, and lakeshore areas are left largely intact and will be owned by the original landowner. Three smaller lots are located in areas that least impact this larger landscape, while still providing great marketability. Then, a conservation easement is placed over the larger area to ensure its future protection. The original landowner wins by having both income and the use of his or her property, while the larger community wins by having a development that maintains the rural character and function of the area. There are numerous limited developments around the state, both in agricultural settings as well as in forest or lakeshore contexts. ...

WHO OWNS THE OPEN SPACE? Land ownership is another important factor in conservation design. In many projects, a homeowners association (HOA) comprised of all of the landowners in a particular development retains joint ownership of the conserved open space. The homeowners are thus responsible for maintaining the open space, paying taxes and covering liability issues. HOA ownership of open space has become the most frequent model for conservation developments. HOA ownership is not the only model, however. In Windsor Park, the city of Elk River owns part of the open space as a public park. In Jackson Meadow, the adjacent landowners own part of the open space and intend to keep it in agricultural use. And in Isanti County Cardinal Ridge, a Lake Elmo project, the open space is partially owned by one of the landowners in the development who owns a larger lot extending over part of the open- space. Regardless of ownership, the conservation purposes for which the land was set aside should still remain intact.

106 Parks Plan 2008 HOW SHOULD THE OPEN SPACE BE MANAGED? The creation of a strong management plan – which identifies how the open space will be managed and by whom – is an important component of successful conservation projects. Just setting land aside does not ensure its long-term quality or viability. For example, when a homeowners association or other entity takes ownership of the open space, how will they know what areas were intended to be kept as farmland or prairie? How will the shoreline buffers be managed (e.g., what will keep them from being mowed down?)? The management plan would help answer these questions on how the protected area should be maintained to retain its conservation values. This plan would spell out specific goals and directions for various areas of the site. These goals might include extensive ecological restoration to help bring the site back to an earlier time. The Fields of St. Croix in Lake Elmo, Jackson Meadow in Marine on St. Croix, and Mineral Springs in Goodhue County are just a few of the developments that have restored prairies and other native systems within the open space. Wild Meadows in Medina takes the restoration concept even further by restoring both the open space and much of the residential lots into woodlands and a mix- ture of prairie types and wetland species. This restoration also provides the stormwater management infrastructure for the development, thereby serving multiple purposes. Wild Isanti County Meadows’ covenants require a part-time ecologist to help manage the property and educate residents about the ecological values that surround them.

Other developments around the country have even furthered this concept by prescribing what landowners can or cannot do on their individual properties. For example, some developments have designated no-mow areas on individual lots or enacted policies such as a no-pet restriction for residents (cats and dogs can have devastating impacts on certain bird species). These cases consider the multitude of impacts of residents adjacent to conservation areas, thereby extending the environmental mission of the project beyond the open space borders to the individual landowners themselves.

Excerpted from the “Preserving Minnesota’s Landscapes Through Creative Development” Minnesota Land Trust, University of Minnesota, Center for Rural and Urban Affairs, 2001.

Parks Plan 2008 107 Isanti County

108 Parks Plan 2008 Isanti County s eCtIon 5. FInanCIal s uPPort

Parks Plan 2008 109 Multiple finance options are available to help fund the acquisition, development and maintenance of parks and trails. No single source should be relied upon to adequately fund the Isanti County Parks and Recreation Plan (Parks Plan). Incorporating and implementing all of these options as they become feasible should be considered as part of a sound, comprehensive funding strategy. New finance opportunities should be aggressively sought and innovatively applied as they become available. Below is a list of the methods to consider.

1. Grant Programs A variety of grant programs provide significant amounts of money for parks and trails. Grants generally require a cash match from the local unit of government of 50% of the total project cost. A portion of matches can sometimes be provided in-kind and/or technical services. Most of the available grants are restricted to helping fund only acquisition and development costs. Examples of available grants include: Outdoor Recreation Grant, Regional Park Grant, Natural and Scenic Area Grant, Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources Grants, Greenways Program, Metro Wildlife Corridor Program, Transportation Enhancement Program and Local Trail Connections Grant.

2. Taxes Through the general levy, the County Board has the ability to fund the acquisition, development and maintenance of county parks and trails.

3. Park Dedication of Lands The dedication of lands for public parks and trails is regulated according to state law (MS 2002, Sect. 394.25 subd.7, as revised by S.F. No.484). The dedication of land for public parks is a result of a subdividing of land and/or land development and can be applied by counties in the State of Minnesota, where it meets the criteria as stated in the statute. Examples of acceptable land dedication include lands that create or connect trails, lands that result in an aggregation of public parks/trails, or lands that contain rare natural resources that may benefit from protection or limited use. The County may choose to accept Isanti County fees on new house construction. Dedication fees can be used to pay for the acquisition of parks, trails and open space and for their development costs in the township where the new lots are located. Dedication fees cannot be used toward park/trail maintenance. The County will encourage partnerships between townships (and cities, if appropriate) to fund park and trail projects and to assist in utilizing the funds in an efficient manner.

4. User fees Where appropriate, the County may choose to establish user fees, which typically will include park entrance fees or activity fees.

110 Parks Plan 2008 5. Partnerships with Cities and Townships Establishing partnerships, combining available resources and collaborating the efforts of county, city and township officials and staff is critical to the success of future parks and trails in Isanti County. Avoiding the duplication of services and planning efforts will further assist in getting the maximum benefit from budgeted funds, particularly as local units of government face tighter budgets and reduced funding.

6. State Bonding When possible, the County will consider state bonding opportunities for the acquisition and development of parks, trails and recreational facilities. Opportunities for the County for state bonding projects include collaboration with the Central Minnesota Parks, Trails, and Open Space Coordinating Board.

7. Bond Referendum The County may choose to place a bond referendum for parks and trails before the voters in a general election. This allows voters to have direct involvement on deciding how much money should be allocated to parks and trails. Isanti County

8. Donations/Gifts The County can seek and/or accept land donations from private landowners or corporations toward public parks and trails.

9. Partnerships with Not-for-Profit Organizations The County may choose to partner with not-for-profit organizations that specialize in acquiring and/or preserving land for parks, trails, and open space. Not-for-profits can often provide technical and financial support as well as assist in negotiations and fund raising. Examples of organizations of this type include the Conservation Fund, MN Land Trust, Trust for Public Land, Parks and Trails Council of Minnesota, sportsman clubs and as- sociations.

10. Volunteer Assistance Although not a source of funds, volunteers and other forms of in-kind services can reduce the operational costs of parks and trails.

In addition to the above options, a variety of alternative methods can be considered and encouraged for preservation and management of quality parks and trails including: conservation easements, deed restrictions, leases, donations, stewardship programs, the Greenway Program and the Metro Wildlife Corridor Program. Although not implemented

Parks Plan 2008 111 as a County tool for land preservation, the restrictions that exist due to the “Wild and Scenic River” classification along parts of the Mississippi River and the Rum River help preserve these areas from development. Isanti County

112 Parks Plan 2008 Tools and Funding Sources for Park Land Acquisition MFRC Landscape Program

Private Sources

x Donations. Land or cash from private parties (individuals, businesses, and organizations).

x Parkland Dedications. MN Statutes Chapter 394 (County), 462 (non-Metro municipalities), 473 (Metro municipalities).

x Park Fees from Building Permits. Isanti County has been using this since early 2005.

x Municipal Forests. MN Statutes Chapter 459 Subdivision 1. 1a. County or Cities or Townships Resolution to accept donation of private lands. 1b. Donations of 100 or + ac. land entitle land to perpetually bear donor’s name. 2. Cities or Townships, via public vote, can, by purchase or condemnation, obtain land.

x Tax Forfeited Lands.

Use Deeds. (PT Form 962, MN Statutes Section 282.01, Subdivisions 1a through 1e) - State Government is not promoting use deeds, but because this is a legislative decision, use deeds may still be an option. Isanti County Memorial Forests. MN Statutes Chapter 459 Subdivision’s 2 & 3. County Board Resolution to set aside tax-forfeited land …more suitable for forest purposes than …any other purpose and dedicate such lands as a memorial forest…

Local Government (County, Township and City) Participation with State Sources

x Co-op Agreements. Allow local units (counties, townships or cities) to manage School Trust Parcels with MN DNR Forestry - the agreement should resolve any conflict between park and public hunting uses.

State and Federal Sources

x Natural & Scenic Area Grants – possible no funding in ’08.

x Regional Non-Metro Park Grants – status uncertain.

x Remediation Fund Grants - funding opportunities are decreasing.

x Metro Greenways Grant Program – program changed to another name & different interests.

x LAWCON (Land & Water Conservation Fund; off shore oil lease $) - status uncertain.

MFRC – Landscape Program Local Forestry Institutive Figure 91. Tools and Funding Sources for Park Land Acquisition, MFRC Landscape Program, Local Forestry Initiative. Parks Plan 2008 113 s eCtIon 6. BeneFIts Isanti County

114 Parks Plan 2008 Isanti County s eCtIon 6. BeneFIts

Parks Plan 2008 115 HEALTH AND WELLNESS BENEFITS

Active Living by Design, a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, notes that physical inactivity plays a significant role in the most common chronic diseases in the United States, including heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure and diabetes; each of these is a leading cause of death.

Researchers have found that the presence of a trail can increase physical activity among adults. Trails and greenways create healthy recreation and transportation opportunities by providing people of all ages with attractive, safe, accessible places to bike, walk, hike, jog, skate or ski. In doing so, they make it easier for people to engage in physical activity. Ac- cording to Active Living by Design’s “Parks, Trails and Greenways Fact Sheet”, a survey of U.S. adults indicated that people with access to neighborhood parks were nearly twice as likely to be physically active as those without access to parks. Trails and greenways provide natural and scenic areas that cause people to actually want to be outside and physically active. In findings from the “Land Use Fact Sheet” from Active Living Research, on average, residents in highly walkable neighborhoods took twice as many trips as people with less walkable neighborhoods.

According to the Surgeon General’s “call to action,” less than one-third of Americans meet the federal recommendation of at least 30 minutes of moderate physical activity at least five days a week and 40 percent of adults engage in no leisure time physical activity at all (online resource). Both the Surgeon General’s “call to action” and the Center for Dis- ease Control and Prevention emphasize the connection between exercise and health (online resource). In addition to helping control weight, physical activity helps control cholesterol levels, slows bone loss associated with advancing age, lowers the risk of certain cancers, and helps reduce anxiety and depression. As a society, the problems of physical inactivity are well documented. One in four adults are considered obese, with obese individuals having a 50-100% increased risk of premature death. Isanti County

SAFETY

Trails connect towns, parks, neighborhoods and schools so adults and children can cycle or walk. In Isanti County, the towns of Braham, Cambridge and Isanti have some trails within their cities limits. The proposed trail connecting the cities of Isanti and Cambridge will be the only connective trail in Isanti County. With additional research indicating that the pro- portion of young people who are overweight has more than doubled in the last 20 years, Isanti County has a tremendous opportunity to reduce this trend locally. By adding more 116 Parks Plan 2008 connective trails that link the County Park system with communities and ultimately to regional systems, Isanti County could provide more active and healthy transportation choices.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

The recreation and tourism industry is an important aspect of economic development. Due to its proximity to the Twin Cities metropolitan area with direct connection on MN 65 and indirect connection on both Interstate 35 and US 169 Isanti County has opportunities for capturing part of the recreational market passing through on the way “up north”. Provid- ing recreational destinations in Isanti County can offer economic benefit to the county and also contribute to enhancing the economic health of Minnesota.

ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

Many findings and scientific facts document the economic benefits provided by a green

infrastructure. In northern Minnesota, lake clarity was shown to positively affect property Isanti County values where a 1-meter decline in lake clarity would subtract over $130 million from all lakeshore property values. In Saskatoon, Canada a river view adds $1.2 million annually to property values in the community. In Maryland, the conversion of developable pasture to privately owned conservation land increased the value of nearby residential property by over $3,000 per acre. In Portland, Oregon a home within 1,500 feet of any open space can sell for over $2,000 more than a home located farther away. Research is consistent that living near parks, trails, and open spaces will enhance property values. In addition, parks and open space serve as safeguards from flood damage and erosion; they help prevent noise, air, and light pollution; and they help make a positive impact on the community by attracting tourism, business investments, and local housing projects.

QUALITY OF LIFE

Quality of life in Isanti County and other communities is a complex set of attributes that helps distinguish the community by adding to its standard of living. According to the results from the first Public Workshop, as shown in Figure 90 on the following page, natural resources and rural character contribute to a high quality of life in Isanti County. In addition the results from the Comprehensive Plan Public Workshop (see Appendix) suggest a large margin of residents agree that Natural Resource Preservation is important and natural resources and open spaces of the County are assets for the future.

Parks Plan 2008 117 exercise one: How Important are natural areas and rural Character to your Quality of life in Isanti County? (1-5 points scored Individually)

Rural Character

Natural Areas

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 Figure 90. Public Workshop One - Exercise One, Center for Rural Design, 2007. Isanti County

Figure 91. Public Workshop Two - Exercise One - Four Results, Center for Rural Design, 2007. 118 Parks Plan 2008 Parks, trails, and open space also directly contribute to the quality of life by providing social, physical, anecdotal, and environmental benefits. In Public Workshops One and Two the community weighed in on their interest in parks, trails and open space in Isanti County. As shown in Figure 91 on the following page: new land acquisition is more important than the development of existing facilities, parks are slightly more important than connective trails, expanding existing park land is more important than creating new parks, and passive parks are more appropriate that active parks. These results help the Parks and Recreation Commission to determine fund allocations that are complementary with the community’s input on quality of life.

PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE

With growth projections indicating that Isanti County will develop competitively by 2030, implementing a park and recreation plan that emphasizes acquisition first and development second allows the County to be in a position to develop the sites as public demands increase. Future generations will have few opportunities to acquire significant park and Isanti County open space acreage due to general land value increases along with current trends of low density development that reduces contiguous plots of land. By 2030, even fewer quality sites will remain. By planning for the future and focusing on acquisition now, significant economic savings can be made before land costs are cost prohibitive. As shown below in Figure 92, Isanti County faces the possibility of a 35% increase in population from 2000 to 2030. The potential demand and expectation for public parks, trails, and open spaces, particularly in current unincorporated areas, will directly affect the areas desirability. Identifying the appropriate steps to provide for these future recreational demands and implementing a timely strategy that meets those needs is a critical step for Isanti County.

Isanti County Percent of Population Change 2000-2030 Population % Change Population % Change 2000 Population* 2007 Population Estimate** from 2000 - 2007 2030 Projection** from 2000 - 2030 Isanti County Residents 31,287 38,437 23% 42,350 35.36%

* 2000 US Census **Isanti County Projection Figure 92. Isanti County Percent of Population Change 2000-2030, Center for Rural De- sign, 2007.

Parks Plan 2008 119 Isanti County

120 Parks Plan 2008 Isanti County s eCtIon 7. n atural r esourCe ManaGeMent , MaIntenanCe , anD ProteCtIon

Parks Plan 2008 121 The primary goals for the Isanti County Parks and Recreation Plan (Parks Plan) is to preserve natural areas, provide passive recreation opportunities, strive to maintain the rural character of the County and promote the health, well-being and quality of life for residents of the County. Featuring the unique natural resources, landscapes and ecosystems representative of Isanti County is an outcome sought as a result of implementing the Parks Plan. Acquiring areas for their natural resources is the first step in a long-term proactive commitment to maintain and enhance the resources that the Parks Plan is built around. For each unit acquired, a natural resource management plan will be developed and incorporated into the Parks Plan. Natural resource management should involve the consideration of vegetative communities, mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians. Obtaining baseline data of these amenities and conducting periodic follow up work to regularly assess the current status of the plants and animals is a recommended action of this plan.

NATURAL RESOURCE INVENTORIES

As indicated by Figures C5 and C6, Natural Areas Map in Appendix C there are significant areas of high quality, natural plant and animal communities located in Isanti County that have not yet been severely fragmented or otherwise disturbed. Unfortunately, many of these are being lost as a result of land use changes and urban development. Utilizing additional existing maps and resources such as Marschner’s map (derived from bearing tree data, circa 1855) and the Biodiversity map (MN DNR), most of these sites can be identified, reviewed, and prioritized to determine when and where proactive steps should be considered for preserving the resource.

NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Identifying acceptable methods for restoring, preserving, and managing the natural resources in a manner that balances ecosystem sustainability, multiple use recreation and environmental education is critical for a sustained Parks Plan that emphasizes natural Isanti County resources. Using baseline inventories of the County’s natural resources strategies can be adopted which help maintain or enhance the resource. Depending on the goals and objectives a variety of stewardship practices can be considered which typically have specific goals, outcomes and results. Examples may include selective tree harvests to eradicate non-native species, conducting prescribed burns to favor desirable wildflowers and native grasses, applying an herbicide to control exotics, or simply leaving an area undis- turbed. When identifying the available options consideration must be given to all existing resources including the vegetation, water and wildlife as well as the users and adjacent landowners. Developing policies concerning wildlife management is especially important, 122 Parks Plan 2008 particularly for deer, where populations can quickly escalate within a protected area and negatively impact the vegetation. Incorporating steps into a management plan that moni- tors, regulates, and manages population levels using tools most suited and appropriate for the site such as hunting, trapping, and releasing of wildlife is recommended.

SUSTAINABILITY VS USE

When managing the natural resources involving parks and trails, identifying the anticipated level of use, the designated user groups and ultimately what the sites primary objectives are, is critical in helping develop a long-term management plan appropriate for the amenity. As with sites that are planned for featuring multiple recreational opportunities along with showcasing environmental amenities, striking a balance that allows for continued recreational use with minimal impact to the resource can be challenging. Safety considerations, compatibility issues, natural resource sustainability, adjacent land use and maintenance requirements can each influence how a site is managed. Annually monitor- ing parks, trails and open spaces to identify potential conflicts with overuse or misuse is a Isanti County necessary part of an overall management plan.

MAINTENANCE

To achieve cost-effective maintenance of the Parks Plan and it’s resources, the use and sharing of equipment, staff, and other available resources among Isanti County Depart- ments and local city and township services is necessary.

PROTECTION

Effectively protecting a designated natural resource can require outreach, education, signage and compliance checks by authorized personnel. Adopting a park ordinance is further recommended to assist in the rule enforcement, public compliance and natural resource protection.

Parks Plan 2008 123 Isanti County

124 Parks Plan 2008 Isanti County a PPenDIX a: r eFerenCes & a BBreVIa tIons

Parks Plan 2008 125 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Active Living by Design. “Active Living Essentials”, online reference, September, 2007.

Active Living by Design. “Land Use Fact Sheet”, online reference, 2007.

Active Living by Design. “Parks, Trails, and Greenways Fact sheet,” online reference, 2007.

Department of Health and Human Services. “The Surgeon General’s Call to Action, Over- weight and Obesity at a Glance”, United States. Online resource last revise January, 2007.

Fogg, George. Park Planning Guidelines, 3rd Ed, National Parks and Recreation, 1992, Pages 5-6.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources. “Georgia Parks: A Resource for Living, A Refuge for Life: Outdoor Recreation Strategies to Enhance Georgia’s Future for Health and Livability, Economic Vitality, and Resource Conservation”, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 2007.

Metropolitan Council. “Appendix D: Recreation need analysis. Technical Appendices,” 2030 Regional Parks Policy Plan, April, 2005.

Nunnally, Pat. “Preserving Minnesota’s Landscapes Through Creative Development” Minnesota Land Trust, University of Minnesota, Center for Rural and Urban Affairs, 2001. Isanti County

126 Parks Plan 2008 ABBREVIATIONS

Isanti County Parks and Recreation Plan (Parks Plan)

Isanti County Active Living (ICAL)

Isanti County Community Steering Committee (Steering Committee)

Active Living by Design (ALbD),

Twin Cities Metropolitan Area (TCMA), Isanti County

Parks Plan 2008 127 Isanti County

128 Parks Plan 2008 Isanti County a PPenDIX B. Park t renD Data

Parks Plan 2008 129 Although swimming is not presently offered in Isanti County this statistic may be helpful in the future if swimming facilities are a consideration. Isanti County

Figure B1. Visitor Data Trend Graphs , Park and Planning Guidelines, Fogg, 1992. 130 Parks Plan 2008 Visitor Data Trends

Activities at a given recreation area vary over the year with cool weather (spring and fall) high in sightseeing, hiking, fishing; fall, hunting; and summer, in much of the U.S., high in picnicking, water skiing, boating and swimming.

Length of stay in day-use areas averages 3 to 5.1 hours with parks closer to peoples’ homes, the visitors stay a shorter length of time, three to four hours. A typical state park user may experience a five to six hour stay, sightseeing only about 3.2 hours. Sundays average one-half hour longer than the rest of the week.

Length of stay for camping is three days and two night. (Although a camping is not presently offered in Isanti County this statistic may be helpful in the future if camping facilities are a consideration.)

Numbers of day-use visitors per car vary between Sunday, 3.3; all other 3.0; spring, 2.8 Isanti County to 3.0; summer 3.0 to 3.6; and fall, 2.6 to 3.0.

Peak-use night for camping is Saturday -- approximately 10 to 20 percent more than Friday.

The average day-use party size has been declining steadily over the last several years from 6.7 in 1971 to 4.35 in 1977 (4.06 on week days and 4.80 on weekends). This is higher than the average car capacity --3.3. There was a steady decline in the number of people per car from a high of 4.0 in 1965 to a low of 2.82 in 1979. A major change to the current figure of 3.3 people per car occurred in 1980. It is projected that this figure will level off at approximately 3.3 to 3.5 people per car. The average picnic party size is steadily declining and now is six.

Park satisfaction increases with age.

Transportation is a significant limitation to teenagers’ attendance for parks at greater than walking/biking distance from their homes.

The major reason people do not attend parks is the availability of time. Over 90 percent of all people who say they would like to attend parks more often do not do so because, according to them, the do not have the time. Figure B2. Visitor Data Trend Descriptions. Park and Planning Guidelines, Fogg, 1992. Parks Plan 2008 131 Visitor Data Trends Continued

Wildlife viewing is a year-round activity which usually peaks when the objects viewed are present in their greatest numbers ( the migratory season for each species).

There are ten activities which account for most recreation time for “natural-type” park users: camping, fishing, hiking, picnicking, relaxing, sightseeing/pleasure driving, swimming, sunbathing. In addition, wildlife viewing (birds, animals, plants) is strongly involved both as a primary and secondary activity. (Although swimming and public camping is not presently offered in Isanti County these statistics may be helpful in the future if swimming and camping facilities are a consideration.)

In the teenage bracket the activities rank in this order: sunbathing (19.4%); swimming (15.3%); biking (10.3%); picnicking (8.9%); hiking (8.3%); sightseeing/pleasure driving (6.6%); camping (5.9%); relaxing (5.5%); fishing (4.8%); nature walk (4.8%).

In the 20-29 age bracket the activities rank in this order: sunbathing (43.5%); nature walk (33.3%); camping (31.0%); sightseeing/pleasure driving (28.9%); biking (28.2%); swimming (26.8%); picnicking (26.0%); relaxing (23.2%); hiking (22.7%); fishing (16.3%).

In the 30-44 age bracket the activities rank in this order: camping (42.5%); fishing (38.9%); relaxing (38.2%); hiking (37.0%); swimming (36.6%); picnicking (36.5%); sightseeing/pleasure driving (33.1%); nature walk (28.6); biking (25.6%); sunbathing (15.7%).

In the 45-64 age bracket the activities rank in this order: fishing (33.7%); biking (33.3%); relaxing (29.7%); hiking (26.0%); picnicking (25.4%); nature walk (21.4%); sightseeing/ pleasure driving (20.7%); swimming (19.6%); sunbathing (19.4%); camping (17.6%).

In the 65+ age bracket the activities rank in this order: nature walk (11.9%); sightsee- Isanti County ing/pleasure driving (10.7%); fishing (6.3%); hiking (6.1%); relaxing (3.4%); picnicking (3.2%); camping (2.6%); biking (2.6%); sunbathing (1.9%); swimming (1.8%).

Fogg, George. Park Planning Guidelines, 3rd Ed, National Parks and Recreation, 1992, Pages 5-6.

Figure B2. Continued . Visitor Data Trend Descriptions. Park and Planning Guidelines, Fogg, 1992. 132 Parks Plan 2008 Isanti County a PPenDIX C: PuBlIC e nGaGeMent ProCess

Parks Plan 2008 133 IntroDuCtIon

The Isanti County Parks and Recreation Plan (Parks Plan) includes: a parks and recreation inventory, goals and policies, financial support, benefits and management, maintenance and protection sections. This appendix is one of three appendices of the report and covers the public engagement process, the results of two public workshops and administrative questionnaires.

The public engagement process for the Parks Plan paralleled a similar effort with Isanti County Active Living (ICAL), a local organization that is part of the national Active Living by Design program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The focus of the ICAL project was to identify bicycle connections between the County Parks and Recreation holdings, the Cities of Isanti, Cambridge and Braham and significant regional recreational opportunities.

Isanti County (along with the City’s of Isanti, Cambridge and Braham) through the ICAL project, have identified the following goals for integrating physical activity into daily life:

1. Develop and maintain effective partnership to promote physical activity 2. Increase community awareness of the health and other benefits of active living 3. Increase access to and availability of diverse opportunities for physical activity 4. Enhance policy and organizational supports for physical activity 5. Improve built and natural environments to support active living

The public engagement process, as shown in the figure C1, began with the creation of the Isanti County Steering Committee and included three major phases: a research phase, a documentation phase and an analysis phase. The Steering Committee included community members from the Isanti County Parks and Recreation Commission, County Commissioners, Township Boards, local organizations and citizens at large. Efforts were made to have as diverse of a steering committee as possible. Steering committee diversity provides needed insight into multiple perspectives and opinions from people in the County. The role of the steering committee was to provide insight and guidance to the Center for Rural Design for Isanti County both the Parks Plan and the ICAL project.

The research phase included four steering committee meetings, inventory of the natural resources and rural character and Public Workshop 1. The Steering Committee discussed the mission of the Parks Plan, significant and potential locations for park land expansion, likes and dislikes of the Parks Plan, financing, inter-jurisdicitonal collaboration and much more. Natural resources and rural character maps, show in figures 5 and 6, were used for inventory and analysis in both the steering committee meetings and in Public Workshop 1.

134 Parks Plan 2008 The Natural Areas Map shows areas within the County that have quality environmental integrity1. The Rural Character Map shows areas within the County that are visually pleasing. Public Workshop 1 focused on obtaining broad community values on natural resources and rural character, the Parks Plan’s purpose, services, and areas of significance.

The documentation phase included: results from Public Workshop 1 and the Comprehensive Planning process (figure C12a), a Steering Committee meeting, administrative questionnaires and Public Workshop 2. Public Workshop 1 and the Comprehensive Plan community input results provided insight into the importance and thrust of the Parks Plan in Isanti County. The steering committee meeting reviewed the results and helped to shape the format and activities for the second public workshop. Public Workshop 2 used the results of the previous workshop to provide a platform from which new questions were developed. This workshop focused on the prioritization of the community values and asked the community members to come to consensus about numerous issues. Similar to Public Workshop 1, a series of administrative questionnaires were presented to the County Commissioners, the Park Board and the Township Board. These questionnaires asked willing participants ques- Isanti County 1. Environmental integrity reflects a state of the environment wherein air, water, and biologic systems function adequately to be self-sustaining. In this state the environment can also provide services that sustain human health and well-being (Steve Roos, Center for Rural Design, 2007).

Figure C1. Project Approach and Time Line, CRD, 2007. Parks Plan 2008 135 tions about the mission, jurisdictional interest and finance of the Parks Plan.

