Minnesota River Greenway
Master Plan Public review draft Minnesota River Greenway Master Plan Acknowledgements
Dakota County Board of Commissioners: Technical advisory group: District 1 - Joseph A. Harris Kurt Chatfield, Dakota County District 2 - Kathleen A. Gaylord Steve Sullivan, Dakota County District 3 - Thomas A. Egan Beth Landahl, Dakota County District 4 - Nancy Schouweiler Dan Patterson, Dakota County District 5 - Liz Workman Terry Vikla, Dakota County District 6 - Paul J. Krause Bruce Blair, Dakota County District 7 - Willis E. Branning Jennifer Bruestle, City of Mendota Project manager: City of Lilydale Kris Jenson, Dakota County Public Health John Mertens, Senior Planner, Dakota County Jan Wolff, MNDNR Office of Planning & Analysis Joel Stedman, MNDNR Master plan consultants: Jeanne Holler, USFWS
Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. Terry Schwalbe, Lower Minnesota River Watershed Jeffrey Radick, City of Burnsville Barr Engineering Terry Schultz, City of Burnsville Jake Sedlacek, City of Mendota Heights Bolton & Menk Ryan Ruzek, City of Mendota Heights
The 106 Group Mike Albers, City of Mendota Heights Juli Johnson, City of Eagan Mike Ridley, City of Eagan Funded in part by: Tim Plath, City of Eagan Lori Nelson, Friends of Minnesota Valley Chad Roberts, Dakota County Historical Society Ted Bores, MN Historical Society Minnesota River Greenway Master Plan 2011 3 Table of contents
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION 7 Overview 7 Planning context and master planning 10 Recreation needs 12
Chapter 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS 19 a. Overview 19 b. Existing cultural resources 22 c. Existing natural resources 25
Chapter 3: THE PLAN 29 a. Overview 29 b. Development plan 30 c. Interpretive plan 48 d. Stewardship plan 54 e. Key initiatives 63
Chapter 4: IMPLEMENTATION & MANAGEMENT PLAN 81
Appendix A: PLANNING CONTEXT STUDIES
Appendix B: CULTURAL RESOURCES
Appendix C: BLACK DOG ROAD FEASIBILITY STUDY
4 Minnesota River Greenway Master Plan 2011 Figures & tables
FIGURES (Figure number is also page number) TABLES (Figure number is also page number) 17. Core and Primary Service Areas 16. Population projections for cities adjacent the Minnesota River 26. Existing Land Cover Map 36. Proposed grade separated road crossings 28. Ecological Quality Map 58. Habitat investment strategies 30. Typical trail corridor section 82. Minnesota River Greenway priority projects 31. Minnesota River Greenway Concept Plan 84. Protection and stewardship lands 32. Minnesota River Greenway Typical Sections 86. Land protection and stewardship tools 36. Typical Railroad Underpass 87. Greenway implementation agency roles 37. Grade Separated Road and Railroad Crossings Map 90. Pavement management activities 38. Typical At Grade Road Crossing with Median Refuge 93. Land protection costs 40. Wayfinding Elements 94. Minnesota River Greenway capital development cost estimate 42. Site Furnishings 97. Greenway operations and maintenance costs 45. Lighting Diagram 98. Major natural resource projects 57 Habitat Investment Areas 63. Minnesota River Greenway Trail Alignment Segments 65. Minnesota River Greenway Segment 1 Concept Plan 66. Lilydale Neighborhood Gateway and Connection to Lilydale Regional Park 67. Downtown Mendota Trailhead and Connections 69. Minnesota River Greenway Segment 2 Concept Plan 70. Cedar Avenue Boat Launch and Trailhead Diagram 72. Quarry Lake Trail Alignment 75. Minnesota River Greenway Segment 3 Concept Plan 77. Minnesota River Greenway Segment 4 Concept Plan 83. Minnesota River Greenway Priority Projects 85. Minnesota River Greenway Property Ownership Map
Minnesota River Greenway Master Plan 2011 5 Sibley House, Mendota Introduction 1
Overview
For generations and across cultures, the Minnesota River has acted as a vital link, a place of settlement and a powerful natural landmark. This master plan conveys a vision to establish a greenway following the south side of the river valley from Burnsville to St. Paul. Like other greenways being planned in Dakota County, the Minnesota River Greenway is envisioned to provide multiple benefits to water quality, habitat enhancement, recreation and nonmotorized transportation.
The Minnesota River Greenway travels 17 miles through Burnsville, Eagan, Mendota Heights, Mendota and Lilydale before landing at St. Paul’s Lilydale Regional Park, where trails continue to Harriet Island and downtown St. Paul. The corridor is rich in cultural and natural resources and offers a singular opportunity The Minnesota River Greenway is highlighted as a connective ribbon of nature and trails along the Minnesota River. This corridor in red. is part of the larger Minnesota Valley State Trail planned by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources that will travel from LeSuer to St. Paul.
As the first greenway master plan to be prepared since Dakota County solidified its greenway vision in the 2008 Park System Plan, the Minnesota River Greenway, along with the North Creek Greenway, represents an important milestone in the creation of Dakota County’s greenway network. As such, this master plan has been prepared as a model in both approach and design signature for greenway master plans to follow.
Minnesota River Greenway Master Plan 2011 7 The purpose of this master plan is to: ff Express an integrated vision for recreation, nonmotorized transportation, habitat and water quality. ff Determine regional trail alignment and design. ff Provide strategies for interpretation, resource stewardship, development, land acquisition and operations. ff Estimate project costs. ff Satisfy requirements for Metropolitan Council regional destination trail and greenway planning.
Dakota County Greenway Vision
With the 2008 Park System Plan and 2010 Greenway Guidebook, Dakota County has established a progressive vision for an interconnected system of open space corridors — greenways. We need only look as far as Minneapolis’ Grand Rounds to realize the powerful legacy of community benefits greenways can bestow.
The Dakota County Greenways Vision includes the Minnesota River Greenway as a first priority greenway.
8 Chapter 1 Introduction Dakota County Park System Plan
The 2008 Dakota County Park System Plan established the foundation for a countywide greenway network by envisioning a system of regional greenways that interconnect parks, schools, local trails and libraries through the nonrural portions of the county. Dakota County’s greenway vision suggests 200 miles of regional greenways, 2/3 of which is on land currently in public or semipublic The Greenway ownership. A key plan priority is to implement more than 50 miles of greenways Guidebook The Dakota County Greenway Collaborative by 2020, including the 17 miles of the Minnesota River Greenway. Adopted September 28, 2010
Dakota County Greenway Collaborative: the Greenway Guidebook
In 2010, Dakota County adopted the Dakota County Greenway Guidebook as a framework for greenway development. The guidebook establishes a framework for a collaborative approach to governance, stewardship, design and operation of greenways.
Search greenway collaborative at dakotacounty.us
Dakota County’s greenway concept expands the notion of corridor to integrate habitat, recreation, water quality an transportation to create a countywide green infrastructure network.
Minnesota River Greenway Master Plan 2011 9 Planning Context
The Minnesota River Greenway will travel 17-mile through five municipalities, Fort Snelling State Park and the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge. This greenway is part of the Minnesota Valley State Trail being planned by the MnDNR and could be designated as a state trail. Other facilities and planing efforts impacting the greenway corridor include (see Appendix A for more detail): ff Metropolitan Regional Parks System Plan ff Local comprehensive plans ff Intercity Trail Technical advisory group ff Long Meadow Lake / Old Cedar Avenue bridge ff Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, Recreation Area and State Trail A technical advisory group met Comprehensive Plan, July 1984 regularly during the planning ff Fort Snelling State Park Management Plan, 1997 process. The group was made up of representatives from: ff Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge / Black Dog Road Area ff City of Lilydale ff 2010 Lilydale Regional Park Master Plan ff City of Mendota ff 2007 Pilot Knob Phase II Natural Resource Management Plan ff City of Mendota Heights ff 2008 Dakota County Park System Plan ff City of Eagan ff 2010 Dakota County Greenway Guidebook ff City of Burnsville ff Mn/DOT Highway 13 in Mendota ff U.S. Fish and Wildlife ff Mn/DOT Highway 13 and County Road 5 interchange Service ff City of Burnsville, Minnesota River Quadrant concept ff Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Greenway Master Planning ff Lower Minnesota River Watershed District The yearlong master planning process was a collaborative effort across multiple ff Fort Snelling State Park agencies and jurisdictions. Dakota County led the process, advised by a Technical Advisory Group. ff Minnesota Historical Society ff Dakota County Historical Stakeholder input Society A Technical Advisory Group met during each phase of master planning to provide ff Dakota County Department guidance, provide insight into technical questions, explore options, identify of Public Health partnership opportunities and discuss concurrent projects. In addition to providing ff Dakota County Parks and specific guidance, the TAG institutionalized a collaborative planning process and Open Space Department established relationships across agencies with a stake in implementing the master ff Dakota County Office of plan. Five TAG meetings were held on July 14, 2010, Oct. 13, 2010, Nov. 17 Planning and Analysis 2010, March 3, 2011, and May 4, 2011.
