The URL can be used to link to this page

2002-06-11 Parks and Rec Comm Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AGENDA PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION June 119 2002 6:30 p.m. —Council Chambers Note: This meetin>; will be televised by NDCTV. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. May 14, 2002 Minutes 4. Parks Five Year Capital Improvement Plan Projects for 2003 5. City 2003 Budget —Parks &Recreation 6. Tollefson Development, Acacia Site PUD Concept Plan 7. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Mirmesota Valley Wetland Management District 8. Updates • Consratulations to Teresa for Celebrate Mendota Heights Parks! • Recreation Programmer's Update • Ongoing Project Updates — Parks Project Manager • National Park Service Mighty Mississippi Passport Program • Police Report 9. Other Comments 10. Adjourn Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids. This may not, however, be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at (651) 452-1850 with requests. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 14, 2002 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission was held on Tuesday, May 14, 2002 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Richard Spicer, Commissioners Stan Linnell, Larry Craighead, Paul Portz, Raymond Morris. Commissioners Dave Libra and Missie Hickey arrived late. City Staff present were Parks Project Manager Guy Kullander, Recreation Programmer Teresa Gangelhoff and Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister. Mr. Hollister took the minutes. This meeting was televised by NDCTV and replayed the following Friday at 1:00 pm and 7:00 pm. MINUTES Commissioner Craighead moved to approve the April 9, 2002 minutes with revisions. Commissioner Linnel seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Commissioners Dave Libra and Missie Hickey arrived at this point. WELCOME TO COMMISSIONER MISSIE HICKEY Chair Spicer introduced Missie Hickey as the newest Parks and Recreation Commissioner for the City of Mendota Heights. The Commission welcomed Missie Hickey to the Parks and Recreation Commission. SAFETY NETTING AT MENDAKOTA PARK Mr. Kullander presented the issue of ballfield netting at Ntendakota Park. Mr. Kullander reported that Councilmember Dtivyer had requested that the Commission visit the issue again and make a recommendation before the May 21 Council meeting. Mr. Kullander presented various types of netting that could be used. The Parks Commission discussed the various options. Commissioner Morris then moved to recommend that the Council choose Option 93 in NIr. Kullander's memorandum (horizontal netting attached to the concession building and City of Mendota Heights June 6, 2002 Memo to: Parks and Recreation Commission From: Guy Kullander, Parks Project Manager �C/ eye Subject: 2003 Projects Proposed in "Parks Five Year (2001-2005) Capital Improvement Plan " Background: City staff are preparing draft documents for the 2003 City Budget. The projects identified in the current (revised February 12, 2002) Parks Five Year (2001-2005) Capital Improvement Plan will be included in the 2003 Budget unless the Commission modifies the list of proposed projects for 2003. Discussion: Replacement of play equipment in Wentworth Park and Hagstrom-King Park are scheduled for 2003. Assuming the City is unsuccessful in obtaining a DNR Outdoor Recreation Grant (that would have funded half the projects costs) the commission may want to re-evaluate the budgets for these two projects in relation to other projects scheduled next year. The budgets for both parks, as described in the DNR Grant application, are greater then those indicated in the Five Year Plan. Hagstrom-King Park - $41,000 (grant) vs. $25,000 Wentworth Park $32,000 (grant) I (plan) (+$12,000) The differences between the "updated grant application plan" and the proposed improvements used to develop the working budgets in 1999 are as follows: Hagstom-King Park: Total removal of the existing treated wood edging material as well as the timber supported play equipment. A larger (then existing) play area divided into three segments, each with specific age appropriate play components was proposed along with an asphalt