The analysis phase included Public Workshop 2 documentation, two steering committee meetings, development of the Parks Plan and presentation of the Plans Plan to the Parks and Recreation Commission and the County Commissioners. The Steering Committee reviewed the results from Public Workshop 2. The public workshop results, administrative questionnaires and steering committee feedback was then combined, analyzed and interpreted in the creation of the Parks Plan. The Steering Committee worked hand in hand with the Center for Rural Design and reviewed the majority of the report.

The following is documentation from the public workshops and administrative questionnaires. Isanti County

Figure C2. Image of Public Workshop One Participants, Tracey Sokolski. 2007. 136 Parks Plan 2008 PuBlIC WorksHoP 1

Public Workshop 1 of the Parks Plan was the first of two public workshops. Both workshops were integral to the planning process and as such had separate exercises and results. The intent of Public Workshop 1 was to obtain broad community values on the natural resources and rural character of Isanti County, the Park Plan’s purpose, existing and proposed services and areas of significance. The Workshop utilized natural resource and rural character analysis maps to educate the public about their place in the world and to gain insight into areas of significance. The Natural Areas Map, shown in figure 5, shows areas within the County that have quality environmental integrity. The Rural Character Map, shown in figure 6, shows areas within the County that are visually pleasing.

The following are the descriptions and results of the four exercises for Public Workshop 1:

Exercise 1: The Big Picture! The intent of this exercise was to broadly determine what matters to individual community members. Each table of community members was given two maps: the Natural Areas and the Rural Character Map, and was asked to rate the importance of each to their quality of life in Isanti County. The results, as shown in the figure C3, suggest that the participating community of Isanti County values both rural character and Isanti County natural areas. Rural character and natural areas were scored separately on a scale of 1-5 (1 being low, 5 being high). The results suggest that natural areas are more significant that rural character but the spread is so small that it is of little significance.

Public Workshop 1: Exercise One Results.

How important exerciseare natural one: How Important areas are and natural rural areas and character rural Character to your your Quality quality of life in Isanti of County?life in Isanti County? (1-5 points scored Individually) (1-5 points scored individually)

Rural Rural Character Character

Natural Areas Natural Areas

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 137 Figure C3. Public Workshop One - Exercise One Results, CRD, 2007. Parks Plan 2008 Exercise 2: One Size May Not Fit All! The intent of this exercise was to determine areas that are important to the community members and/or that may not work with the Community member’s quality of life values. Community members received three dots for the Natural Areas Map and three dots for the Rural Character Map. They then placed the dots on areas that mattered to them as related to the maps and explained their place selection on an attached sheet.

The areas of significance for the Natural Areas Map, located in figures C5, suggest an ac- cumulation of dots along the Rum River Corridor, the Cedar Creek Natural History Area, a chain of lakes in the southeast (around Upper and Lower Birch Lakes), the Wildlife Man- agement Areas (WMA) to the northwest, the area surrounding Mud Lake and the area by Little Stanchfield Lake. The areas of significance for the Rural Character Map, located in figures C6, suggests the Rum River Corridor, the area surrounding Green and Spectacle Lake, the area surround North and South Stanchfield Lakes, the northwest WMA, a large area in the north of the County, a stretch of highway on State Highway 65, an area in the central part of the County by Mud and Little Stanchfield Lake and various areas in the southeast portion of the County.

Exercise 3: OUR Great Outdoors! The Park’s Plan can serve many purposes and provide varied services based on the values of the citizens. The community members were asked: what should the purpose of the Isanti County Parks Plan be? They then rated the importance of that purpose on a scale of 1-5 (1=lowest, 5=highest).

The results of Exercise 3, shown in figure C7 shows that preserving and protecting the environmental resources ranked highest for the purpose of the Parks Plan at 4.60 out of 5.00 points. Protecting recreation and scenic resources could arguably be tied for second at around 4.37 points. And, preserving and protecting historic and cultural resources ranked last at 3.90 points. Isanti County Exercise 4: Living and Playing in Isanti! The Parks Plan can provide many services and opportunities for a wide range of activities. The community members were asked: what services do you currently use and what new services will attract you to the Isanti Park System? They then filled out a short questionnaire that asked about the corridors and site-specific activities and facilities that they participate in and use.

The results for Exercise 4, shown in figures C7-C11, consists of existing and proposed corridors and site-specific facilities. Walking and biking facilities are the most significant existing corridor facilities ranking in at 20 votes. Hiking facilities rank second at 12 votes.

138 Parks Plan 2008 Lewis Stutz Ogilvie Rice Silberg Natural Areas

Larson Marsh Miller Marsh Johnson Slough careful consideration in planning for the future. Long Greenly Goose Johnsons Slough South Stanchfield Rabiolia Marsh Shugren Little Stanchfield This map is based on six features: Krans Long Erickson Alexis Goose Neander - Natural Area Size (contiguous areas of forest, Gunnik Leasure Heath Mud brushland, grassland, & wetland), Twin Allquist Marsh - Core Forest, Radke Long Classon Snyder Hjelm Williams - Land Cover Coincidence (potential coincidence Sandy Johnson Marsh Mandall Rum Bear Rabour between pre-settlement vegetation and current Hauge Dollar Roos Marsh Asp Strege Swedeen Marsh State Hwy 95 Johnson Slough Peterson SloughJonason Little Horseshoe land cover), Erickson Horseshoe Putz Marsh Rasmussen - Sites of Significant Biological Diversity identified by Bloomgren Fish White Lee Marsh Spectacle Nelson Marsh the MNDNR. Green Brobergs Rudell Marsh Skogman - Shoreland Protection Zones and Buffer Areas around Stat Manke Marsh e Hw water bodies Line y 95 Little Pine Elizabeth - Human Disturbance (degree of disturbance from Fannie Mud human land use). Elms Big Pine Spring Florence Johnson Chain (South Portion) Boomer Chilman Marsh natural r esource Quality r anking

Rice Grass Lower Relative Quality Herman Slough Krueger Marsh

Mud Kluck Slough Tennyson

6 Mud Horseleg Workshop 1 Stahlberg Marsh Marget Stahlberg Marsh y

w Isanti County Recreation/Open Space System Plan Update: Public Workshop #1

Horseshoe H

7 Mud Results of 'Dot Exercise' for the Natural Areas Map

4 e

t - Numbers indicate the number of comments out of the total that referred directly or indirectly to each individual topic.

y Stony a Twin Hurley

t Dutcher Total Rum River Any Water Natural Beauty Natural Preserve Existing/New Recreational Existing/New w Upper Birch

S Comments Body Diversity Or Protect Trail Systems Opportunities Parks

H Lower Birch 142 25 75 32 46 26 21 44 18 West Hunter Tamarack Daudt Marsh e Stratton Isanti County East Hunter t Total Respondents = 50

a Hoffman Numbers indicate the number of comments out of the total that referred directly or indirectly to each individual topic.

t Engberg Marsh Beckman Reimann Marsh S Reimann Marsh Long Twin Typo Cedar Bog Minard Fish Fish Fawn Miles ± 1 0 1 2 3 4 5

Figure C5. Significant Natural Areas Map, CRD, 2007. Parks Plan 2008 Lewis Stutz Ogilvie Rice Silberg Rural Character Lory Isanti County, MN Upper Rice Krone The Rural Character map identifies areas that have Matson significant scenic value related to the natural areas Seventeen West Rush and farming practices that fundamentally define the East Rush Diesslin Marsh Christenson Marsh rural landscape. Section Linderman Grass Pine Trollin While the perception of rural character can vary Stauffer Adams between individuals, in general, it is defined it is Mud North Stanchfield defined by the presence of both natural features and Larson Marsh Miller Marsh Johnson Slough agriculture blended in a complex and interesting visual Long Greenly Johnsons Slough Goose South Stanchfield Rabiolia Marsh pattern. Shugren Little Stanchfield Krans Long Erickson Alexis Goose Neander Gunnik Rural character can be assessed as a combination of two Leasure Heath Mud broad factors: Twin Allquist Marsh Radke LongClasson - Landform Complexity – represented by the shape of the Snyder Hjelm Williams Sandy Johnson Marsh Mandall land in the form of hills, valleys, knolls, and gullies. Rum Bear Roos Marsh Rabour - Landcover Complexity – represented in the form and Hauge Dollar Asp Strege Swedeen Marsh State Little Horseshoe Hwy 95 Johnson Slough Peterson Slough Jonason character of the things that sit on the land such as Erickson Horseshoe Putz Marsh Rasmussen Bloomgren woodlots, pastures, wetlands, and farmsteads. Fish White Lee Marsh Spectacle Nelson Marsh Green Brobergs Rudell Marsh Skogman Rural Character Value Rating Manke Marsh Line Lower Moderate Little Pine Elizabeth Fannie Scenic Value Mud Elms Big Pine Spring Florence Johnson Chain (South Portion) Boomer Chilman Marsh Higher Rice Grass Herman Slough Krueger Marsh Moderate Scenic Value Mud Kluck Slough County Parks, Isanti County Tennyson WMA, U of M

BoetcherFrancis Roads and Streets Water Baxter Knute Cajima Marsh Input from Areas of Interest Peterson Slough Splittstoeser Workshop 1

Sandy Mud Sroga Slough Boettcher Marsh Analysis was performed at a scale of German

Mud 5 Blue

Long 40 acre (approximate) units. 6 Mud Horseleg

Stahlberg Marsh Marget y

Stahlberg Marsh Isanti County Recreation/Open Space System Plan Update: Public Workshop #1 w

7 Horseshoe Results of 'Dot Exercise' for the Rural Character Map H

Mud - Numbers indicate the number of comments out of the total that referred directly or indirectly to each individual topic. e

y Stony t Total Rural (mixed) Natural Agricultural Significance of Significance of Recreational Trail Existing/New Dutcher Twin Hurley

a Comments Scenery Scenery Scenery Agriculture Nature Opportunities Opportunities Parks w Upper Birch

t 130 64 27 15 34 67 29 12 14

H Lower Birch S West Hunter Daudt Marsh Stratton Tamarack Total Respondents = 46 East Hunter e

t Numbers indicate the number of comments out of the total that referred directly or indirectly to each individual topic. Isanti County Hoffman a Beckman t Engberg Marsh Reimann Marsh Reimann Marsh S Long Twin Typo Cedar Bog Minard Fish Fish Fawn Miles ± 1 0 1 2 3 4 5

Figure C6. Significant Rural Character Areas Map, CRD, 2007. Parks Plan 2008 River corridor facilities are third at 8 votes. Canoeing and skiing ranked at approximately 5 votes.

The most proposed corridor facility are bike trails with 23 votes. Walking trails ranks second at 11 votes. General trail and paved road shoulders for biking ranked third at 7 votes.

The picnic areas are the most used existing site-specific facility are the at 19 votes. All season lake access ranked second as a existing site-specific facility.

The most proposed site-specific facilities are public swimming beach (13 votes), picnic area (12 votes), fishing piers (7 votes), public access on fishing lakes (6 votes) and frisbee golf (5 votes). Isanti County

Isanti County recreation/open space system Purpose Public Workshop 1: Exercise Three Results Parks and Recreation Plan Purpose

ProtectingPerserving Historicand Protecting Historic & and Cultural ResourcesCultural Resources

ProtectingProtecting Recreation Recreation Resource Resource OpportunitiesOpportunities

Protecting Scenic Series1 ResourcesProtecting Scenic Resources

Protecting EnvironmentalPreserving and Protecting Environmental Resources Resources

3.40 3.60 3.80 4.00 4.20 4.40 4.60 4.80 Figure C7. Public Workshop One - Recreation and Parks Plan Purpose, CRD, 2007. Parks Plan 2008 139 Public Workshop 1: Exercise Four Results Existing Corridor Facilities exercise 4 existing Cooridor Facilities

Wildlife Trails

Road Shoulders

Sidewalks

Canoe

Swimming

Horse Trails

Fishing

Paved Trail

Signage

River Cooridor

Biking

Skiing

Hiking

Walking

0 5 10 15 20 25 Figure C8. Public Workshop One - Exercise 4, Existing Corridor Facilities, CRD, 2007.

Public Workshop 1: Exercise Four Results Proposed Corridor Facilities exercise 4: Proposed Coordior Facilities

Canoe Dog Parks Park Sites Historic and Scenic Cooridors Signage Trails (In General) Unpaved Trails Trails (Motorized) Paved Shoulders for Biking Sidewalks in the Cities Trails (Non-Motorized)

Isanti County Accessible Trails Swimming Beaches Horse Camp Horse Trails Campsites River Trails Biking Trails Ski Trails Interpretive Trails Hiking Trails Walking Trails

0 5 10 15 20 25 Figure C9. Public Workshop One - Exercise 4, Proposed Corridor Facilities, CRD, 2007. 140 Parks Plan 2008 Public Workshop 1: Exercise Four Results exercise 4 existing sites Existing Site Facilities

Playgrounds Interpretive Areas snowshoeing Beach Boat Launches Springbrook Picnic Area Parks with Tables and Benches Shelters for Groups Campsites Trails nature photography tennis Athens' Callin Park. swimming Boating Springvale Park Spec Lake Lake Wayside DNR Rum River Boat Launch DNR Picnic Areas & Camp Areas on Rum River

Exercise 4 Existing Sites Cambridge Park Fishing Picnic Areas - Horses Park Facilities with Bathrooms and trailheads Parking in Parks All Season Lake Access Baseball Parks Picnic Area rice hunt skate ski

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Isanti County Figure C10. Public Workshop One - Exercise 4, Existing Sites, CRD, 2007.

Public Workshop 1: Exercise Four Results

Proposed Site Facilities exercise 4: Proposed sites

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Figure C11. Public Workshop One - Exercise 4, Proposed Sites, CRD, 2007. Parks Plan 2008 141 PuBlIC WorksHoP 2

Public Workshop 2 of the Parks Plan is the second of two public workshops. Both workshops were integral to the planning process and as such had separate exercises and results. The intent of Public Workshop 2 was to report on the results of Workshop 1, the public engagement results of the on-going Isanti County Comprehensive Plan (as shown in figure C12a) process and to prioritize the thrust of Parks Plan. Public Workshop 2 fea- tured four continuums that focused on funding priorities. Community members first formed groups and then reviewed and responded to the continuums separately. The groups then compared their results and came to consensus.