10 Chapter 1 Introduction In addition to the TAG meetings, a cultural resources and interpretation workshop was held on Sept. 29, 2010, to create preliminary interpretive themes. Individual meetings also were held with key stakeholders as needed during the planning process. Meetings were held with the DNR/Fort Snelling State Park staff, city of Mendota staff and Metropolitan Council’s Seneca wastewater treatment plant staff to discuss specific issues.
Community meetings
Dakota County held two community open house meetings during the planning process.
December 2010 open house
The first open house was Dec. 16, 2010, to gather input on the greenway trail alignment, interpretive themes and approach to natural resource and water quality improvement. Staff notified all landowners within 1/4 mile of the Minnesota and North Creek greenways (about 1,100 people) with a brochure outlining the project and an invitation to the open house Approximately 20 people attended. Overall reaction to the greenways were positive and attendees look forward to implementation. Attendees did raise concerns about the difficulty of managing contaminated sites within the river valley. Written comments included: concerns about contamination and former dump sites in the river valley; need for local connections across Highway 13 and the railroad corridor; and the value of the river valley as a recreation resource.
Second Open House [Placeholder]
L ong Meadow Lake / Old Cedar Avenue bridge in 2010.
Project website
A project website was established at www.hkgi.com/projects/dakota. An interactive greenway map and a virtual open house with an opportunity for feedback gave the general pubic easy access to follow and contribute to the project.
A gency review [Placeholder]
Minnesota River Greenway Master Plan 2011 11 Black Dog Road Feasibility Study
The city of Burnsville received a Transportation Enhancement grant to partially fund the Black Dog Road portion of the greenway in 2013-2014. A separate subcommittee with representatives from Burnsville, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Xcel Energy directed the preparation of a feasibility level study in this area. Recommendations from the feasibility study have been incorporated into this master plan and the study is included as Appendix D.
Recreation Needs
Access to natural areas, trails and cultural resources are important components that contribute to quality of life. These features define communities and often are cited by residents as their favorite places. Respondents to Dakota County’s 2006 park survey cited paved trails, loop trails, nature education programs, natural area visits, bird watching, environmental stewardship programs and cultural and history programs among the top 25 activities they would like to see in the County’s park system. Current recreation and demographic trends suggest these needs will continue well into the future
In addition to fulfilling recreation needs in Dakota County, the area encompassing The Dakota County Greenways website, www. the Minnesota River Greenway has been identified as an important part of the state hkgi.com/projects/dakota, includes interactive maps and images. and regional recreation systems. The Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, Recreation Area and State Trail Comprehensive Plan has identified a need for a state trail and management of natural resources in the Minnesota River Valley from LeSuer to St. Paul. Regionally, the Metropolitan Council’s 2030 Regional Parks Policy Plan identifies the need for a regional trail along the Minnesota River though Dakota County to the Scott County boundary as a priority.
V isitors
The County must first understand who typically visits parks and trails in the county and why they visit before it can identify recreation, interpretation and education objectives. Broadly generalized profile of greenway visitors was created based on input from existing visitors to Dakota County parks and trails, from stakeholders in the master planning process and from demographics of the population within 30 miles of Dakota County (see sidebar).
12 Chapter 1 Introduction The following observations can be made about potential visitors based on Stakeholders identified current comparative census data from 1990, 2000 and 2010. visitors to Dakota County parks: ff The people served by Dakota County parks and trails (those in a 30-mile ff Wildlife/bird watchers radius around the parks) are becoming increasingly diverse. As recreation, interpretation and education are developed, outreach should be considered. ff School groups ff There are more than half a million children enrolled in schools in the area ff Seniors served by Dakota County parks; more than one quarter of the population is ff Nonmotorized commuters younger than 17. Schoolchildren and families are a large group of potential ff Hikers, walkers, runners, greenway users. cyclists ff Less than 10 percent of the population in the area served by Dakota ff Anglers County is over the age of 65, but this age group is projected to increase f dramatically in number and proportion in the next 20 years. This influx f People using parks for of baby boomers into this age category will influence interpretive and athletics and community education program development. events/activities f ff Based on the 2000 census, the per capita income for the U.S. was $21,587. f Residents The per capita income for the area served by Dakota County parks was ff Families more 20 percent higher, at $26,273. Higher incomes have historically been ff People who have disabilities associated with greater participation in recreation activities. ff Bicycle racers Trends ff Foragers (fruit, flowers) ff Boaters Popularity of trail-based activities, active living, interest in nature, transportation and connectivity, engaged aging, interest in history and culture and population ff Graffiti artists growth all are trends that indicate interest in and visits to Dakota County trails — ff People who are homeless including those in greenways — are likely to increase. Stakeholders also identified Trail use groups of visitors they would like to see as greenway users in the Trails are the No. 1 desired recreation facility in poll after poll. People of all future: ages and abilities can enjoy them, they are inexpensive for users and often are close to home. The Minnesota Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation ff Groups who would benefit Plan (SCORP) notes that the interest and demand for more trails are being felt at from increased physical all levels of government. According to the 2008 Metropolitan Council Regional activity (youth, middle- Parks and Trails Survey, at least two thirds of people using recreational facilities aged women and people at in the metro were using trails. risk of obesity and related disorders) Biking and walking are the most popular trail uses. Half of all metro park and trail ff Corporate users users in 2008 were bicyclists or walkers. Running, inline skating and dog walking ff Commercial and business also are popular. connections ff Artists
Minnesota River Greenway Master Plan 2011 13 Active living
In 2009, 64.3 percent of adults in Dakota County were either overweight or obese. If the current trend continues, the percentage is expected to be 76 percent by 2020. Nationally, the obesity rate in children has tripled over the past 30 years. Today about 20 percent of school-age children are overweight or obese.
Regular moderate physical activity can help prevent a host of disorders, including heart disease, obesity, high blood pressure, Type 2 diabetes and osteoporosis. More physical activity at a population level can reduce health care costs and other costs to society.
Walking and biking are two of the simplest and most popular ways to integrate regular physical activity into daily routines, which is referred to as active living. Communities that have physical infrastructure such as trails and programs to promote walking and biking tend to have more physically active and healthier populations.
Interest in nature
Increased sensitivity to ecological issues and the benefits of healthy ecosystems has led to people seeking more natural experiences. There also is increased interest in and opportunities for environmental stewardship activities such as stream and riparian restoration and the removal of invasive species. In addition, people desire more educational and interpretive programs and are seeking a better balance of environment and recreation.
Transportation and connectivity
Health benefits, concerns about climate change and rising energy costs have increased demand for trails and bikeways as preferable transportation options. Regional trails with grade-separated crossings offer cyclists the advantages that motorists enjoy on freeways.
Connectivity to local trails is essential. The more connected the trail, the more use it will see. Connecting trails reduce the need for motor vehicle parking at trailheads. In 2008, half of all regional trail users arrived by bicycle or on foot
14 Chapter 1 Introduction (Metropolitan Council Regional Parks and Trails Survey 2008).
Engaged aging
Trail users tend to be older than park users. In 2008, 54 percent of Big Rivers Regional Trail users polled were between the ages of 45 and 64. Trail use likely will remain high as the baby boom generation ages and remains physically active — or gets more physical activity with increased leisure time — by walking, hiking or biking on trails.
Interest in history and culture
As society has become more mobile, interest in local culture and history has increased. The ability to integrate cultural, historic and environmental interpretation into the greenway will add richness to the greenway experience and attract visitors which building a sense of place.
Population
Metropolitan Council studies indicate that half of regional trail users live within 3/4 mile of the trail and 3/4 live within 3 miles of the trail. The 3/4 mile area around the trail is considered the core service area and the 3-mile area the primary service area. Communities that touch the Minnesota River Greenway’s primary service area are some of the most densely populated in the metropolitan area. As shown in Table 16, most communities in the primary service area expect modest growth over the next 20
Sibley House in Mendota
Minnesota River Greenway Master Plan 2011 15 Table 16. Population Forecasts for communities adjacent to the Minnesota years. River Greenway. (Source: Metropolitan Council Community Profiles, http:// stats.metc.state.mn.us/profile/detail.aspx?c=037) U se forecasts 2009 2030 % Municipality The Metropolitan Council’s 2009 visit estimate for the Estimate Forecast Change existing portion of the Minnesota River Greenway, the 4.5- Aypple Valle 49,376 71,200 44% mile Big Rivers Regional Trail, was 142,000. Based on the St. Paul 287,501 331,000 15% current use patterns, if the entire regional trail identified Savage 27,567 39,200 42% in the greenway were open today, there would be 539,000 West St. Paul 18,947 21,700 15% visits per year. The 2030 population of the communities SunfishL ake 548 530 -3% touching the greenway’s 3-mile service area is expected to Richfield 33,859 45,000 33% increase by 16 percent. Assuming use rates are stable (a very Lilydale 783 1,100 40% conservative assumption), in 2030, greenway visitation can Mendota Heights 11,766 11,800 0.3% be expected to surpass 625,000 annual visits. This estimate Mendota 196 270 38% does not take into account increased use based on current Eagan 65,933 70,800 7% recreation trends and increased use spurred by better future Burnsville 61,042 65,000 7% connectivity to the larger greenway system and other state, regional and local trails. Minneapolis 386,691 441,100 14% Bloomington 84,701 92,500 9% Total 1,028,910 1,191,200 16%
16 Chapter 1 Introduction Figure 17. Core and Primary Service Areas
Connection to St. Paul
Connection to Mississippi River Trail
Connection to Connection to L ake Nokomis Eagan, Lebanon and Grand Hills and North Rounds Creek Greenway
Connection to Scott County
Minnesota River Greenway Master Plan 2011 17 Fort Snelling State Park Soft Surface Path Existing 2 conditions
The purpose of this chapter is to present an overview of: ff Existing greenway corridor character ff History of the greenway area ff Existing cultural resources ff Existing natural resources a. Overview The Minnesota River Greenway travels from Lilydale Regional Park in St. Paul upriver through the communities of Lilydale, Mendota, Mendota Heights, Eagan and Burnsville. The greenway corridor links destinations including Lilydale Regional Park, the North Urban Regional Trail, the Big Rivers Regional Trail, historic Mendota, Fort Snelling State Park, the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife R ailroad bridge at Mendota leading to Fort Refuge and Burnsville’s Minnesota River Quadrant, which will become a mixed- Snelling State Park trails use complex for housing, employment, retail and recreation.