access path and landscape (trees) mprovements. The original plan left the timber edging in place and replaced only a smaller play structure similar to existing equipment. Wentworth Park: Removal of the timber play components and replacement with new equipment (similar to Valley and Friendly Hills Parks). Additional synthetic City of Mendota Heights Parks Five Year (2001-2005) Capital Improvement Plan Plan Revised/ Update: February 12, 2002 2007 - Projects Planned COST TO DATE 1. Roger's Lake Park- Replace wood 100% Complete $24,644.00 timber play equipment-$20,000.00 2. Roger's Lake Park- Install bituminous 100% Complete $ 2,400.00 paths to fishing pier and play area $ 6, 000 3. Marie Park- Install bituminous path 70% Complete $ 2,110.00 to play area and warming house. ($3K to finish) Install synthetic resilient surface in play area - $7,000 4. Marie Park- Replace hockey boards 100% Complete $26,565.00 and install new rink lights-$25,000 5. Hire Consultant to prepare grant 100% Complete $ 3,000.00 application- $5,000 6. Consultant prepares Natural Resource 25% Complete $ 5,283.00 Inventory & Management Plan- $10,000 (15K to finish) (DNR matching grant = $9,840) 7. Icy Hills Park- Remove warming house 100% Complete $ 1t003,00 $ 2,000 8. Trail Safety & Info Signage- $6,000 0% Complete 0 (21 miles trails/11 parks) Finish in 2002 9. Wentworth Park- Replace warming 0% Complete 0 house-$25,000 Finish in 2002 New Projects Added to Adopted 5 Vear Plan 10. Funds for Mendota Elementary P/ay 100 %Complete S 8, 000.00 Equipment- $8,000 11. Instal/ Bridge in Valley Park to Replace 100% Complete $25,000.00 washed out culverts- $18, 750. 00 Origina) Estimate of Project Expenditures = $106,000.00 Plus "New Added Projects" _ $ 26 750.00 Estimated Total = $132,750,00 Actual Expenditures During 2001 = S 98,205.00 Other expenditures in 2001 = $ 19,000.00 (Assessments $5,300, Admin, Fees S 1,500, Postage/Mileage/Sundry S 1,000, Staff time (Guy Kullander S 1 1,200) Proposed 2002 Project Expenditures 1 . Projects carried over from 2001 $49,000.00 2. New or added projects to original plan $1 7,000,00 3. Deleted or moved to future year- ($6,000.00) 4. Council approved projects (Play areas) $46,204.00 5. Remaining adopted projects $31,000.00 Projects schedu/ed for comp/etion in 2002 — Tota/ S 143,204.00 Other expenditures estimated for 2002 = 522, 728.00 (Assessment S4, 728, Admin. Fees $2,000, Postage/Mileage/Sundry $ 1,000, Staff time (Guy Kullander $15, 000) * *Mendota Heights Athletic Association requested projects to be funded 50 % by MHAA and 50% from Special Park Fund. MHAA offers to reimburse City at $4,000 per year towards approved projects. City of Mendota Heights Parks Five- Year (2001-2005) Capital Improvement Plan Plan Revised/ Updated: February 12, 2002 2003 -Projects P/armed 1 . Wentworth Park- Replace wood timber play equipment- $17,000 2. Hagstrom-King Park- Replace wood timber play equipment and sand surf acing-$22,000 3. Ivy Hill Park- Upgrade play area & surfacing $12,000 4. Friendly Hills Park- Hand rail, benches by skating areas-$7,000 5. Valley View Heights Park- replace wood timber play equipment-$17,000 6. Matching funds for possible DNR grant- $10,000 Project deleted or moved to future year 7. Tennis court gate area- $2,000 Deleted from plan New Projects Added to Adopted 5 Year Plan 8. Civic Center BaII Field- Backstop upgrade- Added Feb. 12, 2002 add 10 ft. wings -both sides-$3,000 (MHAA request) 9. Civic Center Ball Field- Build practice Added Feb. 12, 2002 pitching mound & fence-$4,000 (MHAA request) 9. Friendly Hills Park -Replace wood bridge to tennis courts-$4,000 Moved from 2002 Proposed 2004 Project Expenditures 1. Deleted project-($4,000.00) 2. Remaining proposed projects $74,000.00 Projects scheduled for comp/etion in 2003 —Total 574,000.00 Other expenditures estimated for 2004 = S 15,155.00 (Assessment 54,155.00, Admin. Fees $2,000, Postage/Mileage/Sundry $1,000, Staff time (Guy Kullander) $8, 000.00) ----------------------------------------------------------- City of Mendota Heights Parks 5 Year (2001-2005) Capital Improvement Plan Plan Revised/ Updated: February 12, 2002 2005 -Projects P/armed 1. nepiace/repair backstops in three Neighborhood Parks- $10,000 2. Hagstrom-King