The following are the descriptions of the results of four continuums and one dot-macracy exercise at the Public Workshop. The pie charts in figures C12-C15 represents the results from the group consensus (top chart) and the accumulated individual results (bottom chart).

Continuum 1. New Land Acquisitions and Development of Existing Facilities Continuum Continuum 1 Public Workshop 2 results

Parks and Development of Connecting new land acquisitions and Development of exisitin g trails - teams There are many ways to allocate the Facilities Continuum - team limited funds for the Parks Plan. Com- New Land munity members were asked if they Acquisition 61% Connecting would like to see funds allocated for Trails new land acquisitions, development of 41%

existing facilities or both? Parks 59% Results between the group and the Develop Existing Facilities individual results were very similar. 39% New land acquisition ranked 60% in comparison to developing existing new land acquisitions and Development of exisitin g Parks and Development of Connecting

Isanti County facilities at 40%. Facilities - Individual trails - Individual

Develop Existing Facilities 40% Connecting Trails 45% New Land Parks Acquisition 55% Figure C12. Public Workshop Two 60% -Continuum 1 - Team and Indvidual Results, CRD, 2007.

new Parcels and existing Park lan d Passive Parks and active Parks - team 142 Parks Plan 2008 expansion - team Expanding Active Parks Existing Park 14% Land Creating New 57% Parks 43%

Passive Parks 86%

new Parcels and existing Park land Passive Parks and active Parks - Individual expansion - Individual

Active Parks 20% Creating New Parks 42%

Expanding Existing Park Land Passive Parks 58% 80% Public Meeting Input Questionnaire summary Isanti County Comprehensive Plan Jan-07

Dist. 1-Jan. 16 Dist. 2 - Jan. 11 Dist. 3 - Jan. 18 Dist. 4 - Jan. 19 Dist. 5 - Jan. 25 no. Questio n yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no 2 Preserve open space s 41 0 84 15 46 9 66 19 77 22 no. Question 1 County assets for the Futur e 60 Nature Resources & Open Spaces 89 Nature Resources & Open Spaces 27 Nature Resources & Open Spaces 43 Nature Resources & Open Spaces 88 Natural resources & open space 31 Schools 15 Schools 19 Rural Character 10 Rural Character 40 Agriculture 19 Health Care 14 Transportation / Roads 19 Schools 6 Transportation / Roads 23 Rural Lifestyle 16 Agriculture 14 Agriculture 13 Agriculture/Farmers 5 Proximity to Metro Area 9 Proximaty to Metro area 14 Transportation / Roads 14 Jobs 8 Rural Living 5 Agriculture 7 Good Transportation 14 County Parks 13 Proximity to Metro Area 7 Smart Growth 4 Smart Growth 7 Clean Water asset s asset s a ssets a ssets a ssets 3 rural /ag asset s 19 Preservation of Land 26 Preservation of Land 20 Open Space 8 Change to 4 per 40 - Well Planned 15 Rural Setting 19 Open Space 19 Open Space 16 Preservation of Land 6 Preservation of Land 10 Ag 17 Protect Ag 12 Good Mix of Forests and Fields 12 Less Crime 5 Open Space 8 Open Space/Wildlife Issues Issues Issues Issues Issues 14 Development Infringing on AG 10 Development Infringing on AG 15 Development Infringing on Ag 8 Development Infringing on AG 10 Development Infringing on Ag 7 Keeping the Family Farm 7 Keeping the Family Farm 3 Urban Encroachment on Ag 5 Wetlands, Aquifer Recharge 8 Development Infringing on Open Space 5 Pollution, Ag Runoff 7 Urban Encroachment on Ag 3 Control of ATV abuse 3 Urban Infringement on Ag 8 Lack of Ag Land assets assets assets assets assets 4 urban/suburban assets & Issue s 7 Parks & Lakes 11 Centralized Goods & Services 7 Centralized Goods & Services 7 Centralized Goods & Services 10 Health Services 6 Medical Services 6 Parks 6 Schools 5 City Sewer & Water 10 Good Schools 5 Centralized Growth 5 Trails 5 Open Space 3 Schools 7 Home-Town Atmosphere Issues Issues Issues Issues Issues 27 Traffic Congestion 35 Traffic Congestion 16 Crime 7 Unplanned Growth 17 Traffic Congestion 9 Crime 4 Crime 12 Traffic Congestion 5 More Jobs are Needed 13 Urban Sprawl 9 Growth Restricts AG- Lose of Land 2 Unplanned Growth 5 Property Taxes 4 Lack of Mass Transit 7 Pollution 8 recreation / tourist activities 56 Variety of Trail Systems - Non motorized 57 Variety of Trail Systems - Non motorized 37 Variety of Trail Systems - Non motorized 26 Variety of Trail Systems - Non motorized 42 Variety of Trail Systems 19 County Park System Additions 53 County Park System Additions 35 County Park System Additions 10 County Park System Additions 24 County Park System Additions 13 Preservation of Natural Resources 9 Community Center 16 Horse-Related Camping & Trails 4 Sports Facilities 7 Beaches 12 Beaches 8 ATV Trails 11 Camping 3 Community Pool/Park 7 Youth Activities 10 Community Center 8 Establish Wildlife Corridors 5 Preservation Areas 3 Community Center 6 Dancing 8 Lakes & River Recreation 7 Camping 5 ATV Trails 3 Good Ball Park 6 Hunting 6 Beaches 6 Beaches 3 Sports Facilities 3 Preserve Historic Sites 4 Fishing 6 Ice Skating 6 Public Hunting 4 Community Pool/Park 3 None-Parks Not used 4 Preserving Wildlife 8 Community Pool / Park 5 Fishing 4 B&B 3 Youth Activity Center 4 Golf Course 4 Public Hunting 5 Lakes & River Recreation 3 Establish Wildlife Corridor 2 Libraries 3 ATV/Snowmobile Trails 12 Comp Plan topics 32 Transportation Corridor Plans 20 Environmental Protection 13 Protect and Maintain Natural Resources 13 Protect and Maintain Natural Resources 19 Increase 2/40 Housing Density 20 Environmental Protection 11 Transportation Corridor 7 Transportation Corridor 8 Increase Density in Ag. District 16 Slow, Well-Planned Growth 16 Protect & Maintain Natural Resources 9 Protect and Maintain Natural Resources 6 Reduce Overpopulation 7 Maintain 2 per 4 Zoning in Ag. District 13 Balanced Housing Growth with Rural Character 10 Less Housing in the Ag. District 7 Maintain Ability to Farm 5 Individual Property Land Use Decisions 6 Aquifer Recharge 10 Preserve Open Space 8 Planned Growth 6 Planned Growth 5 Reevaluation of Wetland Designations 5 Living Wage Job Growth 9 Limit Housing Growth 6 Trails 5 Individual Property Land Use Decisions 5 Planned Growth 5 Environmental Protection 9 Planned Transportation Figure C12a. Comprehensive Plan - Public Meeting Input Questionnaire, Biko Associates, 2007.

In addition to steering committee input, two public The second question focused on rural / agricul- ist activities. Of the top ten potentials a variety of workshops, administrative questionnaires, public tural and urban / suburban assets and issues. Of non-motorized trail systems ranked first for each input from the on-going Isanti County Comprehen- the rural and agricultural assets preservation of District. Parks Plan additions ranked second. Pres- sive Plan process was considered for the Parks Plan. land, open space and the preservation of agricul- ervation of natural resources, swimming and lake/

Five questions from the Comprehensive Plan public tural land ranked in the top three. Development river recreation are ranked within the top ten. Isanti County process related to the Parks Plan. of agricultural fields ranked first among the issues of rural / agriculture. Of the urban and suburban The fifth question ranked potential comprehensive Of the five, the first question asked the public to assets parks and lakes, trails open space and plan topics. Of the top six ranked topics, environ- vote for potential county assets for the future. Out home town atmosphere ranked in the top three. mental protection, protection and maintenance of of all of the answers, natural resources and open Of the urban and suburban issues unplanned natural resources and trails ranked highly. spaces ranked highest in each district. Rural charac- growth ranked in the top three. ter, agriculture and county parks ranked in the top 5 of the highest votes. The fourth question ranked recreation and tour- Parks Plan 2008 Public WorkshopContinuum 2 results 2

Parks and Development of Connecting new land acquisitions and Development of exisitin g trails - teams Facilities Continuum - team New Land Acquisition 61% Connecting Public Workshop 2 results Trails 41% Parks and Development of Connecting new land acquisitions and Development of exisitin g trails - teams Facilities Continuum - team Parks New Land59% Acquisition Develop Existing Continuum 2. Parks and Develop- 61% Facilities Connecting 39% ment of Connecting Trails Continuum Trails 41%

If funds are allocated for new Parks new land acquisitions and Development of exisitin g Parks and Development of Connecting 59% landFacilities acquisition - Individual for the Parks Plan trails - Individual Develop Existing would community members like to Facilities see funds allocated for new parks, 39% Develop Existing Facilities connecting trails or both? 40% Connecting new landTrails acquisitions and Development of exisitin g Parks and Development of Connecting 45% Facilities - Individual trails - Individual The results from ContinuumNew Land 2 had Parks Acquisition 55% very similar findings60% for both the

parks and the development of con- Develop Existing Facilities necting trails. Parks ranked 60% in 40% Connecting comparison to 40% for the devel- Trails new Parcels and existing Park lan d Figure C13. PublicPassive WorkshopParks and active Two Parks -Continuum - team 2 - Team 45% New Land Parks opmentexpansion of -connecting team trails. and Individual Results, CRD, 2007. Acquisition 55% Expanding Active Parks 60% Existing Park

14% Isanti County Land Continuum 3. New ParcelsCreating and New 57% Continuum 3 Existing Park Land ExpansionParks 43% new Parcels and existing Park lan d Passive Parks and active Parks - team If funds are allocated for new expansion - team Expanding Active Parks park land acquisition for the Parks Existing Park 14% Land Passive ParksCreating New Plan would community members 57% 86% Parks like to see funds allocated for new 43% parcels, existing park land expansion or both? new Parcels and existing Park land Passive Parks and active Parks - Individual expansion - Individual Passive Parks The results from Continuum 3 had 86% very similar findings for both the Active Parks 20% parks and the developmentCreating New of Parks connecting trails. Expanding42% exist- new Parcels and existing Park land Passive Parks and active Parks - Individual Expanding ing park land ranked at 60% in expansion - Individual Existing Park Land comparison to 40% for creating Passive Parks 58% 80% Active Parks new parks. 20% Creating New Parks 42%

Expanding Existing Park Land Passive Parks 58% 80% Figure C14. Public Workshop Two -Continuum 3 - Team and Individual Results, CRD, 2007. Parks Plan 2008 143 Public Workshop 2 results

Parks and Development of Connecting new land acquisitions and Development of exisitin g trails - teams Facilities Continuum - team New Land Acquisition 61% Connecting Trails 41%

Parks 59% Develop Existing Facilities 39%

new land acquisitions and Development of exisitin g Parks and Development of Connecting Facilities - Individual trails - Individual

Develop Existing Facilities 40% Connecting Trails 45% New Land Parks Acquisition 55% 60% Continuum 4

new ParcelsContinuum and existing 4. Passive Park lan Parksd and Ac- Passive Parks and active Parks - team expansion - team Expanding tive Parks Active Parks Existing Park 14% Land Creating New 57% If funds are allocated for newParks facility development for the43% Parks Plan would community members like to see funds allocated for pas-

sive parks (picnic shelters), active Passive Parks parks (ball and soccer fields) or 86% both?

new ParcelsThe results and existing from Park Continuum land 4 had Passive Parks and active Parks - Individual expansion - Individual wide ranging findings for passive

and active parks. Passive parks Active Parks 20% ranked 80% in comparisonCreating New to 20% Parks for active parks. 42%

Expanding Existing Park Land Figure C15. Public Workshop Two Passive Parks 80% 58% -Continuum 4 - Team and Individu- al Results, CRD, 2007. Isanti County

Figure C16. Image of Public Workshop Two Participants, Tracey Sokolski, 2007. 144 Parks Plan 2008 Dot-macracy Exercise: In addition to the 4 continuum exercises community members used a dot-macracy exercise to vote on potential facilities that the Parks Plan should invest in. This exercise consisted of one sheet with forty facility options and the participants having three dots for voting. A swimming beach ranked the highest with 13 votes. Protected wildlife areas ranked second at 12 votes. Walking and hiking trails ranked third at 9 votes. Connec- tive trails for non-motorized biking / hiking ranked fourth with eight votes. Potential Facilities Public Workshop 2: Dot-macracy Exercise Potential Facilities

Swimming Beach Art and Music Facility Band Shell Exercise Equipment on Trails or Parks Overnight Shelter for Bicyclists Water Park Sport Center Environmental Education Playgrounds Mountain Bike Trails Access to Public Lands Fishing Piers Boat Launches Public Access on Fishing Lakes Youth Activity Places Frisbee Golf Baseball Parks Arboretum Garden Landscaping in Parks Collaboration with U on Cedar Creek Isanti County Interpretive Signage for Parks and Trails Historic Sites Picnic Area Designated Places for Hunting Camp Sites River Trails Biking Trails Skiing Trails Walking/Hiking Trails Protected Wildlife Areas Dog Parks Park Sites Historic and Scenic Corridors Motorized Trails Paved Shoulders for Biking Sidewalks in Cities Camp Sites w/Horse Accessibility Horse Trails Fishing Connective Trails (Non-Motorized) Biking/Hiking 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Figure C17. Public Work- shop Two -Potential Facili- ties Dot-macracy - Team and Individual Results, CRD, 2007.