The Minnesota River Valley has for centuries attracted human settlement. Burial mounds and earthworks along the Minnesota River and its tributaries indicate an intensive occupation of the area prior to European contact. The area was settled by Europeans and used as fur trading posts, forts, farms, mills, breweries and residences. Settlement increased rapidly in the late 19th and early 20th century and continues to expand today.
Today the Minnesota River Greenway is a rich ribbon of floodplain, wetlands and river bluffs surrounded by development. The corridor provides wildlife habitat and is important for fish and bird species. The long history of settlement has also left severely degraded areas, including several contaminated dump sites.
Minnesota River Greenway Master Plan 2011 19 Greenway character Access to natural areas and views of the river valley result from the regional trail’s location in one of the largest contiguous natural areas in the Twin Cities, the Minnesota River Greenway. The greenway has potential to provide a varied recreation experience alternating from the top of the river bluff to the bottomlands.
Segment 1: Lilydale Regional Park to I-494 (5 miles)
The Minnesota River Greenway begins at the boundary of Lilydale Regional Park and follows the existing Big Rivers Regional Trail. With the exception of a trail gap between Lilydale Park and the Big Rivers Regional Trail, this section of the trail is complete. The existing trail is well-used and allows for midbluff views of the Minnesota River, including at its confluence with the Mississippi. The trail skirts downtown Mendota and continues southwest to the existing WPA overlook and I-494.
Segment 2: I-494 to Cedar Ave/TH77 (4 miles)
This segment includes the Dakota County side of Fort Snelling State Park. The land between Highway 13 and the park is in industrial uses with a railroad corridor dividing the developed and natural land uses. Between the railroad corridor and the Minnesota River is a highly sensitive wetland and fen complex. Challenges include difficulties of building on wetlands, seasonal flooding, high water table, sensitivity of the fens and a history of using areas of the river valley for dumping. There is a future regional greenway connection to Lebanon Hills Regional Park, which will serve as the primary hub of the county’s greenway network.
20 Chapter 2 Existing Conditions Segment 3: Cedar Ave/TH77 to I-35W (3.5 miles)
This segment follows Black Dog Road, which is currently closed to automobile traffic.The road floods seasonally, as it is on a narrow augmented natural levee between the Minnesota River and Black Dog Lake. Most of the land in this stretch of the river valley is managed by the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge. The Xcel power plant is a major fixture in the river valley. At Cedar Avenue, future trail connections to Hennepin County trails — including the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes — will be possible when a bridge across Long Meadow Lake is completed.
Decaying Long Meadow Lake bridge Wildlife Refuge along Black Dog Road Riding along Black Dog Road
Segment 4: I-35W to Scott County (4 miles)
Southeast of I-35W the greenway will continue to follow the Minnesota River to the Scott County boundary to connect with future regional trails in Scott County. This area is currently a gravel mine and landfill. The city of Burnsville plans to redevelop this area with a mix of commercial, industrial, housing and recreational uses. Recreational uses and features will include a quarry lake, a golf course on the current landfill site and a riverfront park.
Current gravel mine and landfill in Burnsville with the Minnesota River at top of photo Looking south from above the Minnesota River and I-35W at right.
Minnesota River Greenway Master Plan 2011 21 b. Existing cultural resources
Hi storic Overview
Twenty-six archaeological sites have been previously identified within the greenway corridor and another 29 within a 1-mile context area. Of these 55 sites, 42 contained pre-European components consisting of burial mounds and earthworks as well as artifact scatters. These sites demonstrate the area’s rich Native American history. The Minnesota River valley provided an abundance of natural resources as well as a mode of transportation for people living in the area. The numerous burial mounds and earthworks along the Minnesota River and its tributaries indicate an intensive occupation during the Ceramic/Mound Stage (2,500 years ago to 1750), and several sites contained artifacts indicative of the Paleoindian (12,000 to 8,000 years ago) and Archaic (8,000 to 2,500 years ago) stages as well.
At the outset of the Paleoindian Stage, about 12,000 years ago, an increasingly warmer and drier climate accompanied the most recent glacial retreat. The landscape of the Upper Midwest rebounded from the ice sheets and glacial lakes with colonies of new plant and animal regimes. Small bands of nomadic hunters moved into the territory in pursuit of large game (mastodon, caribou and Pleistocene bison) that followed the northward expansion of spruce forest and prairie. Because these groups were small and their occupations transient, isolated artifacts, processing sites, expedient-manufacturing sites, or burial sites are most likely to occur for this stage while long-term habitation sites are rare (Kluth 1993:4; Dobbs 1989:71).
The Archaic Stage in Minnesota represents the adaptations of precontact peoples initially to the warmer and drier postglacial environment and then, about 5,000 years ago, to a moister, cooler climate (Dobbs 1989:110). Dobbs (1989:79) states, “In general, the Archaic Stage is characterized by the development of efficient hunting and gathering cultures and the greater exploitation of local environments for different raw materials for food and tools.” The Archaic Stage exhibited an absence of structures; a preceramic technology that incorporated new styles of stone tool manufacture and the use of native copper for tools and ornaments; and increasing diversity in hunting and gathering practices.
The Ceramic/Mound Stage corresponds to a period when Native Americans in the Midwest began making pottery and building earthen mounds (Dobbs 1989). Arzigian (2008) characterizes this period in present-day Minnesota as including components that have pottery but lack intensive maize agriculture, which distinguishes this period from the preceding Archaic and the later Mississippian cultures.
22 Chapter 2 Existing Conditions In addition to the 42 sites containing pre-European components, 31 archaeological sites containing contact and post-contact period components representing early Euro-American fur trade posts, military forts, mills, breweries and residences have also been documented.
The southeastern portion of Hennepin County was the first part of the Minnesota River Greenway corridor to be developed by Europeans. In 1819, Col. Henry Leavenworth and 200 men from the 5th United States Infantry were sent to this northern frontier to establish a military camp. The first temporary camp was built on the south side of the Minnesota River near present-day Mendota. In spring 1819, Leavenworth relocated the camp a mile north, along the west bank of the Mississippi River. In September 1820, Col. Josiah Snelling arrived and oversaw the construction of a permanent fort along the west bank of the Mississippi River. Fort St. Anthony, as it was first known, was constructed of locally quarried limestone and timber. In 1825, the fort’s name was officially changed to Fort Snelling. It was years before Euro-Americans settled around Fort Snelling (Larew 1978).
Dakota County officially opened to permanent Euro-American settlement after the Traverse Des Sioux Treaty of 1851. Settlement in Dakota County ignited in 1852 and was concentrated west and south of the Mississippi River (Andreas 1874:231). Military post roads and other routes were established, based on trails previously used by Native Americans. These trails eventually were expanded into a network of roads that ran between settlements in Dakota County and other major communities. Railroads were developed during the 1870s, and by the turn of the century, four railroads operated in Dakota County (Prosser 1966:187-190). These lines profoundly impacted settlement in the county as they provided transportation for freight and passengers and created opportunities to convey goods and produce to markets across the county. From 1860 to 1870, the population of Dakota County doubled from 8,556 to 16,312 (Dakota County Historical Society 1988:6).
In the late 19th century, agriculture was the primary economic activity in Minnesota, with wheat as the principal crop through the 1870s. Wheat production was common in southern Eagan Township, although diverse crops of vegetables and other fresh food products were prevalent in the northern portion because of its proximity to the St. Paul market (Fleming 1985:66-67). In the late 1890s, onions became an increasingly common crop in northern Dakota County and Mendota was even known as the “Onion Capital of the United States” (Fleming 1985:68).