Park- Install full size basketball court-$15,000 3. Kensington Park (north)- Install pond fountain-$5,000 Projects deleted or moved to another year 4. Mendakota Park- Install netting over Hub area at ball fields-$25,000 5. Tennis courts (2) replace gates- $4,000 Proposed 2005 Project Expenditures: 1 . Deleted Project 2. Project Moved to another year 3. Remaining proposed projects Moved to 2002 Deleted from plan $30,000,00 Projects scheduled for completion in 2005 —Total 530,000.00 Other expenditures estimated for 2005 = $ 12,868.00 (Assessment 53,868.00, Admin. Fees 52,000, Postage/Mileage/Sundry S 1,000, Staff 56,000) a City of Mendota Heights MEMORANDUM June 5, 2002 Memo to: Parks and Recreation Commission From: Guy Kullander, Parks Project Manager Subject: City 2003 Budget — Parks & Recreation Background: City Department Heads are beginning the 2003 Budget Preparation Process and will be submitting "completed forms" to the City Clerk by June 28" If the Commission desires to include funding requests for new projects or to increase maintenance expenditures above those approved in 2002, this is your opportunity. (2003 Budget Process & Schedule is attached) Commission comments or requests will be given to Jim Danielson, Public Works Director for inclusion in budget he will develop for Parks & Recreation. A copy of the 2002 Public Works, Parks & Recreation Maintenance budget is attached for review. The memo from City Administrator Cari Lindberg placed a 2.5% increase as a goal when developing the 2003 Budget. If this increase is applied to the 2002 Budget it amounts to a total increase of approximately $5,000 to next years park maintenance costs. Discussion: Funding from the City's General Budget is primarily for maintenance and programs whereas the Special Park Fund is for new capital improvements. The following is a summary of questions or items regarding the City Budget for various projects or maintenance items that the Commission has discussed during the past twelve months. 1 My salary / billings for work requested by the Parks Commission. The current situation is that my time is billed (including overhead) against various projects that are funded from the Special Park Fund, thus depleting funding that could have been used for capital improvements. Under consideration for the 2003 Budget is to include a part of my time/salary in the General Budget, similar to Patrick Hollister (10%) (See Form 0-3A). 2, Trail Maintenance, The City has over 21 miles of trails to maintain. Last year the budget of $10,000 (item 4330-215) was completely used for the reconstruction of 1100 feet (1/5" mile) of the Valley Park trail below the Park Place development by the new bridge installed in 2001. No other, except "emergency repair work" was or will be done to the trails in 2002. Another trail item identified by the Commission is the "heaving" of trail sections by tree roots. I have reports of six locations where the trail close to a street or roadway has heaved. I suspect that there may be as many more with the off -road trails through the parks. This problem should be addressed with its own 'line item budget" to insure that the repairs are made next year. 3 Wildflower maintenance (Kensington/Ivy Parks. This item was budgeted at $1,000 (item 4330-215). This will be used to maintain the natural plantings around Ivy Park Pond. The firm performing this function informs me that only limited maintenance can be done for this amount and recommend this amount be raised in 2003. No work has been scheduled at Kensington Park this year. 4 Maintenance and replacement of park play Equipment. A budget of $2,000 (item 4330-21 5) was or is able to fund only the replacement of fasteners, chains, or swings and is not sufficient to replace broken or obsolete components. At present broken or damaged larger items are left as is or removed (ie: diggers, chinning bar, talk tube, etc). Eleven parks contain playground equipment installed for the most part in 1990 91 & 92 that are in need off or will soon require rehabilitation or replacement. 