Figure C18. Image of Public Workshop Two Participants, Tracey Sokolski, 2007. Parks Plan 2008 145 a DMInIstra tIVe QuestIonnaIres

Public engagement for the Parks Plan included a steering committee, two public workshops and three administrative questionnaires. The administrative questionnaires were presented to the County Commissioners, Park and Recreation Commission and Township Boards to gain insight into the interest and financing of the Parks Plan.

The County Commissioner Questionnaire The County Commissioner questionnaire included questions about the principles, mission, facilities and finance of the Parks Plan. The following tables show each question and the results.

The results of question one state that special-use facilities such as swimming area, picnic and playgrounds ranked highest at an average of 5.0 out of 5.0 points as the purpose of the Parks Plan. Protecting the scenic resources ranked second at 4.33 points. Preserv- ing and protecting historic and cultural resources ranked third at 4.0 points. Preserving and protecting environmental resources and providing recreation resources opportunities ranked fourth at 3.67 points.

County Commissioners Questionnaire: Question One Principles & Mission 1. Isanti County’s recreation/open space system plan can serve many purposes and provide varied services based on the values of the citizens. What should the purpose and mission of the Isanti County Park System be? Please rate the importance of that purpose on a scale of 1-5 (1=lowest, 5=highest). Average Isanti County Preserving and Protecting Environmental Resources 3 5 3 3.67 Preserving and Protecting Historic and Cultural Resources 4 5 3 4.00 Protecting the Scenic Resources 5 5 3 4.33 Providing Recreation Resource Opportunities 4 5 2 3.67 Other Swimming Area, Picnic and Playground 5 5.00 Figure C19. County Commissioners Questionnaire - Question One, CRD, 2007.

146 Parks Plan 2008 Question two focused on finding insights into facilities and services that the Parks Plan should support. The question and results are shown below. Of the eleven choices for facilities and services, picnic facilities and hiking trails ranked highest at 4.0 out of 5.0 points on average. Bathroom and swimming facilities ranked second at 3.67 points on average. Bike trails connecting between parks and/or communities ranked third at 3.33 points on average.

County Commisioners Questionaire: Question Two Facilities Question 2: Isanti County’s recreation/open space system plan can provide many services and opportunities for a wide range of activities. Isanti County What facilities should the Isanti County Park System support? Please rate the importance of that purpose on a scale of 1-5 (1=lowest, 5=highest). Average Picnic Facilities 4 3 5 4.00 Bathroom Facilities 4 3 4 3.67 Swimming Facilities 5 2 4 3.67 Camping 1 2 4 2.33 Fishing Piers / Docks 2 2 4 2.67 Bike Trails Within Parks (Mountain Bike Trails?) 3 4 5 4.00 Bike Trails Connecting Between Parks and/or Communities 1 4 5 3.33 Hiking Trails 3 4 5 4.00 Horse Trails 3 4 2 3.00 Nature / Interpretive Programs (self-guided?) 1 4 1 2.00 Environmental Learning Areas 1 3 3 2.33 Other

Figure C20. County Commissioners Questionnaire - Question Two, CRD, 2007.

Parks Plan 2008 147 Question three of the County Commissioners questionnaire sought insight into the financing of the Parks Plan. Out of all of the County’s responsibilities the park funding ranked 2.83 out of 5.0 points. Funding for the park system would be more available if matching funds from federal and state sources are identified and available (4.33 out of 5.0 points). Development of existing (undeveloped) parkland ranked highest (4.0 out of 5.0 points) of services that would require funding support from the County’s budget. Acquisition of new land as reserves for the future ranked second at 3.67 on average out of 5.0 points. Main- tenance of current facilities ranked third at 3.0 points. County Commisioners Questionaire: Question Three Financial

Question 3: Isanti County has a wide range of services it provides to its residents all of which require funding support from the County’s budget. Average County responsibilities, how much of a priority is funding the park 3.5 3 2 2.83 Would funding for the park system be more available if matching funds from federal and state sources are identified and available? 5 4 4 4.33 ·¬¬¬¬¬¬¬ Acquisition of new land as reserves for the future 5 3 3 3.67 ·¬¬¬¬¬¬¬ New facilities on existing park land 4 3 3 3.33

·¬¬¬¬¬¬¬ Maintenance of current facilities 4 3 2 3.00 ·¬¬¬¬¬¬¬ Development of Isanti County Existing (undeveloped) Parkland 4 3 5 4.00

·¬¬¬¬¬¬¬ Linking Parks by a Trail System 4 4 2 3.33 ·¬¬¬¬¬¬¬ Other? What are the most We should Figure C21. County appropriate Federal, make method Commissioners mechanisms for State, Local - where private Questionnaire funding the Isanti County, City, individuals can County Park System? Service Org., donate money - Question Three, Volunteers or land. CRD, 2007. 148 Parks Plan 2008 Isanti County Parks and Recreation Commission The Isanti County Parks and Recreation Commission was asked to fill out a short questionnaire in relation to the Parks Plan. The questionnaire covered issues about the principles, mission, appropriate County provided facilities and the finance of the Parks Plan. The following are the results of the questionnaire.

The principles and mission of the Parks Plan provides insight into the Parks and Recreation Commission’s values and advised direction. Out of the fifteen sub-topics, recreation opportunities for daily activity in close proximity to home and travel ranked highest with 4.40 out of 5.0 points. Preserving open space and water-based recreation ranked 4.2 out of 5.0 points. Providing recreational opportunities for group gatherings ranked 4.0 out of 5.0 points. And protecting water quality, enhancing the apparent quality of life and attracting tourism, new residents and economic development ranked 3.80 out of 5.0 points.

Park Board Questionaire Results: Question One

Principles & Mission Isanti County 1. Isanti County’s recreation/open space system plan can serve many purposes and provide varied services based on the values of the citizens. What should the purpose and mission of the Isanti County Park System be? Please rate the importance of that purpose on a scale of 1-5 (1=lowest, 5=highest). Average

Preserving and Protecting Environmental Resources, for example: ƒ protecting water quality 5 1 4 5 4 3.80 ƒ providing wildlife habitat 5 1 4 5 1 3.20 ƒ preserving open space 5 5 4 5 2 4.20 Preserving and Protecting Historic and Cultural Resources for example: ƒ protecting historic farmsteads and other cultural sites 3 2 3 1 3 2.40 ƒ protecting historic rural schools and other structures 3 2 3 1 4 2.60 ƒ providing historic and cultural interpretation/education 5 1 3 1 4 2.80 Protecting the Scenic Resources, for example: ƒ preserving Isanti County’s rural character 5 2 5 3 2 3.40 ƒ protecting land values 3 1 5 3 2 2.80 ƒ enhancing apparent quality of life 5 5 5 3 1 3.80 ƒ attracting tourism, new residents, and economic development 4 3 5 3 4 3.80 Providing Recreation Resource Opportunities for example: ƒ for daily activity and exercise close to home 5 4 4 5 4 4.40 ƒ to participate in sports 2 2 4 5 4 3.40 ƒ to travel from one place to another (e.g. bike trails) 5 4 4 5 4 4.40 ƒ for group gatherings 5 3 4 5 3 4.00 ƒ for water-based recreation 5 4 4 5 3 4.20

Figure C22. Parks and Recreation Commission Questionnaire - Question One, CRD, 2007. Parks Plan 2008 149 The second question, shown in figure C23, was based on County supported facilities. Out of the 12 choices (including the “other” category) bike trails within parks ranked highest with 4.4 out of 5.0 points. Connective bike trails and hiking trails ranked second with 4.2 out of 5.0 points. Swimming and bathroom facilities ranked third with 3.8 out of 5.0 points.

Park Board Questionaire Results: Question Two Facilities Question 2: Isanti County’s recreation/open space system plan can provide many services and opportunities for a wide range of activities. What facilities should the Isanti County Park System support? Please rate the importance of that purpose on a scale of 1-5 (1=lowest, 5=highest). Average Picnic Facilities 4 3 5 3 3 3.6 Bathroom Facilities 3 5 4 3 4 3.8 Swimming Facilities 4 2 5 5 3 3.8 Camping 5 2 4 1 3 3 Fishing Piers / Docks 3 3 5 3 4 3.6 Bike Trails Within Parks (Mountain Bike Trails?) 5 4 5 4 4 4.4 Bike Trails Connecting Between Parks and/or Communities

Isanti County 5 4 5 2 5 4.2 Hiking Trails 5 4 5 3 4 4.2 Horse Trails 3 2 3 4 1 2.6 Nature / Interpretive Programs (self-guided?) 3 4 5 5 3 4

Environmental Learning Areas 4 3 5 2 1 3 Other Figure C23. Park Commission Questionnaire - Question Two, CRD, 2007. 150 Parks Plan 2008 The third question of the questionnaire focused on the priority and finance of the Parks Plan. Out of all of the County’s responsibility the Parks and Recreation Commission ranked the Parks Plan at 3.6 out of 5.0 points. If the Parks Plan received matching funding the Parks and Recreation Commission ranked County funding for the Parks Plan at 4.0 out of 5.0 points. Out of four ways to allocate funds, development of existing (undeveloped) parkland ranked highest at 4.5 out of 5.0 points. New facilities on existing parkland ranked third and maintenance of current facilities ranked fourth. Bike trails and linking parks by trails were suggestions for other ways funding should be allocated.

Park Board Questionaire Results: Question Three Financial Question 3: Isanti County has a wide range of services it provides to its residents all of which require funding support from the County’s budget. Average Isanti County In comparison to other County responsibilities, how much of a priority is funding the park system? 5 3 5 2 3 3.6 Would funding for the park system be more available if matching funds from federal and state sources are identified and available? 5 5 3 3 4

How should available funding be allocated? ·¬¬¬¬¬¬¬ Acquisition of new land as reserves for the future 4 3 5 2 5 3.8 ·¬¬¬¬¬¬¬ New facilities on existing park land 5 5 3 4 5 4.4 ·¬¬¬¬¬¬¬ Maintenance of current facilities 5 4 4 4 3 4 ·¬¬¬¬¬¬¬ Development of Existing (undeveloped) Parkland 5 5 5 4 3.5 4.5 Bike Trails 5 5 Linking Parks by Trails 4 4 The remediation fund will exist for about two more years. State cigarette tax previously a largely dedicated to parks, now is primarily in general fund. Figure C24. Park Commission Questionnaire - Question Three, CRD, 2007. Parks Plan 2008 151 Township Boards The Isanti County Township Boards were asked to fill out a short questionnaire in relation to the Parks Plan. The questionnaire covered issues about the principles, mission, appropriate County provided facilities, finance of the Parks Plan and Township Parks. The following are the results of the questionnaire:

The principles and mission of the Parks Plan provides insight into the Township Boards’ values and advised direction. Of the four categories, preserving and protecting environmental resources ranked highest at 5.0 out of 5.0 points. Protecting scenic resources ranked second with 4.4 out of 5.0 points. Preserving and protecting historic and cultural resources ranked third with 3.8 out of 5.0 points.

Township Questionnaire Results: Question One Principles & Mission 1. Isanti County’s recreation/open space system plan can serve many purposes and provide varied services

What should the purpose and mission of the Isanti County Park System be? Please rate the importance of that purpose on a scale of 1-5 (1=lowest, 5=highest).

Township Township Township Township Township Average Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Preserving and Protecting Environmental Resources, for example: protecting water quality, providing wildlife habitat and preserving open space. 5 5 5 5 5 5 Preserving and Protecting Historic and Cultural Resources, for example: protecting historic farmsteads and other cultural sites, protecting historic rural schools and other structures and providing historic and cultural interpretation/education. 1 4 4 5 5 3.8 Protecting the Scenic Resources, for example: preserving Isanti County’s rural character, protecting land values, enhancing apparent quality Isanti County of life and attracting tourism, new residents, and economic development. 5 4 3 5 5 4.4 Providing Recreation Resource Opportunities, for example: for daily activity and exercise close to home, to participate in sports, to travel from one place to another (e.g. bike trails), for group gatherings and for water-based recreation. 4 4 4 4 1 3.4 Other? Figure C25. Township Board’s Questionnaire - Question One, 152 Parks Plan 2008 CRD, 2007. The second question, shown in figure C26, was based on County supported facilities. Out of the twelve options (plus the “other” category) hiking trails ranked highest at 4.0 out of 5.0 points. Picnic, bathroom and swimming facilities ranked second with 3.6 out of 5.0 points. Bike trails within parks ranked third with 3.4 out of 5.0 points.

Township Questionnaire Results: Question Two Facilities Question 2: Isanti County’s recreation/open space system plan can provide many services and opportunities for a wide range of activities. What facilities should the Isanti County Park System support? Please rate the importance of that purpose on a scale of 1-5 (1=lowest, 5=highest). Township Township Township Township Township Average Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Picnic Facilities 1 5 4 3 5 3.6 Bathroom Facilities 1 5 4 4 4 3.6 Swimming Facilities 1 4 5 3 5 3.6 Isanti County Camping 1 3 4 3 1 2.4 Fishing Piers / Docks 2 4 4 3 2 3 Bike Trails Within 1 Parks, (Mountain Bike Trails?) 5 3 3 5 3.4 Bike Trails 1 Connecting Between Parks and/or Communities

5 3 4 1 2.8 Hiking Trails 3 5 3 4 5 4 Horse Trails 1

3 3 2 1 2 Nature / 5 Interpretive Programs (self- guided?) 3 2 3 2 3 Environmental 4 Learning Areas 3 3 3 1 2.8 Other

Figure C26. Township Board’s Questionnaire - Question Two, CRD, 2007. Parks Plan 2008 153 The third question of the questionnaire focused on the priority and finance of the Parks Plan. Out of the responsibilities that the County has the Township Boards ranked the Parks Plan as 3.2 out of 5.0 points of priority. Forming a Township / County partnership to fund the parks within respective jurisdictions ranked 1.75 out of 5.0 points. If the Parks Plan received matching funding the Township Boards ranked reciprocal County funding for the Parks Plan at 2.75 out of 5.0 points. Out of five ways to allocate funds acquisition of new land as reserves for the future ranked highest at 4.0 out of 5.0 points. New facilities on existing parkland ranked second at 3.6 out of 5.0 points. Maintenance of facilities and development of existing parkland ranked third at 3.2 out of 5.0 points.