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, population increase in Dakota County was centered in the northern cities of South St. Paul, West St. Paul, Lilydale, Mendota and Mendota Heights (originally Mendota Township). The meatpacking industry thrived in South St. Paul and West St. Paul while agriculture remained the
Minnesota River Greenway Master Plan 2011 23 dominant business in Lilydale, Mendota and Mendota Heights (Dakota County Historical Society 1988:6).
After World War II, suburban communities in Dakota County expanded with the population of the Twin Cities. In 1940, the population of Dakota County was 39,660; by 1950 it was 49,019; by 1960 it increased to 78,303. Suburbanization in the 1950s was centered on northern Dakota County, particularly in Eagan, Burnsville and Apple Valley (Dakota County Historical Society 2005). The completion of interstates 35W, 35E and 494 accelerated suburban Dakota County’s expansion to present day.
The stewardship of cultural resources is a priority for future greenway-specific planning and development. Consideration of cultural resources will aid in developing future greenway plans so they do not adversely impact known cultural resources and will inform future preservation and interpretation efforts.
Previous Cultural Resources Studies
According to State Historic Preservation Office records, 13 cultural resources surveys have been conducted within the Minnesota River Regional Greenway corridor. However, reports for only eight of these surveys were available on file at the SHPO (Table 106). These eight surveys covered 152 acres of the 13,523- acre greenway corridor (Figure 109). Survey coverage for the other five cultural resources surveys is unknown, but general information available is listed in Table 106.
Previously Identified Cultural Resources
Twenty-six previously identified archeological sites are within the Minnesota River Regional Greenway and another 29 are within a 1-mile search area (Tables 106 and 107). Eighty previously inventoried architectural history properties are within and adjacent the Minnesota River Regional Greenway (Table 107). Of these 80 properties, 11 are listed in the National Register of Historic Places and three have been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP.
24 Chapter 2 Existing Conditions c. Existing natural resources The Minnesota River Greenway is characterized by large expanses of high to moderate quality ecosystems within and adjacent the Minnesota River valley. The upstream end within the city of Burnsville is the most developed portion. The interspersion of many plant communities increases the ecological value of the valley. Much of the land along the greenway is within the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, Fort Snelling State Park, St. Paul regional parks or current and future city of Burnsville parks.
Vegetative cover
According to the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System and field verification during master planning, the Minnesota River Greenway vegetation cover is primarily wetlands — open water, shrub-carr and emergent wetlands the length of the river valley and the Fort Snelling and Nicols Meadow calcareous fens. The adjoining bluffs are composed of disturbed and fragmented prairies, savannas and woodlands. The upstream portion in Burnsville has remnant floodplain forests (Figure 26). Many areas in the valley have been identified by the MnDNR’s Minnesota County Biological Survey as some of the highest quality habitat in the county. In addition, the valley is habitat for numerous state and federal endangered plant species. Nicols Fen Forest
Water Resources & Flooding
The Minnesota River is the dominant water system of the greenway, providing periodic floods to the valley wetlands systems. While these flood can be key to wetland functions, the high sediment load of the Minnesota River can lead to sedimentation and filling of the floodplain wetlands. As the greater watershed has become more urbanized, recent years have seen an increase in flood duration and frequency. Flooding and sediment loading will continue to have a significant impact on habitat and recreation in the Minnesota River Valley.
There are four trout streams in the greenway corridor in Eagan and Burnsville. These are shown in red on Figure 26. W etlands below I-494
Minnesota River Greenway Master Plan 2011 25 Figure 26. Existing Land Cover Map
Gun Club L ake Fen
Nicols Mea dow Fen
Black D og Lake Fen
26 Chapter 2 Existing Conditions Eco logical quality
As illustrated in Figure 28, the ecological quality of the Minnesota Greenway is high to moderate for most of the natural plant communities within the floodplain.
E cological impacts
The primary ecological impact to the valley wetland systems has been due to hydrologic changes from stormwater inputs and reed canary grass invasion in wetlands. The ecological impacts of urbanization to the valley bluff areas have led to lower ecological quality than within the valley. This loss of ecological quality is due to interruption of disturbance regimes (fire), invasive species colonization and habitat fragmentation from urban roads and development.
V iew from WPA Overlook along Big Rivers Regional Trail
Minnesota River Greenway Master Plan 2011 27 Figure 28. Ecological Quality Map
28 Chapter 2 Existing Conditions The plan 3
a. Overview
The Minnesota River Greenway is an oasis of nature in the heavily urbanized metropolitan area. As it has for centuries, the river will continue to draw people. The Minnesota River Greenway will provide continuous access to this already rich natural resource. The Minnesota River Greenway, like all of Dakota County’s greenways, will integrate recreation, transportation, water quality and habitat. This chapter is the plan for the Minnesota River Greenway — it describes what features will be included in the greenway and the projects needed to realize the greenway. The plan chapter is presented in four sections: ff B. The development plan — Outlines the defining recreation and transportation features of the greenway. ff C. The interpretive plan — Identifies interpretive themes and subthemes for the greenway and provides a framework for cultural and environmental interpretive elements. ff D. The stewardship plan — Addresses habitat stewardship and water resources. ff E. Key initiatives — Describes specific development and natural resource projects for each greenway segment.
Minnesota River Greenway Master Plan 2011 29 b. Development plan Access to recreation is one of the four foundational elements of Dakota County Design Framework greenways. The primary recreation feature of the greenway is a continuous regional destination trail for nature-based recreation and nonmotorized transportation. The Greenway Guidebook provides While the greenway varies in width from 100 feet to more than 1.5 mile throughout the framework for the greenway the corridor, this chapter focuses on the design of the 30-foot trail corridor to design in this master plan. The create a safe, amenity-rich trail for year-round use. following are key topics outlined in the guidebook: Design consistency is critical in developing Dakota County greenways to create f f Regional trail for recreation a high-quality, unified and legible system. The Greenway Guidebook identifies and transportation that follows the elements that will be signatures of the greenway system, listed in the sidebar water and natural features at left. How the Minnesota River Greenway addresses each of these topics is ff Is a year-round facility discussed in this chapter. ff Provides frequent trailheads and access points ff Grade separated crossings of Trail corridor features and Design major roads ff Has a consistent design with This section addresses design features that are signatures of Dakota County’s natural signature and high- greenway system. Design touches many facets of the trail alignment, including: quality support facilities the relationship of the trail alignment to the larger greenway corridor; the ability ff Has lighting for evening use in to connect destinations; the presence and location of grade separated crossings, appropriate locations trailheads and support facilities; the style and location of furnishings and ff Links recreation destinations wayfinding; accessibility; and sustainability. Consistent, high-quality design will and activity centers elevate the greenway experience above that of a utilitarian trail to a first-class ff Acts as a spine for loop trails regional destination. ff Maximizes borrowed views ff Uses wayfinding as a systemwide unifying element Figure 30. Typical trail corridor section ff Universally accessible ff Incorporates sustainability by using recycled materials, pervious pavement, energy- efficient lighting and enabling nonmotorized transportation
3-foot 10- to 12- 15-foot wayside Habitat preservation clear zone foot trail rest (periodic)
30 Chapter 3 The Plan Figure 31. Minnesota River Greenway Concept Plan
Recreation Destination
Activity Center
Trailhead
Neighborhood Gateway
i Interpretive Stop MISSISSIPPI RIVER LILYDALE REGIONAL Existing Grade Separated Crossing I-35E PARK
Proposed Grade Separated Crossing SAINT PAUL i Bridge over Water CONNECTION TO SAM MORGAN Minnesota River Greenway TRAIL Existing Trail MISSISSIPPI RIVER Planned Trail
Existing Regional Trail BIG RIVERS GATEWAY
Planned Regional Trail
Soft Surface Trail CROSBY FARM i REGIONAL PARK Local Trail i MENDOTA HEIGHTS Trout Stream HWY 55 MINNEHAHA FALLS REGIONAL PARK NORTH SEGMENT 1 0 .25 .5 1 MILE BIG RIVERS REGIONAL TRAIL
CONNECTION TO i MISSISSIPPI RIVER MENDOTA i MINNEAPOLIS TRAILS FORT SNELLING i PILOT KNOB STATE PARK NATURAL AREA I-494 LAKE NOKOMIS HWY 13 HWY 55
I-35E MINNEHAHA CREEK SNELLING LAKE
i GUN WPA OVERLOOK MSP CLUB INTERNATIONAL LAKE PILOT KNOB RD COUNTY ROAD 26 AIRPORT
CEDAR AVE LEXINGTON AVE S
CONNECTION TO LAKE i NOKOMIS AND THE LONE OAK RD GRAND ROUNDS GUN MINNESOTA RIVER CLUB CONNECTION TO LEBANON COUNTY ROAD 28 LAKE HILLS REGIONAL PARK AND NORTH CREEK GREENWAY I-494
RICHFIELD HWY 77
FENS / HWY 13 WETLANDS YANKEE DOODLE RD MALL OF AMERICA LONG MEADOW LAKE
SEGMENT 2 HWY 13 INDUSTRIAL / I-35E OFFICE PARK
METRO WASTEWATER PLANT LYNDALE AVE S EAGAN
CONNECTION TO LAKE Figure 30. Typical trail corridor section NOKOMIS AND THE GRAND ROUNDS i
CEDAR GROVE i TRANSIT STATION DIFFLEY RD
BLOOMINGTON i MINNESOTA VALLEY HWY 77 SEGMENT 3 NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
CLIFF RD I-35W LEBANON HILLS REGIONAL PARK
BLACK DOG LAKE MINNESOTA FRANCE AVE MINNESOTA ZOO CENTRAL PARK RIVERFRONT PARK HWY 13 MINNESOTA VALLEY RIVER HILLS DRIVE W NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
TERRACE OAKS EAST PARK SEGMENT 4 BURNSVILLE PKWY
COUNTY RD 11
I-35E FUTURE LAKE FUTURE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT BURNSVILLE
NICOLLET AVE LANDFILL I-35W (FUTURE PARK)
SUE FISCHER CONNECTION TO MEMORIAL PARK / CO RD 5 SCOTT COUNTY KRAMER NATURE PRESERVE Trail Corridor
The regional trail within the greenway corridor will be a continuous multipurpose bituminous trail designed in accordance with applicable American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials guidelines, Mn/DOT bicycle design guidelines and Dakota County trail standards. The trail will be 10 to 12 feet wide with a 3-foot grass clear zone on each side.
Anticipated uses include walking, jogging, inline skating and bicycling. The trail will be maintained for winter use and where appropriate, lighted.
Figure 32. Minnesota River Greenway typical sections (not to scale) Sibley Existing Memorial Big Rivers Highway Regional Trail
Active railroad To Minnesota Existing soft River surface trail
30-Foot wide regional trail Opportunity for easement Opportunity for water quality slope stabilization improvements Stewardship and habitat land restoration Minnesota River floodplain
Proposed Minnesota River Greenway Trail
Opportunity Black Stewardship Minnesota River 30-Foot wide for wetland and land Dog Road regional trail habitat restoration (north of easement Xcel plant only)
32 Chapter 3 The Plan Recreation Destinations, Activity Centers and Trail Connections
Inherent to the greenway concept is that the trail corridor is a connecting feature, linking recreation destinations and activity centers, the social gathering places along the trail. Opportunities to stop along the trail to fish, bird-watch or eat lunch are some of the unique features that will make the Minnesota River Greenway a regional destination drawing people with a variety of interests from a broad area. The Minnesota River Greenway will be a spine for loop trails, connect to regional trails and roads and will itself serve as an important transportation route. Recreation destinations, activity centers and connections are shown in Figure 31.
recreation destinations
Minnesota River Greenway Recreation Destinations include Lilydale Regional Park, Fort Snelling State Park, Quarry Lake, the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area and the proposed future park at the Burnsville landfill site.
at c ivity centers
Source: Bing Maps Source: thetransitcamera.blogspot.com Minnesota River Greenway activity centers include historic downtown Mendota, the Highway 13 industrial and office park complex, Cedar Grove Transit Station with Cedar Avenue bus rapid transit and the future development at the Burnsville landfill site.
Minnesota River Greenway Master Plan 2011 33 Trailheads Trailheads and Neighborhood Gateways Frequent access is a priority for the Minnesota River Greenway. Two generalized types of greenway and trail access points are recommended: Trailheads are intended for regional and local access; neighborhood gateways primarily are for local access at opportune locations. Typically, access points will be at recreation destinations, activity centers and trail intersections. Here trail users will find support facilities such as water and restrooms as well as greenway information.
Trailheads are the primary greenway access points and will accommodate people Source: Jones and Jones Architects and Landscape Architects who drive, walk, bike or take transit to the greenway. They will occur every 3 to 5 miles and capitalize on opportunities to share facilities like parking and restrooms with other facilities.
Trailheads will include the following elements: ff Water ff Motor vehicle parking ff Secure bicycle parking Source: www.downtown-eauclaire.com ff Picnic areas and/or facilities ff Wayfinding and traffic control signage ff Local and/or regional trail connections ff Restrooms ff Interpretation ff Benches ff Food where there are opportunities ff Shelter and shade
Source: HKGi
34 Chapter 3 The Plan Neighborhood Gateways are more frequent, local access points. They will be at convenient intervals between primary trailheads (2-3 miles or closer at logical Neighborhood locations). Wherever possible, facilities are shared with other uses and ideally are Gateways located where there is a complimentary recreation destination or activity center.
Neighborhood gateways will include the following elements: ff Benches ff Secure bicycle parking ff Wayfinding and traffic control signage ff Local and/or regional trail connections ff Water ff Interpretation
Depending on opportunities to share facilities, neighborhood gateways may also Source: HKGi include: ff Restrooms ff Picnicking ff Food ff Motor vehicle parking
Source: Jones and Jones Architects and Landscape Architects
Source: HKGi
Minnesota River Greenway Master Plan 2011 35 Road and Railroad Crossings
Grade separated crossings are a critical component of Dakota County’s greenway trail system. Grade separation promotes safety by reducing conflicts with motorized traffic and allows for more efficient and enjoyable trail experience for users of all abilities. To that end, grade separated crossings are suggested at all major intersections, shown in Figure 37 and summarized on Table 36.
Grade separations on the greenway system should be of the highest quality possible to ensure safety, security and to establish the greenway system as a truly special and high-quality destination.
When grade separated crossings are not practical on collector roads or higher, crossing should occur at controlled intersections with road users stopping at traffic lights or stop signs. On lower volume local roads, features such as pavement marking, refuge islands and bumpouts should be applied to reduce crossing distances for trail users and increase visibility for trail users and road users.
The regional trail alignment crosses the Union Pacific Railroad in several locations. To avoid conflicts with the railroad, grade separated railroad crossings are recommended as shown on Figure 37.
Table 36. Proposed grade separated road crossings Number Location Recommendation TH 13 in Mendota at Big Rivers Regional 1 Underpass Trail crossing 2 TH 13 at Chowen Ave. S Underpass
Figure 36. Typical railroad underpass
36 Chapter 3 The Plan Figure 37. Grade separated road and railroad crossings map garade separ ted crossings Overpass
Source: jankegeneralcontractors.com 1 Grade separated crossings
# Overpass recommended # Underpass recommended RR Railroad crossing RR Source: blog.redfin.com Note: All numbered grade-separated crossings were evaluated by Bolton & Menk and given the recommendations Underpass shown. RR
Source: HKGi
Railroad Underpass
Source: 106 Group RR 2
Minnesota River Greenway Master Plan 2011 37 At-grade crossings
When grade separated crossings are not possible on collector roads or higher, crossing should occur at controlled intersections with road users stopping at traffic lights or stop signs. On lower volume local roads, crossings may not be controlled with traffic lights or stop signs. In these cases, features such as pavement marking, refuge islands and bumpouts should be applied to reduce crossing distances for trail users and increase visibility for trail users and road users.
A t grade road crossing: The crosswalks are made of a different paving material than the street and there is a pedestrian refuge marked by landscaping and curbs.
Figure 38. Typical at grade road crossing with median refuge
SECTION
Enhanced Stop sign (trail) pavement markings Trail
Median refuge
PLAN
38 Chapter 3 The Plan
Substandard midblock at grade crossing, Big Rivers Regional Trail and Highway 13, Mendota Wy a finding
Wayfinding is the way people navigate from place to place. For the Dakota County greenway system a consistent wayfinding system is essential for orientation, navigation and safety. Signage should be consistent across the system and should guide greenway users to local services, cultural destinations, transportation connections, activity centers, recreation destinations, cities, neighborhoods and other landmarks. Recommended types of wayfinding signage are shown in Figure 37.
Figure 40. Wayfinding elements
Element Mile marker
Role I dentify distance traveled along the greenway
Placement E very half mile, incorporated into other signage where possible
Element Directional post
Role I dentify turns, route destination choices and distance
Placement Along the greenway at route intersections and decision points
40 Chapter 3 The Plan Element Gateway landmark
I dentify neighborhood gateways with directional information to Role connecting trails, activity centers and recreation destinations
Placement At all neighborhood gateways (unless there is a trailhead gateway)
Element Trailhead/Gateway
Provide information to trail users, including trail system maps, Role greenway maps, interpretive information and other orientation.