The fourth question focused on the values and perceptions of the township parks. Out of the board members who responded from Springvale, Dalbo and Oxford Townships only Springvale has a park that is owned by the County. Out of the responding Townships only Springvale is planning on expanding it’s park system. The Township parks have differing roles as compared to the County’s Parks Plan. All of the responding townships were interested in a collaborative relationship with the County in regards to the Parks Plan. Isanti County

154 Parks Plan 2008 Financial Question 3: Isanti County has a wide range of services it provides to its residents all of which require funding support from the County’s budget. Please rate the following on a scale of 1-5 (1=lowest, 5=highest) Financing the Park Township Township Township Township Township System Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Average

In comparison to other County responsibilities, how much of a priority is funding the park system? 4 4 3 4 1 3.2 Should townships form partnerships with Isanti County to fund parks within the township’s jurisdiction? 1 Yes 1 4 1 1.75

Would funding for the park system be more available if matching funds from federal and state

sources are Isanti County identified and available? 2 Not Sure 4 3 2 2.75 Acquisition of new land as reserves for the future 5 4 2 4 54 New facilities on existing park land 4 4 4 5 1 3.6

Maintenance of current facilities 1 4 4 4 3 3.2 Development of Existing (undeveloped) Parkland 1 4 5 3 3 3.2 Linking Parks by a Trail System 1 4 2 3 1 2.2 Other? What are the most appropriate mechanisms for funding the Isanti County How many Parks Park System? Bond Referendum do we need? Figure C 27. Township Board’s Questionnaire - Question Three, Parks Plan 2008 155 CRD, 2007. Township Parks

Question 4: The some of the Townships within Isanti County own and operate parks within their jurisdiction. These parks offer a wide range of services to the residents of the township. To gain an understanding of the best relationship between County facilities and Township facilities please answer the following questions.

Township Park Township Township Township Township Township System Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Springvale Springvale Springvale Dalbo Name of Township Oxford Yes Does your township own and/or Township gives operate any parks money to Township does not within its Springvale but the County jurisdiction? County Park No does. No Yes Does your township plan to create a park system or The County is expand the existing expanding the system? park system. No Not Currently No ?

Is the purpose and role of township parks the same as that of county Township doesn’t parks? have a park. - Yes No

Would a collaborative approach to providing recreation opportunities best meet the needs of county and The County should township residents? Yes. Yes Yes do Parks What is the contact information for the person best suited to provide information to inventory your township’s parks No Township Kathleen Benson, and recreational Parks in Clerk 763-689- We have nothing facilities? Steve Nelson Springvale 4964 to inventory The park A Walgo is very

Isanti County seldom used - a waste of tax monies. Kids use it as a gathering place to drink and make Good luck with deals. Parks the future of are not the planning of answer. Isanti County's Additional Park- they need Comments some guidance. Figure C28. Township Board’s Questionnaire - Ques- 156 Parks Plan 2008 tion Four, CRD, 2007. IsantI County Parks & BIke PatH Master Plan

FINAL REPORT JANUARY, 2008 An Addendum to the 2008 Isanti County Parks and Recreation Plan SPONSORED BY ISANTI COUNTY ACTIVE LIVING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE BY THE ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION PREPARED BY THE CENTER FOR RURAL DESIGN, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Isanti County Parks and Bike Path Master Plan The preparation of this report is funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Study Team Members/Roles: Principal Investigator: Dewey Thorbeck, Director, Center for Rural Design Center for Rural Design Team Members: Steve Roos, Senior Research Fellow Tracey Sokolski, Research Fellow

Acknowledgements: This project could not have been accomplished without the cooperation and knowledge of the Isanti County Steering Committee. In addition, we owe thanks to the Isanti County Parks and Recreation Board especially Co-Chair Bill Carlson, Co-Chair Joe Crocker and Secretary Maureen Johnson for facilitating the Committee’s work and the community workshops.

January 2008 Center for Rural Design College of Design and College of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences University of Minnesota ACTIVE LIVING I t aBle oF Contents SANT I

Introduction Pg. 4 C

Strategies and Goals Pg. 6 OUNTY

Process Pg. 7

Bike Suitability in Isanti County Pg. 9

Isanti County Parks and Bike Path Master Plan Pg. 10

Connecting Bike Routes with Citizen Landscape Preferences Pg. 11

Connecting Bike Routes with Isanti County Transportation Plan Pg. 12

Next Steps Pg. 19

Reference Guides Pg. 20

Master Plan 2008 1 ACTIVE LIVING

OUNTY C SANT I I

2 Master Plan 2008 ACTIVE LIVING I l Ist oF FIGures SANT I

Figure D1. Paved Shoulder on a Street in Isanti County, Joe Crocker, 2007. C

Figure D2. Master Plan Approach and Time Line, Center for Rural Design, 2006. OUNTY

Figure D3. Biking Suitability in Isanti County, Mr. Joe Crocker and the Center for Rural Design, 2007.

Figure D4. Isanti County Parks and Bike Path Master Plan, Center for Rural Design,

2007.

Figure D5. Isanti County Parks and Bike Path Master Plan and Natural Environmen- tal Analysis Map, Center for Rural Design, 2007.

Figure D6. Isanti County Parks and Bike Path Master Plan and Intrinsic Scenic Analysis Map, Center for Rural Design, 2007.

Figure D7. Future Traffic Volumes, Isanti County Transportation Plan, SRF, 2007.

Figure D8. Table 4-2: Bikeway Design Selection for Rural Cross Section, ‘Guidelines for Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities in Texas.’

Figure D9. Recommended Roadway Design Treatments and Widths for Accomadat- ing Bicyclists, ‘Guidelines for Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities in Texas.’

Figure D10. Roadway Design Treatments and Widths for Accommodating Bicyclists, ‘Guidelines for Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities in Texas.’

Figure D11. Examples of Bike Lanes on Rural Roadway, ‘Guidelines for Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities in Texas.’

Figure D12. Example of Bike Use of Shoulders, ‘Guidelines for Bicycle and Pedes- trian Facilities in Texas.’

Master Plan 2008 3 ACTIVE LIVING

IntroDuCtIon

The Isanti County Parks and Bike Path Master Plan was sponsored by Isanti County Active Living (ICAL) and funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. ICAL is a local organization that is part of Active Living by Design (ALbD), a national program of the Robert

OUNTY Wood Johnson Foundation. ICAL and ALbD strives to promote the increase and enhancement of physical activity choices within peoples’ daily lives. ALbD recommends the following 5 strategies for comprehensive promotion of active living: C

1. Preparation – fostering partnerships throughout the region. 2. Promotion – communicating the message of active living. 3. Programs – creating programs that heighten demand for physical activity

SANT I in the community.

I 4. Policy Influence – influence decisions that impact policies and programs that support active living. 5. Physical projects – develop parks, trails, bikeways and sidewalks to promote physical activity.

The project approach, time line, public engagement and Steering Committee was combined with the 2007 Isanti County Parks and Recreation Plan (Parks Plan) update effort because of the similar nature and potential synergy between the two plans. The Master Plan is an extension of a larger ICAL project to facilitate active living for the citizens of Isanti County. Isanti County (along with the Cities of Isanti, Cambridge and Braham) through the broader ICAL project, have identified the following goals for integrating physical activity into daily life:

1. Develop and maintain and effective partnership to promote physical activity. 2. Increase community awareness of the health and other benefits of active living. 3. Increase access to and availability of diverse opportunities for physical activity. 4. Enhance policy and organizational supports for physical activity. 5. Improve built and natural environments to support active living.

4 Master Plan 2008 ACTIVE LIVING I

ACTIVE LIVING BY DESIGN (ALBD) PRINCIPLES SANT I

Active living is a way of life that integrates physical activity into daily routines. The goal is to accumulate at least 30 minutes of activity each day. Individuals may achieve this by walking or bicycling for transportation, exercise or pleasure; playing in the park; working in the yard; taking the stairs; and using recreation facilities. C In committing to promoting and increasing physical activity, these principles will guide future

interdisciplinary collaboration in the active living movement. OUNTY

1. Physical activity is a behavior that can favorably improve health and quality of life.

2. Everyone, regardless of age, gender, language, ethnicity, economic status or ability, should have safe, convenient and affordable choices for physical activity.

3. Places should be designed to provide a variety of opportunities for physical activity and should accommodate a wide range of individual preferences and abilities.

4. Development patterns should encourage mixed uses, compact design, and a variety of transportation choices.

5. Buildings should be designed and oriented to promote opportunities for active living, especially active transportation.

6. Transportation systems, including transit, should provide safe, convenient and afford able access to housing, work sites, schools and community services.

7. Parks and green space, including trails, should be safe, accessible and part of a transportation network that connects destinations of interest, such as housing, work sites, schools, community services and other places with high population density.

8. Municipalities and other governing bodies should plan for ongoing interdisciplinary collaboration, promotion of facilities, behavioral supports, policies that institutional- ize the vision of active living, and routine maintenance that ensures continued safety, quality and attractiveness of the physical infrastructure.

9. Community governing and planning processes should address the multiple impacts of the built environment and transportation choices on residents’ ability to be physically active.

Active Living Essentials, Active Living by Design, online reference, September, 2007.

Master Plan 2008 5 ACTIVE LIVING

s tra teGIes anD Goals

This Master Plan is part of a broader project of the ICAL. The broader project maintained five organizing strategies. The charge of the Master Plan is to explore and expand on the following two of the five strategies:

OUNTY • Increase access to and availability of diverse opportunities for physical activity. • Improve built and natural environments to support active living. C The goal of the Master Plan is to illustrate opportunities for active living in Isanti County. Much of the focus of the Parks Plan is on the inventory and prioritization between acquisition and development of park holdings within the County. The majority of the park holdings in the County and the Cities have numerous high quality facilities and trails that

SANT I provide opportunities for a range of activity engagement choices. Isanti County citizens

I have limited choices to move between parks, schools, communities and places of work in the areas external to the park holdings and cities. As such, the Master Plan focuses on the suitability for bicycling in the County and the potential bike routes between the County’s park holdings.

Figure D1. Paved Shoulder on a Street in Isanti County, Joe Crocker, 2007. 6 Master Plan 2008 ACTIVE LIVING I

ProCess SANT I

The project process (shown in figure D2 below) began with the creation of the Steering Committee and included three major phases: a research phase, a documentation phase and an analysis phase. The Steering Committee was comprised of community members from the

Isanti County Parks and Recreation Commission, County Commissioners, Township Boards, C local organizational representatives and citizens at large. Efforts were made to have a diverse Steering Committee to provide needed insight into multiple perspectives and opinions OUNTY from people in the County.

The research phase included four Steering Committee meetings, inventory of the natural and rural character resources and Public Workshop 1. The Steering Committee discussed the mission of the Parks Plan, significant and potential locations for expansion, likes and dislikes of the Parks Plan, financing, interjurisdictional collaboration and much more. Natural and rural character resource maps were used for inventory and analysis in both the Steer- ing Committee meetings and in Public Workshop 1. The Natural Areas Map shows areas within the County that have environmental integrity1. The Rural Character Map shows areas within the County that are visually pleasing. Public Workshop 1 focused on identifying broad community values on natural resources and rural character, the Park Plan’s purpose, 1. Environmental integrity reflects a state of the environment wherein air, water, and biologic systems function adequately to be self-sustaining. In this state the environment can also provide services that sustain human health and well-being (Steve Roos, Center for Rural Design, 2007).

Figure D2. Master Plan Approach and Time Line, Center for Rural Design, 2006. Master Plan 2008 7 ACTIVE LIVING

within the County that are visually pleasing. Public Workshop 1 focused on identifying broad community values on natural resources and rural character, the Park Plan’s purpose, services, and areas of significance. OUNTY The documentation phase included: data from Public Workshop 1 and the Comprehen- sive Planning process, a Steering Committee meeting, administrative questionnaires and C Public Workshop 2. Public Workshop 1 and the Comprehensive Plan community input results provided insight into the importance and thrust of the Parks Plan in Isanti County. The Steering Committee Meeting reviewed the results and helped to shape the format and activities for the second Public Workshop. Public Workshop 2 used the results of the

SANT I previous Workshop to provide a platform from which new questions were developed.

I This workshop focused on the prioritization of the community values and asked the community members to come to consensus about numerous issues. Similar to Public Workshop 1, a series of administrative questionnaires were presented to the County Commissioners, the Park Board and the Township Board. These questionnaires asked willing participants questions about the mission, juridictional interest and finance of the Park Plan.

The analysis phase included Public Workshop 2 documentation, two Steering Committee meetings, development of the Parks Plan and presentation of the Parks Plan to the Parks and Recreation Commissioners and the County Commissioners. The Steering Committee reviewed the results from Public Workshop 2. The Public Workshop results, administrative questionnaires and Steering Committee feedback were then combined, analyzed and interpreted in the creation of the Parks Plan. The Steering Committee worked hand in hand with the Center for Rural Design and reviewed each section of the report.

8 Master Plan 2008 ACTIVE LIVING I

BIkInG s uIt aBIlIty In IsantI County SANT I

The Biking Suitability in Isanti County Map, as shown in figure D3, highlights the range of biking opportunities on the existing roads of Isanti County and connections to regional amenities. This map was developed by Mr. Joe Crocker, Steering Committee Co-Chair and Mrs. Jean Crocker and illustrated by the Center for Rural Design. C

Continuous bike travel and regional connectiveness, bike connections between towns and OUNTY linkages between the Isanti County Park holdings are of significance when analyzing biking suitability.