Placement A t all trailheads and at key neighborhood gateways
Element Road-oriented landmark sign
Role I dentify trailheads from access roads
Placement On primary access roads at all trailheads
Minnesota River Greenway Master Plan 2011 41 Site Furnishings
One of the key features of the greenway system is having a consistent design signature for site furnishings. Below are families of site furnishings (benches, bike racks, lighting and trash receptacles) that show the desired character of facilities at trailheads, neighborhood gateways and other resting areas along the greenway. Figure 42. Site furnishings FAMILY 1 FAMILY 2 FAMILY 3 contemporary-traditional style; stained contemporary style; stained contemporary style; stainless steel wood and black coated steel wood and stainless steel and subtle curves CH EN D B D KE C A B AUSTIN BACKED BENCH PACIFICA BACKED BENCH REST BACKED BENCH CH EN B
PACIFICA BENCH REST BENCH AUSTIN BENCH g arkin p
IKE B
Pi BIKE LOOP RIDE BIKE LOOP GARDEN BIKE LOOP
42 Chapter 3 The Plan FAMILY 1 FAMILY 2 FAMILY 3 LE C A PT E C RE SH SH RA T POE TRASH RECEPTACLE PLAINWELL TRASH RECEPTACLE AUSTIN TRASH RECEPTACLE AIN T UN G FO G RINKIN D G IN GHT LI d G an G
ARKIN THYLIA LIGHT P ALURA LIGHT INDIRECT LIGHT G IN GHT LI
LEVEL
W O
L CALLISTO BOLLARD LIGHTSCALE BOLLARD CALLISTO BOLLARD
Minnesota River Greenway Master Plan 2011 43 Lighting
Lighting is an essential component for safety and to make the greenway functional as a transportation corridor in the winter and fall months when the days are short. For safety and navigation, lighting is paramount at all greenway access points, trailheads, neighborhood gateways and trail connections. In these places, it is recommended that lighting be incorporated into initial design and construction. In areas where there is potential for high commuter use because of population density, trail connections and destinations, it is recommended that continuous trail lighting be installed.
Long-term, lighting should be installed at the two major activity centers along the greenway: downtown Mendota and the future mixed use development area in Burnsville. Figure 45 shows priority lighting areas.
Accessibility
Dakota County is committed to offering universal accessibility at all trail facilities. The primary paved trail and all access points suggested in the master plan are located and planned for universal accessibility to provide all visitors with a meaningful experience.
Sustainability
Sustainability is at the core of the greenway concept. Improving ecological function, habitat creation, wildlife movement, stormwater infiltration and carbon sequestration as well as facilitating non-motorized recreation and transportation are all greenway objectives.
Greenways will be assembled in environmentally sustainable ways and designed to minimize impact on natural systems. Recommended strategies include: ff Protecting and restoring natural systems ff Emphasizing native plant species ff Reducing maintenance costs by promoting self sustaining wildlife and plant communities, treating stormwater on-site ff Use recycled materials, pervious pavement and ff Energy-efficient lighting and use of timed lighting and thermostats
44 Chapter 3 The Plan Figure 45. Lighting areas
Priority lighting areas Short-term Long-term
Minnesota River Greenway Master Plan 2011 45 Cultural Resources
The Minnesota River Regional Greenway consists of topographically prominent landforms overlooking the Minnesota River and associated aquatic habitat. Numerous archaeological sites have been documented within the greenway, demonstrating pre-European contact, contact and post-contact occupation of the land. These findings indicate that regardless of where development is planned, it likely will encounter areas that possess a high potential for containing additional archaeological resources, including earthworks and burial mounds. A majority of the greenway corridor has not been surveyed and there may be archaeological sites and historic structures in the corridor that have not been identified. Therefore, it is recommended that planning and management of cultural resources within the Minnesota River Greenway concentrate on the following recommendations for archeology and historic structures.
Archaeology
Development should make every effort to avoid known archaeological sites; avoidance of burial mounds and earthworks is required by law. Due to the high occurrence within the greenway corridor of known precontact burial mounds and earthworks, as well as other archaeological sites, it is recommended that a Phase I archaeological survey of previously unsurveyed areas that will be affected by development be conducted prior to design work. If the survey is conducted in advance of facility and trail design, designs can be informed by the survey and impacts to vulnerable cultural resources can be avoided. Survey work should be conducted early to avoid costly redesigns and project delays.
The presence of burial mounds in a recreational area puts these significant and sensitive cultural resources at risk. Subdivision 3 of the Minnesota Private Cemeteries Act affords the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council the choice to notify the public of the mounds for protective purposes. Signs may list the activities prohibited by Subdivision 2 and the penalty for violation of that law. This posting is at the discretion of MIAC.
Additional signs that inform the public of the significance of the landscape could further protect sites by informing greenway visitors of its importance and sacred nature. Signs may be located away from the mounds in to promote respect for the landscape but not draw attention to the actual burial sites. This too would be at the discretion of MIAC. It is recommended that Dakota County initiate a relationship with MIAC in advance of any design for the greenway to ensure a fruitful working relationship through the development process.
46 Chapter 3 The Plan Historic structures
There are 10 sites on the National Register of Historic Places and three that are eligible within the Minnesota River Greenway. A majority of the greenway has not been surveyed, however, and there is moderate potential for the area to contain historic structures that have not been identified.
If Dakota County or its partners receive state funding or permitting for greenway development, the Minnesota Historic Sites Act would require that properties on the State Register of Historic Places or the NRHP be considered before doing anything that might impact historic properties. If Dakota County or its partners receive federal funding or permitting for greenway development, they must comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, which requires consideration of all historic properties eligible or potentially eligible for the NRHP. A Phase I architectural survey of areas that would be affected by greenway development is recommended to ensure compliance with state and federal regulations and to follow best practices. A Phase I survey would determine whether any unsurveyed properties within or adjacent the greenway are potentially eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. A Phase I architectural history survey also would determine whether any previously inventoried architectural history properties listed as “undetermined” are potentially eligible for the NRHP (Table 106).
Historic properties within or adjacent the greenway have potential to be visually impacted by lighting, benches or other facilities. If greenway development is planned near historic properties, it is suggested that any trails, lighting, benches or other facilities remain outside the historic boundaries of those properties. If designs for greenway development may visually impact NRHP eligible properties, the design will need to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s standards if there is any federal involvement in greenway development.
c. Interpretive plan In today’s world, people’s connections to culture, land, nature and community have become detached. Some cannot imagine the prairie before the metropolis, the wheat before the bread, or the world before Columbus. We forget, or never learn, the stories that define the significant places in our lives. Place-based interpretation seeks to tell the story of places or to reveal connections between social and natural systems distinctive to each site. It is an approach rooted in the belief that people can benefit from understanding the stories of the places they visit.
Dakota County has long been committed to sharing the stories of special places that comprise the county’s parks and trails. Through interpretative programs and exhibits, Dakota County strives to create awareness and appreciation of the county’s history, culture and environment. As the county expands its greenway system, interpretation for each greenway is a goal for the planning and development process.
Interpretive planning designs educational experiences that support an organization’s vision and mission. The planning process considers the place-specific historical, cultural and natural resources to be interpreted and the demographics and interests of the people who use the site in order to develop relevant messages and media in support of an organization’s mission. In the case of Dakota County, interpretation ought to support Dakota County Park’s mission: To enrich lives by providing high- quality recreation and education opportunities in harmony with natural resource preservation and stewardship.
In the context of the Dakota County greenways, it is important to note that fostering an understanding of the relationships between social and natural systems can lead to environmental stewardship. In other words, helping visitors understand the connections between history, culture and nature is at the core of fostering stewardship of these resources and awareness of the connections between people Existing interpretive sign along the Big Rivers and nature. Regional Trail Resources
In considering what is special and unique about the Minnesota River Greenway, it is helpful to identify some of the most outstanding resources found along the greenway corridor. These resources create a unique setting, or sense of place, and are places where stories of nature, history and culture intersect in meaningful ways.
48 Chapter 3 The Plan Historic and cultural resources include buildings at Fort Snelling, the Sibley House, archaeological sites and Native American burial mounds. Natural resources abound along the Minnesota River and there are efforts to maintain and continue to restore natural habitat along the river. Some of these cultural, historical and natural resources are on public property; however, many are located on adjacent property. Therefore, continued partnerships with adjacent property owners will be essential to developing interpretation along the greenway.
Cultural, historical and natural resources may be vulnerable and potentially compromised with increased traffic and human interaction. Resources such as un- excavated archaeological sites are culturally sensitive and susceptible to looting or vandalism if care is not taken to protect them. Therefore, interpretation of these resources should be sensitive to these potential impacts and Dakota County should work with necessary stakeholders, such as MIAC for burials, to determine an appropriate approach for preservation and interpretation.
Key Messages
While each greenway in Dakota County’s system will have a theme based on the specific resources of each greenway, it is recommended that Dakota County undertake a systemwide interpretive planning effort to identify overarching themes, or branding, for the greenway system. These overarching themes would represent broader messages that span the system and weave together specific themes for each greenway individually.
In the absence of a systemwide interpretive plan, this master plan suggests one central message for the Minnesota River Greenway. Supporting subthemes are also identified to further develop the theme and provide organization for interpretation. It is recommended that the subthemes be woven throughout the greenway to provide a richly layered and consistent experience. If a systemwide interpretive plan is developed, the themes presented on the following pages should be revisited and revised as necessary.
Minnesota River Greenway Master Plan 2011 49 Interpretive Theme
Lured by the landscape: For centuries, the rich natural resources of the Minnesota River have invited the settlement of diverse cultures.
Subthemes
Confluence of cultures: Just as the Minnesota River swells and recedes, such is the weaving of cultures along the shores of the river through time.
Site specific interpretation: ff Pilot Knob ff Excavated archaeological ff Fort Snelling sites* interpreted in ff Pike Island/Fort Snelling State partnership with the Shakopee Park/Bdote (convergence) Mdewakanton Dakota of the Mississippi and the Sibley House in Mendota community Minnesota rivers f f Excavated mound groups* ff Picnic Island interpreted with the consent ff Mendota historic district of and in collaboration with the Minnesota Indian Affairs ff Faribault house Council and the Shakopee ff Sibley house Mdewakanton Dakota community
L ong Meadow Lake bridge
50 Chapter 3 The Plan An industrious river: For decades, the Minnesota River was considered a resource to be used for industrial and commercial ventures. Industrial and commercial development has altered the river and the land around it.
Site specific interpretation: airport, dams, bridges and ff Agriculture and its impacts roads along the river ff Industrial development and ff Industrial development and shipping, including infrastructure: railroads, World War II shipbuilding Fort Snelling State Park at the Minnesota River
Discover nature along the Minnesota River: Following a decline in industrial importance, the natural landscape of the Minnesota River is being restored and is in many places flourishing. The Minnesota River Greenway offers opportunities for recreation among a tapestry of rich natural resources.
Site specific interpretation: ff Floodplain forests
ff Migratory birds ff Wetlands Looking upstream of the Minnesota River ff Wildlife ff Fens and seepage meadows ff Geology ff Seasonal changes
Active living : In addition to these place-based subthemes, it is recommended that interpretation in the Dakota County greenway system encourages visitors to consider the health benefits of regular moderate physical activity that they can get on greenways. Some interpretation could convey what greenways are and how they differ from standard trails. Mile markers along the trail could also serve as interpretation by linking the distance a visitor has traveled to calories burned. Interpretation could also compare the distance traveled to fuel and money saved by cycling or walking rather than driving. Bicycling in Minnesota
Minnesota River Greenway Master Plan 2011 51 RECOMMENDATIONS Prepare a systemwide greenway interpretive plan that: ff Establishes guiding principles for interpretation throughout the greenway system ff Evaluates visitor preferences and needs related to interpretation ff Establishes systemwide goals and objectives for interpretation ff Develops systemwide interpretive themes through a process of staff and stakeholder engagement ff Identifies the locations where these systemwide interpretive themes will be expressed ff Identifies interpretive themes for each greenway within the system and establishes a framework for interpretive planning and development ff Establishes consistent design standards for nonpersonal interpretive media throughout the system ff Identifies appropriate systemwide media for interpretation (e.g., website, geocaching, tours of multiple greenways) ff Assesses current interpretive staffing levels and makes recommendations over the short- and long-term ff Identifies and fosters potential partnerships for interpretive programs within the greenway system ff Develops a framework for ongoing planning and evaluation of interpretation throughout the greenway system
Establish a systemwide approach to managing interpretation and education.
Recreation, education and interpretation are not fully discrete activities; collaboration and consistency are important across the greenway system.
Interpretive media recommendations ff Interpretive media should not impinge on the natural landscape. As much as possible, Dakota County should adopt the National Park Service’s wayside exhibit approach (www.nps.gov/hfc/products/waysides/index. htm) to interpretation along the greenways. In this approach, the focus is on experiencing the landscape firsthand; interpretation is an enhancement, not the focus. ff Based on this approach, interpretive signs should be minimal, low profile, accessible to all and purposefully placed.
52 Chapter 3 The Plan ff Interpretation should be integrated into orientation signs at key locations along the greenway, such as trailheads and neighborhood gateways. This interpretation should serve to orient the greenway user thematically to the greenway and introduce the visitor to the experiences they can expect along the greenway. Interpretation at these locations could also be artfully integrated into trailhead or gateway facilities such as benches or picnic tables, pavement, fencing and structures. ff Interpretive signs along the greenway should be considered a caption to distinct or important landscape features that a greenway user might not understand by looking at the feature on his or her own. In other words, interpretive signs should be installed along the greenway only if they explain or describe something that is visible along the greenway. These signs should have brief but engaging text. More detailed or lengthy information should be delivered through another media. ff Dakota County should consider developing multimedia interpretation. Audio tours provide an opportunity for unobtrusive interpretation along the greenway for interested users. Self-guided MP3 tours could be developed and made available on the Dakota County Parks website for downloading to personal MP3 devices or phones. Initially a greenway-wide audio tour should be developed based on the greenway theme. As resources allow, additional tours could be developed for subthemes or different age groups. In building a community advisory group, outreach to these ff Dakota County should work closely with community partners to ensure groups is important: that interpretation along the greenway enhances but does not overlap interpretative experience in adjacent or collaborating public spaces. ff Dakota County Historical Society Establish a community advisory group. ff Minnesota Historical Society
This group would build relationships among the agencies and organizations that ff State Historic Preservation own adjacent property, facilitate an inclusive interpretive planning process, engage Office community members (especially cultural groups) and ensure that interpretation ff Minnesota Valley National of the greenway is thematically and aesthetically cohesive. This group should Wildlife Refuge participate in the development of the systemwide interpretive plan and may then ff Office of the State meet periodically to advise Dakota County on specific interpretation questions. Archaeologist ff Minnesota Indian Affairs Council ff Fort Snelling State Park ff Shakopee Mdewakanton Dakota community ff Eagan Historical Society ff Friends of the Sibley House
Minnesota River Greenway Master Plan 2011 53 d. Stewardship plan This section makes general and specific natural resource and water quality stewardship recommendations for the Minnesota River Greenway.
The linear nature of the Minnesota River Greenway will require natural resource management strategies that are geographically targeted, cooperative and realistic. Restoration and protection efforts should be focused near trailheads, as these locations will provide the greatest opportunity for greenway users to see the results of stewardship and provide a high-quality user experience. Given the linear nature of the greenway, stewardship activities should be in cooperation with adjoining landowners, public and private. Cooperative stewardship activities likely will be easier with other public agencies, but this should not preclude the possibilities of stewardship work on adjoining private lands. All stewardship actions should be evaluated through the lens of sustainability — is the stewardship effort economically and ecologically sustainable over the long-term.
Eco logical Management Strategies
There are two complementary strategies for management of the natural resource along the greenway — pattern-oriented and process/species-oriented strategies. Lindenmayer and Fischer (2006) set forth 10 strategies that provide a framework for Dakota County Greenways natural resource management. Pattern-oriented management strategies target managing landscape patterns; this approach does not attempt to manage every species nor every ecological process. Landscape pattern management provides benefits to many species by targeting the negative Lilydale Stream with Highway 13 bridge in aspects of development and landscape changes. The process/species-oriented background management strategies target individual species and ecological processes. These strategies have greatest impact on particular species of concern and missing or degraded ecological process.
The two sets of strategies work hand-in-hand to repair damaged ecosystems and protect important species. Listed here are the 10 strategies, some of the pertinent ecological considerations for the strategy as they relate to the greenways and possible actions that can be applied in these greenway settings. These actions are further refined in the stewardship recommendations.
54 Chapter 3 The Plan Pattern-oriented management strategies 1. Maintain and/or restore large and structurally complex patches of native vegetation
ff Ecological considerations: Vegetation structure is of fundamental importance; protect areas with multiple intact vegetation layers; consider vegetation structure when making restoration decisions. ff Potential actions: Prioritize protection and restoration of the large high- quality, intact plant communities.
2. Maintain and/or restore a matrix that is structurally similar to native vegetation
ff Ecological considerations: Reduce edge effects by creating vegetation transitions that will maintain structural similarities and reduce the impact due to transitions from natural to developed areas. ff Potential actions: Consider management easements to both public and private lands to provide a transition from native plant communities to developed areas.
3. Maintain and/or restore buffers around sensitive areas
ff Ecological considerations: Maintaining core habitats is a key component of all protection and restoration efforts; the larger the buffer, the greater the benefits; consider a layered buffer with greater ecological complexity transitioning to less complex setting over 300 feet or more. ff Potential actions: Provide buffers to all aquatic systems — both streams and wetlands.
4. Maintain and/or restore corridors and stepping stones
ff Ecological considerations: To connect functional ecosystem areas use both corridors and stepping stones that allow mobile species to move greater distances and across wider areas. ff Potential actions: Restore slightly degraded, sometimes smaller areas along the corridor such as stormwater wetlands.
5. Maintain and/or restore landscape heterogeneity and capture environmental gradients
ff Ecological considerations: Maintain patches of native communities with a variety of sizes and shapes and degrees of isolation. ff Potential actions: Protect slightly degraded small areas along the corridor such as stormwater ponds and “wild” areas of adjoining neighborhood parks.
Minnesota River Greenway Master Plan 2011 55 Process- and species-oriented management strategies 6. Maintain key species interactions and functional diversity
ff Ecological considerations: Focus on keystone species habitat, as well as threatened and endangered species in restoration and protection plans. ff Potential actions: Provide protection for amphibians in wetland setting; Provide protection for birds and reptiles in prairie and woodland setting.
7. Apply or maintain appropriate disturbance regimes
ff Ecological considerations: Restore historical disturbance patterns when maintaining and restoring sites. ff Potential actions: Reintroduce fire to prairie and savanna ecosystems.
8. Maintain species of particular concern
ff Ecological considerations: Include threatened and endangered species in restoration and protection plans. ff Potential actions: Target reptiles, amphibians and songbirds in particular.