Continuous bike travel and regional connectiveness provide serious and weekend bikers safe options when choosing to navigate for a variety of purposes. According to the map and highlighted in blue, red and green there are a significant amount of suitable biking roads in the County. Interstate 47 in the west of the County allows moderately suitable and continuous biking from the north to the south. County Road 5 in the southern part of the County provide moderately suitable to suitable continuous biking from east west. County Road 28 connects with County Road 5 and offers a highly suitable connection to Sherburne County and the town of Zimmerman. County Road 3 and 13 in the northern part of the County offer suitable to highly suitable continuous biking from east to west.

Bike connections between towns provide more navigation choices for the Isanti County Community. The three cities in Isanti County, Braham, Cambridge and Isanti are linked by State Highway 65. State Highway 65 and 95 are minimally suitable according to the Bik- ing Suitability Map. An alternative to biking illegally on a highway is to take lower traffic roads or a segregated bike path. Isanti County is currently working on connecting Isanti and Cambridge by a paved bike path that runs parallel to the railroad. A connection between Cambridge and Braham is suggested to be established also. County Road 34 and 36 and State Highway 13 connects Cambridge with Braham.

The north-south connection is not direct but offers a opportunity to travel by bike between these two towns. Another options for connecting Cambridge and Braham is a segregated path parallel to Interstate 65.

Linkages between the Isanti County Park holdings provide opportunities for increased use of the parks. The Biking Suitability Map shows the park holdings and suggests that there potentially could be connections between them. The Bike and County Park Road Connections Map utilizes the suitability continuum and recommends bike route linkages between parks.

Master Plan 2008 9 ACTIVE LIVING

IsantI County Parks anD BIke PatH

Master Plan

The Isanti County Parks and Bike Path Master Plan (Master Plan), as shown in figure D4, presents recommended routes that are best suited to connect the Isanti County Parks and Recreation Plan. Of priority to the development of the Master Plan is: OUNTY 1. Suitability of the existing roads to support safe biking. 2. Connection to the county parks

C 3. Connection to the cities of Isanti, Cambridge and Braham 4. Avoidance of State Highway 95 and 65.

The suitability of the existing roads to support safe biking was developed by Mr. Joe Crocker, Steering Committee Co-Chair and Mrs. Jean Crocker, both of whom are avid

SANT I bikers in Isanti County. The suitability of the roads were based on the amount of daily I traffic, the average speed of traffic, shoulder width and materiality and the level of safety perceived when biking on the roads.

Isanti County has 9 parks and is located with the vicinity of significant regional resources. The Master Plan provides a variety of bike path loops that may appeal to a diversity of bike riders.

Two railroad trails are proposed in the Master Plan; a segregated bike path that connects the town of Isanti to Cambridge and a segregated bike path that connects Cam- bridge to Braham. This city to city connection is important to the ALbD principles because the path would provide a more physically active choice of mode of travel between the cities for daily transportation and destination trips than vehicular modes. The bike path connecting the cities of Isanti and Cambridge is nearly ready for construction. The bike path connecting Cambridge and Braham is being planned. The Master Plan strongly encourages the establishment of segregated continuous bike travel because it is safer and more appealing to potential users.

The intent of the Master Plan is to provide safe continuous bike travel however, crossing and traveling on the State Highways 95 and 65 is unavoidable. The Master Plan strongly encourages designated bike lanes parallel to these roads, pedestrian crosswalks and traffic calming techniques. Bike lanes can be situated next to or integrated parallel to the road. Pedestrian crosswalks should be considered for the intersections where the bike path is proposed to cross the State Highways. Stop lights may be the most appropriate and safest technique for the secure passage of bikes and pedestrian across a highway. Other circumstances may call for a pedestrian bridge for safe passage of pedestrians and bikers. If the traffic speed is manageable a pedestrian crosswalk with flashing lights may be the most applicable. Traffic calming techniques are spatial barriers than discour- age and intend to reduce traffic speeds. Plantings, medians, speed bumps, road bump outs and context sensitive fences are some examples of traffic calming techniques. 10 Master Plan 2008 ACTIVE LIVING I BIKING SUITABILITY IN SANT I ISANTI COUNTY CONNECTION TO MILLE LACS WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA C OUNTY

Vegsund Family County Park

Dalbo Park

Springvale Becklin County Homestead Park Park WMA Braham CONNECTION TO WILD RIVER STATE ARK P Cambridge

Isanti

CONNECTION TO SHERBURNE NATIONAL WILDLIFE RESERVE

CONNECTION TO SHERBURNE Irving and John Wayside COUNTY Colin Anderson Park Lyndon Prairie & ZIMMERMAN Cedarblade Township County Park Township Park Park Cedar CONNECTION ON C.R. Creek 8 TO PLANNED NORTH/ Natural SOUTH TRAIL CONNECTING Area BIKING SUITABLITY IN ISANTI COUNTY ELK RIVER, ZIMMERMAN AND PRINCETON TO THE NORTH CONNECTION TO CONNECTION MARTIN-ISLAND- Highly Suitable - No Shoulder and Minimal Traffic LAKE GEORGE TO COON LAKE LINWOOD LAKES Moderately Suitable - Wide Paved Shoulder REGIONAL PARK COUNTY PARK REGIONAL PARK Suitable - No Shoulder, Moderate Traffic Minimally Suitable - Wide Shoulder and High, Fast Traffic N Not Suitable - No Shoulder and High Traffic Master Plan 2007 Figure D3. Biking Suitability in Isanti County, Mr. and Mrs Joe Crocker and the Center for Rural Design, 2007. ACTIVE LIVING

CONNECTION TO MILLE LACS WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA ISANTI COUNTY PARKS I SANT I CR 66 AND BIKE PATH CR 46 Vegsund Family MASTER PLAN County Park 36 C CR

CR 3 CR 3 OUNTY CR 3 36 14 1 CR

Dalbo Park CR CR

CONNECTION TO Becklin 14 Springvale WILD RIVER STATE CR 36 57 Homestead Braham County Park PARK CR CR 349th Ave. NW Park WMA CR 34

NW 341th 14

St. Cambridge 339th CR Lily State Highway 95 Isanti

CONNECTION 45

TO SHERBURNE CR

NATIONAL 17

ILDLIFE 10

W CR

RESERVE CR ISANTI COUNTY PARKS AND BIKE PATH CR 5 CR 55 CR 47 Highly Suitable - No Shoulder and Minimal Traffic Moderately Suitable - Wide Paved Shoulder

CR 59 Irving and John 18 ONNECTION C Wayside Colin Township Anderson Park CR Suitable - No Shoulder, Moderate Traffic TO SHERBURNE Prairie Park COUNTY 10 CR 9 Minimally Suitable - Wide Shoulder and High, Fast Traffic 71 County Park & ZIMMERMAN CR CR Not Suitable - No Shoulder and High Traffic CR 8 CR 56

12 County Parks CR Lyndon CR 12 Municipalities CONNECTION ON C.R. Cedarblade CR 23 Cedar Creek 8 TO PLANNED NORTH/ County Parks SOUTH TRAIL CONNECT- Township Park Natural Area ING ELK RIVER, ZIMMER- ONNECTION TO Planned Railroad Trail MAN AND PRINCETON TO C CONNECTION MARTIN-ISLAND- LAKE GEORGE TO COON LAKE THE NORTH LINWOOD LAKES N Potential Railroad Trail REGIONAL PARK COUNTY PARK REGIONAL PARK Master Plan 2007 Figure D4. Isanti County Parks and Bike Path Master Plan, Center for Rural Design, 2007. ACTIVE LIVING ConneCtInG BIke r outes WItH I

CItIZen l anDsCaPe PreFerenCes SANT I

As discussed previously as a component of the project process involved engaging with the citizens of Isanti County to clarify their environmental and aesthetic preferences throughout the county. These preferences identify their experiential and emotional connections to the C landscape of the county as a whole and to places of special interest within the county. Iden- tifying suitable biking opportunities that provide access to these special places enhances the goals of ALBD and the Isanti County Park Plan in a reciprocal fashion - bicycling op- OUNTY portunities encourage an active living life style while, at the same time, they connect people with the landscape and places in the county they enjoy the most, strengthening their appreciation for preserving the rural character of Isanti County.

The Biking Suitability classifications identified on the map in Figure D3 were overlaid on a map of the county’s Natural Environment and Habitat Resources (Figure D5) and a map of the county’s Intrinsic Scenic Value (Figure D6). Both of these maps were used in the public participation process as the basis for identifying citizen values related to the landscape of the county.

The Natural Environment and Habitat Resources map encompasses all of the Isanti County Parks and MN DNR Wildlife Management Areas as well as other areas of significant environmental value. As illustrated in Figure D5, almost all of the identified significant environmental resources in the county can be accessed on at least one side by roads rated as suitable to highly suitable for bicycling.

The map of Intrinsic Scenic Value (Figure D6) combines the scenic value of both the natural areas of the county and the cultural landscape - farms, farmsteads, small communities - into what is broadly defined as ‘rural character’. While the natural areas in the county can provide enjoyable destinations for bicycle trips, the scenic value of the overall ‘rural character’ of Isanti County makes the trip to and from destinations a pleasurable experience. As illustrated in Figure D6, many of the roads rated as highly suitable for bicycling travel through some of the most scenic areas of the county.

Master Plan 2008 11 ACTIVE LIVING

ConneCtInG BIke r outes WItH tHe

IsantI County t ransPort atIon Plan

This section will explore the relationships between a county-wide bicycle trail system and the Isanti County Transportation Plan. OUNTY Principles and Goals Active Living by Design lists a set of guiding principles as presented earlier in this report. C Several of these principles coincide with goals outlined in the Isanti County Transportation Plan.

For example, Goal 4 of the Isanti County Transportation Plan (2006-2030) identifies

SANT I the need to support a multimodal transportation system that provides opportunities for

I choice in transit choices. This goal compliments ALbD Principle 4 that, in part, calls for encouraging the availability of transportation choices. Similarly, Goal 1 of the Transpor- tation Plan calls for the continued creation and maintenance of safe and efficient transportation infrastructure that meets current and future needs while ALbD principles 7 and 8 address issues of design and maintenance that ensure safety, quality and attractiveness of the physical infrastructure.

Section 2.7.2 of the Transportation Plan identifies the role trails can and do play as a viable component of the transportation network that serves all forms of non-motorized transportation. In addition, it recognizes that some of this need can be integrated into the existing network partially alleviating the need for an entire and completely separate system of trails.

In Section 4.5 the Transportation Plan identifies several suggested future dedicated trails that could provide internal connections between the communities of Braham, Cambridge, and Isanti as well as connections to regional facilities outside of the county. Currently, work is under way to secure rights to an alignment for a dedicate trail between the cities of Cambridge and Isanti. Dedicated trail corridors offer several advantages, in particular, to recreational users. However, acquiring rights-of-way and building dedicated trails is an expensive and long-term process that will not be able to meet needs in the short- term or provide flexible and widely dispersed opportunities in the long-term. Providing these opportunities will require integrating bicycle transportation into overall roadway network. Section 4.5 recognizes this possibility but points out that the county does not presently have any policies with regard to building or designing trails on or adjacent to county roadways. Isanti County Active Living, in collaboration with other non-profits and citizen groups, should work with the county to outline a set of policies to guide the accom- modation of bicycle traffic on the county’s roadway system.

12 Master Plan 2008 ACTIVE LIVING I SANT I C OUNTY

Master Plan 2007 Figure D5. Isanti County Parks and Bike Path Master Plan and Natural Environmental Analysis Map, Center for Rural Design, 2007. ACTIVE LIVING I SANT I C OUNTY

Figure D6. Isanti County Parks and Bike Path Master Plan and Intrinsic Scenic Analysis Map, Center for Rural Design, 2007. Master Plan 2007 ACTIVE LIVING

Pine I k anabec SANT I

Braham ST54 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES UV4 22 UV ?A65 UV4 66 UV14 ST107 4 ?A ISANTI COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLAN UV ST36 16 UV ST46 Rush Lake 72

ST C Maple Ridge UV24 Stanchfield Figure 7 Dalbo ST63 Rush City Section 61 ?A47 ST Lake OUNTY ST58 Rush UV3 3 Lake ST60 UV 3 UV 14 38 13 1 UV ST UV UV ?A65 Mille UV15 ST44 ST41 57 l egend l acs ST62 ST ST36

South 6 Stanchfield Lake UV ST31 UV6 Future t raffic Volumes* 6 6 UV UV 6 Robour UV ST33 ADT < 500 Lake Chisago ST32 Cambridge ADT 500 to 1,999 UV15 Wyanett UV1 Springvale !"`$ ?A65 ADT 2000 to 4,999 ST57 ?A47 UV30 14 ST34 Horseshoe 95 UV ST36 ?A ?A95 ST65 Lake Harris ADT 5,000 - 10,000 ST35 UV2 F ish 27 La Green UV ke Spectacle 64 Silver Lake ST Princeton Lake 95 ST36A ADT > 10,000 Lake ?A Skogman 37 ST ?A293 Lake Cambridge Elizabeth ?A95 Railroad 11 UV ST39 UV1 Lake Fannie, ST45 UV21 Lake UV19A Isanti County UV10 ST67 ?A95 UV7 ?A47 UV17 43 Township Boundaries UV5 ST ST70 ST48 ?A65 North Branch 40 Bradford Municipal Boundaries ST UV19 Spencer Brook Isanti ST45 North Branch UV12 UV21 )y UV5 UV5 UV5 28 UV ST52 ST42 UV5 UV18 *CSAHs and County Roads - Year 2030 with Isanti Straight Line Projection Method UV10 ST55 Trunk Highways - Year 2029 Mn/DOT Traffic Projections n a e 7 e k e m k UV r a 23 k a e L UV a L 47 L G g ST 59 n e ST o sherburne u l L B ?A65 d x 47 m , 49 . t ?A 68 ST s n ST e

e o 50 9 k ST UV 9

m m a UV

L u e

l r o

F Stanford 45 9 v ST UV

_ ´ Athens e r u t Zimmerman 8 u 8 23 f UV UV UV 0 2 4 6 _ 7 0 51 56 12 e ST 56 UV Oxford 18 r UV10 ST ST UV u g i f

\ 53 s ST 20

e UV r 7 71 Miles

u UV ST g i F \ North d 69 o

x ST p y e Pool

m T k

\ a L 4 1

7 L

5 a M

Bethel Fish k

e Saint Francis u s p East Bethel d

a a noka Lake Stacy M \ : J

Figure D7. Future Traffic Volumes, Isanti County Transportation Plan, SRF, 2007. Master Plan 2007 ACTIVE LIVING I SANT I

Accommodating Bicycle Traffic Within the Isanti County Transportation Plan Integrating bicycle transportation into an existing roadway system requires an understanding of two primary aspects of the roadway system: • the current and expected traffic volume on components of the roadway system, C • appropriate design parameters to integrate bicycle traffic with motor vehicle traffic. OUNTY This document can not incorporate an exhaustive analysis of the relationship between bicycle traffic and motor vehicle traffic on the full extent of roadway types within Isanti County. Nor can it provide a complete set of design guidelines to integrate bicycles into the county’s system. There are many resources available that delve into these issues in depth, in particular, MN/DOT Bicycle Facility Design Manual (2007), along with several guides from

the US Department of Transportation, AASHTO, ITE, and others. A list of available resources will follow at the end of this section.

This document can, however, provide a preliminary examination of the possible fit between bicycling and the projected future traffic volumes on county roads as well as an overview of key design issues.

Traffic Volumes Bicycling on high speed, high traffic roads raise both perceived and real concerns for cyclist safety. Experienced cyclists understand the risks associated with high speed traffic, have developed skills and confidence in negotiating these roadways in a manner that mitigates most of the risk, and often appreciate the expediency of travel on well maintained and direct routes. On the other hand, less experienced cyclists will often find these roadways intimidating - a process that can turn perceived safety risks into real ones. However, the principle factor in this perceived concern is traffic volume rather than traffic speed alone. Relatively lightly travelled roads can provide comfortable routes for bicycle transportation.

In a predominantly rural area such as Isanti County, the roadway system will have a significant number of roads with a functional class rating of minor collector or above and even most of the local roads will be designed for relatively high speed. As such, accommodating bicycle traffic only on low speed roadways is not feasible. Therefore, an appropriate system of bicycle routes that utilize existing roadways will assess suitability based on traffic volumes.

In the process of creating a new transportation plan the consultants working with Isanti County, SRF Consulting Group, Inc., developed projections for future traffic volumes (Figure D7). It is anticipated that within the life of the transportation plan there will be only two

Master Plan 2008 13 ACTIVE LIVING

major roadways that will have ADT counts above 10,000: • Mn 65 travelling north/south through the county connecting the communities of Bra- ham, Cambridge, and Isanti,

OUNTY • MN 95 travelling east/west through the county connecting Cambrige to Interstate 35 in the east and Princeton in the west.

C While these routes offer immediate connectivity and good facility, the Biking Suitability map (Figure D7) ranks these routes as minimally suitable due to their high traffic volume. In addition, a short portion of County 5 passing through the City of Isanti and the western portion of County 8 connecting to Zimmerman are rated as possibly reaching an ADT ex- ceeding 10,000. These roads are currently ranked as moderately suitable for bicycling

SANT I due to wide paved shoulders. These stretches may need to be ranked differently in the

I future if the projected traffic volumes are reached.

There are several stretches of roadway, principally in the southern half of the county and associated with the communities of Cambridge and Isanti, that could have ADT counts between 5,000 and 10,000. These roadways are currently ranked as moderately suitable for bicycling due, again to wide paved shoulders.

The remaining roadways in the county are expected to remain below an ADT count of 5,000 in the future, with most remaining below 2,000 and many in the northern half of the county staying below 500. All of these roadways are ranked as suitable or highly suitable for bicycling, principally due to low traffic volumes. Many of these roadways do not incorporate paved shoulders but their low traffic volumes allow bicyclists to use the traffic lane most of the time. These roads could be significantly enhanced for bicycling with the addition of paved shoulders as maintenance or opportunity allows.

The bicycle routes indicated in Figure D4 that connect the communities of Braham, Cam- bridge, and Isanti with each other and the county park system have been selected primarily to provide a more enjoyable bicycling experience through the rural landscape of the county by avoiding major highways. The majority of this system is on roadways expected to remain under 2,000 ADT. The primary exception is the unavoidable des- ignation of a segment of MN 95 from County 45 in Cambridge to County 57 approximately 6 miles west. This segment is necessary to connect Cambridge with Springvale and Dalbo county parks. This segment of roadway does incorporate wide paved shoulders and can accommodate bicycle traffic. It is recommended that other necessary upgrades be added to this segment, including striping and signage to add to bicyclist safety. These and other design guidelines are covered in detail in reference manuals and handbooks listedatthe end of the next section.

14 Master Plan 2008 ACTIVE LIVING I SANT I

Overview of Design Guidelines As mentioned, this document will not attempt to present bicycle transportation design guidelines in depth. Many very thorough discussions of this topic are available, some of which are listed at the end of this section. This section will be limited to an overview of issues related C to accommodating bicycles on rural cross section roadways. OUNTY Of particular interest to planning the bicycle network is Capter 2, Section 6 ‘Bicycle Net- work Planning’ in MN/DOT Bicycle Facility Design Manual (pp. 40-51). This section outlines the design process including the factors that determine the existing bicycling conditions along a proposed route that offer opportunity or create barriers. This information aids in the selection of possible corridors, as those outlined in the previous section. The need to work strategically with other agencies and departments is also identified.

The following strategies are critical in implementing a bicycle network plan: • Prioritize capital improvements. Identify those projects that are easily implemented or those projects that address a critical need such as a high crash location. • Identify potential funding sources, timelines, and maximum and minimum qualifying project amounts. • Communicate progress with transportation partners to help implement plan including county, city, business owners, schools, universities, colleges, and residents.

In the next section, the manual points to another significant component of the planning process - bicyclist and motorist education. Many of the primary safety concerns with bicycles and motor vehicles sharing the same roadway are related to recognizing the presence of each other and understanding the operational parameters of each mode of transportation. These concerns are best addressed through an education process that is both formal, e.g., bicycle safety training through the school system and private organizations, and informal, e.g., appropriate signage that clearly identifies the potential presence of bicyclists to mo- torists. Minnesota’s Share the Road bicycle safety education program (www.sharetheroadmn. org) offers more detailed information and educational materials.

Chapter 4 of the MN/DOT manual deals extensively with on-road bikeway design including issues specific to rural systems. The chapter examines bikeway types with a section focused on paved shoulders and shared lanes, both of which are common approaches to accommodating bicyclists on rural roadways. The table below (Figure D8), extracted from the manual, details the relationship of ADT to motor vehicle speed in determining appropriate design parameters for paved shoulders and shared lanes, as well as shared-use paths and wide outside lanes. Similar information is provided in Figures D9 & D10, facing page, prepared by the Federal Highway administration. These tables relate design parameters Master Plan 2008 15 ACTIVE LIVING

to an additional issue - that of cyclist skill level. The information on the following page is extracted from the report, ‘Guidelines for Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities in Texas’ by the Texas Transportation Institute addresses the same design issues of suitable size related to

OUNTY speed and volume. C SANT I I

Figure D8. Table 4-2: Bikeway Design Selection for Rural Cross Section, ‘Guidelines for Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities in Texas.’

Figure D9. Recommended Roadway Design Treatments and Widths for Accomadating Bicyclists, ‘Guidelines for Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities in Texas.’ 16 Master Plan 2008 ACTIVE LIVING I SANT I C OUNTY

Figure D10. Roadway Design Treatments and Widths for Accommodating Bicyclists, ‘Guidelines for Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities in Texas.’

Master Plan 2008 17 ACTIVE LIVING

Shoulders Shoulders may also be used in some areas for bicycles. In general, this approach is most appropriate for consideration in rural areas or on low-volume roadways. A shoulder

OUNTY width of at least 1.2 m (4 feet) should be considered if bicycle use is anticipated. .Ad- ditional width is desirable, especially if motor vehicle speeds are above 60 km/h (35

C mph) on the roadway: if there are high volumes of trucks and buses, or if other unique conditions exist. Figure 13 provides an example of a cross section with the shoulders designed for use by bicycles. As illustrated in Figure 13. special consideration should also be given to the clearance from the pavement edge to the plane of the foreslope of a ditch, guardrail, or roadside sign. Considerations should also be given to ensuring that

SANT I the shoulder pavement quality is good.

I - Guidelines for Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities in Texas, Texas Transportation Institute

Figure D11. Examples of Bike Lanes on Rural Roadway, ‘Guidelines for Bicycle and Pedes- trian Facilities in Texas.’

Figure D12. Example of Bike Use of Shoulders, ‘Guidelines for Bi- 18 Master Plan 2008 cycle and Pedestrian Facilities in Texas.’ ACTIVE LIVING I SANT I

n eXt s tePs C OUNTY As part of the continued efforts to support broad opportunities for healthy lifestyles for residents of the county, Isanti County Active Living should actively pursue partnerships with the both the private and public sectors. These partnerships can not only provide the vehicle for advancing the planning and implementation of the physical system of designated bikeways and dedicated trails but also provide the foundation for a bicycle training and edu-

cation program that will foster the use of the facilities with the residents of Isanti County.

Isanti County Active Living can continue existing programs and initiate new program that accomplish the following goals:

• Continue support for the land acquisition and construction of the dedicated Cambridge /Isanti bicycle trail. • Assist in seeking opportunities to begin planning and acquisition of a similar corridor between Cambridge and Braham. • Actively encourage Isanti County to create a bicycle friendly infrastructure program as part of its highway and road upgrade plans, in particular, where those facilities provide connection between communities and key recreational opportunities within the County as well as in neighboring counties. • Continue work with communities in the County to also improve bicycle infrastructure where it provides connection to key features within the community such as schools, shop- ping districts, and parks. • Work with schools and private sector groups to initiate or expand bicycle education programs that inform the public of the health and environmental benefits of non-motorized transportation as well as encourage the safe use of bicycles through rider training programs.

Master Plan 2008 19 ACTIVE LIVING

r eFerenCe GuIDes

Following is a list of useful references topically organized and with website addresses, where possible, for easy access. While certainly not all inclusive, this list provides a broad

OUNTY base of information to facilitate bicycle system planning and design as well as recommendations on public engagement in the process and bicycle safety education. C Planning Guides: National Bicycle and Walking Study: Current Planning Guidelines and Design Standards Being Used by State and Local Agencies for Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities. U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Fed- eral Highway Administration, August 1992. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE/ped/psol_plan.htm SANT I I Bicycle Transportation: a Handbook for Cycling Transportation Engineers. 2nd edition, John For- ester. MIT Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1994.

Achieving Cycle Friendly Infrastructure. John Franklin. Paper presented at Cycle Friendly Infrastruc- ture Conference, University of Nottingham, April 2002. http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/cfi_jaf.pdf

Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany. John Pucher and Ralph Buehler, Rutgers University, November 2007. http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/Irresistible.pdf

Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: a Recommended Approach. A US DOT Policy State- ment on Integrating Bicycling and Walking into Transportation Infrastructure. U.S. Dept. of Trans- portation, Federal Highway Administration, March 2000. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/design.htm

Pedestrian and Bicycle Data Collection in United States Communities: Quantifying Use, Surveying Us- ers, and Documenting Facility Extent. U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, January 2005. http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/rd/planning.cfm#data

Minnesota Bicycle Transportation Planning and Design Guidelines. Minnesota Department of Trans- portation, June 1996. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/docs/mnbikeguide.pdf

Wisconsin Rural Bicycle Planning Guide. Wisconsin Dept. of Transportation, Bureau of Planning and Economic Development, April 2006. http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/bike.htm

20 Master Plan 2008 ACTIVE LIVING I SANT I The Economic Impact of Bicycling in Wisconsin. Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin and Wisconsin Dept. of Transportation. http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/bike.htm

Design Guides: Bicycle Lanes Versus Wide Curb Lanes: Operational and Safety Findings and Countermeasure Recom- C mendations. Publication #FHWA-RD-99-035, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Admin- istration, October 1999. OUNTY http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tfhrc/safety/pubs/99035/intro.htm

Mn/DOT Bikeway Facility Design Manual. Minnesota Dept. of Transportation, March 2007. http:// www.dot.state.mn.us/bike/bikewaysdesignmanual.html

NYSDOT Highway Design Manual, Chapter 17: Bicycle Facility Design. New York State Dept. of Transportation, March 2006. http://www.dot.state.ny.us/cmb/consult/hdmfiles/hdm.html

Guidelines for Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities in Texas. Research Report 1449-3F, Texas Transporta- tion Institute, Texas Dept. of Transportation, June 1997. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE/bike/bsol_plan.htm

Bicycle Suitability Criteria for State Roadways in Texas. Research Report 3988-S, Texas Transporta- tion Institute, Texas Dept. of Transportation, June 1997. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE/bike/bsol_plan.htm

Implementing Bicycle Improvements at the Local Level. Publication #FHWA-98-105, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1998. http://www.bike.cornell.edu/pdfs/localbike.pdf

Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Oregon Dept. of Transportation, June 1995. http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/planproc.shtml

Wisconsin Bicycle Facility Design Handbook. Wisconsin Dept. of Transportation, Division of Transpor- tation Investment Management, Bureau of Planning, January 2004. http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/bike.htm

Bicycle Suitability Criteria: Literature Review ans State of the-Practice Survey. Texas Transportation Institute, Texas Dept. of Transportation, July 1997. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE/docs/tti_rpt39881.pdf

Many other technical, planning, and design guides are available on the U.S. Dept. of Transporta- tion, Federal Highway Administration website at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE/bike/bike_sol.htm

Master Plan 2008 21

Center for rural Design College of Design College of Food, agriculture and natural resource sciences 277 Coffey Hall 1420 eckles avenue st. Paul, Mn 55108 Phone: 612-624-9273 Web site: http://ruraldesign.coafes.umn.edu/ The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation.

This publication is available in alternative formats upon request. Please contact the Center for Rural Design at the above number.