9. Control aggressive, overabundant and invasive species
ff Ecological considerations: Restoration and management plans should address species that lead to the loss of other species. ff Potential actions: Buckthorn removal and replacement with the native shrub layer.
10. Minimize ecosystem-specific threatening processes
ff Ecological considerations: Control potential threats and changes beyond landscape changes that have impacted many of the native species. ff Potential actions: Stormwater runoff alterations of hydrology, changes to groundwater flows and stream temperature changes.
Habitat Investment Areas
Given the length and breadth of the Minnesota River Greenway corridor, efforts to manage and restore the natural resources and native plant communities would be a daunting task — well beyond the ability of any one agency. To provide for a realistic and sustainable restoration and management of the resources, key habitat investment areas are identified for natural resource management. These habitat investment areas are prioritized and targeted to areas associated with high quality ecological resources and greenway use patterns. These areas are identified on Figure 57.
56 Chapter 3 The Plan Figure 57. Habitat investment areas
Today, the Minnesota River Valley is an ecologically rich habitat preserve. Strategic investment in improving natural resources would be made near trailheads. Big Rivers neighborhood gateway Habitat investment areas 66 Intermittent stream 66 High quality forested bluffs 66 Views of Pike Island (upstream)
WPA overlook 66 Oak woodlands 66 Overlook provides great views of Minnesota River Valley with fens, emergent wetlands and deep water marsh areas
I-494
66 High quality floodplain forest that grades into shrub swamps, emergent wetlands and deep water marshes 66 Great location for bird migration and waterfowl viewing
Nicols Meadow Fen 66 Good quality floodplain forest canopy with mix of cottonwood and silver maple 66 Good quality shrub swamps with red osier dogwood, willow and cottonwood 66 Great wildlife opportunities and connections to river I-35W 66 Opportunities for forest and grassland habitat restoration
Kraemer Quarry / Burnsville Landfill 66 Large, high quality floodplain forest complex with good canopy diversity 66 Floodplain is still connected to the river
Minnesota River Greenway Master Plan 2011 57 Table 58. Habitat Investment Strategies
Habitat Preserve Habitat Corridor Natural Landscapes Designed Landscapes
Top priority habitat restoration/ Second priority habitat Lowest landscape investment High landscape investment management management priority
66 Adequate patch size/shape to 66 Provides connection between 66 Primary task is to control 66 Managed urban landscapes sustain native plant community habitat preserves invasive plants 66 Limited habitat value 66 Contains existing remnant of 66 Adequate width to sustain 66 Managed as a natural, low- native plant community native plant ground layer maintenance landscape 66 Relatively small 66 Has interpretive potential 66 Grades allow for rainwater infiltration 66 Has benign surrounding uses 66 Buffers natural waters 66 Buffers or contains natural waters
Stewardship Recommendations
General considerations for stewardship activities within this investment hierarchy are organized around ecological quality, landscape position and future uses and are described in Table 58.
V egetation management
In native plant communities – prairie, woodlands and wetlands - invasive species removal, buffer protection or establishment and re-establishment of disturbance regimes will be the key activities. Oak savannas may need to be supplemented with tree plantings and all of the grassland systems will likely need supplemental seeding to restore ground layer diversity.
58 Chapter 3 The Plan Site specific actions Big Rivers Regional Trail gateway
Existing conditions: The intermittent stream is very close to the adjacent parking lot and receives high concentrations of runoff. It is feeling the effects of the toxic substances. Large amounts of young and fruiting buckthorn exist in the area. There are high-quality forested bluffs surrounding the site.
Recommendations: The intermittent stream adjacent the parking lot could be managed to better address impacts of urban hydrology. A planted buffer should be added or the parking lot and road runoff should be diverted to a rain garden in another location. There should be a plan for invasive species removal and prevention of further spread on the site.
WPA overlook and I-494
Existing conditions: The site is surrounded by oak woodlands with large amounts of buckthorn regrowth from previous control attempts. Some brush and tree clearing has been done for viewing opportunities but could be better managed. High quality floodplain forests that grade into shrub swamps, emergent wetlands and deep-water marshes with some isolated buckthorn (which are reaching fruiting size) and Russian olive are present.
Recommendations: Buckthorn in oak woodlands and marshes need continuous management to prevent complete comeback. Management of swamps and wetlands is crucial now for buckthorn and large amounts of burdock.
Nicols Meadow Fen The wetlands south of I-494
Existing conditions: Very nice quality floodplain forest canopy with mix of cottonwood and silver maple, but understory being invaded by buckthorn — low and manageable numbers if restoration undertaken soon; large amounts of second growth to the east that should be managed to ensure quality canopy development. Good quality shrub swamps exist in the area with red-osier dogwood, willow and cottonwood. Reed canary grass is prevalent and beyond the level where eradication would be possible.
Recommendations: Begin restoring fen soon to prevent buckthorn from overtaking the area. Remove larger amounts of buckthorn to the east of fen. Removal or management of second growth boxelder is needed. Manage reed canary grass so as not to spread further.
Minnesota River Greenway Master Plan 2011 59 I-35W
Existing conditions: All of the site is either second growth forest or planted and maintained turf grass — restored former landfill and industrial site.
Recommendations: Native plant community should be restored to some combination of floodplain forest and native grassland.
Kraemer Quarry / Burnsville landfill
Existing conditions: Large floodplain forest complex with good canopy diversity — high quality area with a few small areas of buckthorn. A restored wetland is progressing well. The floodplain is still connected to the river and floods regularly.
Recommendations: Buckthorn needs management to prevent spread. Periodically manage restored wetland area. Monitoring of forest regeneration will be needed in the floodplain.
60 Chapter 3 The Plan Surface and ground water management/ protection
The four trout streams require protection from thermal impacts and changes in hydrology due to stormwater runoff; this runoff can also lead to increased sedimentation and streambank instability. Design approaches are further addressed below.
Wetland systems also need to be protected from inputs of untreated runoff to prevent sedimentation, eutrophication and changes to the natural water level It is best to treat stormwater at its source fluctuations. (alongside hard surfaces).
Fens need the same protection as the other wetland systems, but also need protection on the larger landscape scale to prevent disruption of groundwater flows that maintain these rare systems.
Stormwater management options at trailheads
Trailhead parking lots typically are small; 10 to 20 stall lots situated within green space. This means that stormwater can be directed to drain off the paved surface onto surrounding ground where it can infiltrate. The best place to manage stormwater (regardless of where one is within the corridor) is at the point it runs off a hard surface; i.e. near every street, driveway and parking lot.
Water is a valuable resource, so it should be used to water plants rather than run off in pipes to a natural water body where it causes problems. By directing stormwater onto the ground rather than into a pipe, the following valuable functions are provided: ff Filtration of pollutants such as phosphorus, grease and oil through plants and soil that mitigate their effects. ff Protect downstream water bodies by preventing the influx of large amounts of water. It is best to have water slowly reach a stream or lake underground via subsurface flow. ff Protect natural water bodies by capturing pollutants at their source.
ff Cool stormwater before reaching trout streams. Depressed parking lot islands capture ff Recharge groundwater and eventually aquifers. stormwater and water trees that eventually will shade the lot. ff Water trees and other plants at the source allowing for vigorous growth and shaded parking lots.
Minnesota River Greenway Master Plan 2011 61 Opportunities for stormwater management
Many practices are available to manage stormwater at trailheads. Some make more sense than others and allow “more bang for the buck.”
Practical stormwater management practices include: ff Creating shallow depressions (raingardens) alongside parking lots and grade the parking lot to tip in that direction. ff Creating planted depressed parking lot islands to capture stormwater. ff For small parking lots surrounded by green space simply running the water onto the surrounding grass (ideally prairie grass). ff Around parking lots, planting trees to capture and evaporate rainwater on Large volumes of water running off hard their leaves and create pores in the soil with their roots to allow water to surfaces will erode stream banks and destroy fish habitat. soak in. Trees also shade pavement to keep it cooler in the summer. ff Planting prairie plants around parking lots — they function much like trees (minus the shading). They are especially useful on clay soils, where they drive roots deep and facilitate stormwater infiltration.
Stream restoration considerations
Stream restoration and stabilization should be designed by multidisciplinary teams that include expertise in engineering, hydrology, aquatic and restoration ecology, geomorphology, soil science and policy/permitting.
Each stream project design should follow these guidelines: ff Construct the channel to accommodate current and future processes ff Maintain bed load movement ff Restore pools and riffles to the stream ff Reduce stresses on the banks f R aingardens capture stormwater and soak it f Provide for floodplain connection into the ground while also filtering stormwater ff Reduce flooding and watering plants. ff Improve water quality
All stream restoration/stabilization should have definitive end points that consider: ff Where there is horizontal and vertical control. ff Where the forces of the stream are no longer unstable. ff Where one can successfully design a robust solution to end on (like a riffle).
Ensuring these guidelines are followed — especially in point or localized segment fixes — will ensure the project does not unravel from upstream or downstream.
62 Chapter 3 The Plan