5. City Trail Plan. This item was first discussed at the May meeting. Development of a comprehensive planning or guide document of this type could be developed by a consultant or by staff. The City is approximately 98% developed leaving few opportunities for new trail opportunities. Completing links or connecting existing trails together has been the primary focus for several years with most new trai! segments dependent upon new housing (Augusta Shores) or roadway improvements (Victoria Curve - Dodd Road). Many potential trail links that have been identified are routes along State Highway or County Road rights -of - way where compliance to restrictive design guidelines can result in the need for right-of-way acquisition, which can lead to prohibitive project costs. If the Commission wishes such as plan developed they should add this item to the Park Five Year Capital Improvement Plan with a working budget of $15,000 if prepared by a consultant or half that amount if City staff prepares the report. 7 Tennis court resurfacing -Wentworth & Marie Parks. Tennis courts have been resurfaced on a rotating basis once every six years. In 2002 funding for routine maintenance of a double tennis court was not included in the budget. Special one time funding from "General Fund Capital Outlay" was made available to repair the severe cracking that had developed at Ivy Park tennis courts. Wentworth Park is the next scheduled courts to be resurfaced at an estimated cost of $5,000. Several complaints have been received from residents regarding the Marie Park courts that were last resurfaced in 1997. The court markings were replaced in 2002, but it is very evident that the color coat has exhibiting severe wear. Resurfacing of this court is 2003 is recommended. 6. Other items of interest or concern to the Commission. Action Required: Make recommendations to the Director of Public Works regarding the 2003 City Budget for Park & Recreation items. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO To: Jim Danielson, Jeff Plotrasc e, John Maczko, Larry Shaughnessy, Kathy Swanson, Tom Olund, Paul Berg, Dick Gill, Guy Kullander, Patrick Hollister, Kristen Schabacker and Teresa Gangelhoff From: Cari Lindberg, City Administrator Re: 2003 Budget Preparation Process It's that time again! The attached 2003 Budget Schedule describes the key dates for the distribution of information to the various departments and the deadlines for submission of proposed budgets from each department. Departmental budgets are due to myself by June 23th. Departmental budget meetings with the Administrator's budget team will begin shortly thereafter, July I3`h - July 19th. Kathy will not be putting together personnel budget sheets yet. As we learn more about our revenues over the summer, as well as the CPI we will determine a % increase to nropose. In any case, as a department, your goal is a budget with no more than a 2.5% increase. If you have any questions or need additional information for your budget preparation, please contact me as soon as possible. CC: Emory Foster 20U Budget Schedule Forms and 5 month operating statements to Department Heads June 5 Completed forms retumed to City Clerk June23 Budget meetings with Department Heads July 13-19 Submission of Administrator's Recommended Budget to the City Council August 6`h Levy Information August 15`h Council Workshop August 22 or 27 Adoption of preliminary budget September 3 Certification of preliminary budget to County September 13 Council Workshop Oct 1-November 15 T utl ;n TaN;a_iii; Hearin, December 3 Final Budget Adoption December 17 Certify 1ina1 levy and budget to Council December 21 ? C O O O O O L c CN G) r 0 U N ��- G y C ❑ � N � C m @ U W pN to O c7 v fn q V O V O — � h Q 0I Q N _ 7 W R @ U1 O R N @ � C) `O O cJ 0 7 N O O Q O O N LL G J LL_ O F R LL R �0.. R J d O CDO O N r O© V m N G C 0 W c'J (Ni CO CO IO O N O 0I U c m m E c O❑ N i C Z U N ❑ � J R @ ❑ j C � C w W c(0000 N C) J c0 O Cl N U I Q 0 0 C 0 0 O O J C1 0 U Q 0 f U U > C. U U 00 H - - - - - ( - - . \ g \y \ 5 yEN ° \\ \\j \ 2 »_ _0 0?°f /< \\\ \\\ }/ 6<s� > � \ FORM 0-4A ICTION BACK-UP DETAIL FOR CONTRACTUAL S RVI E A. OTHER CHARGES _ (CHECK ONE) DEPT. DEPT. NO ACTIVITY SERVICE LEVEL P rks 70 1 Maintenance Maintenance LINE ITEM LINE ITEM DETAIL COST 6,500 4200 Rentals & Leases 391001. 4210 Telephone 7,900 4211 Service Electric Sere 3,000I Public Works Garage 21400 , Warming houses 2 000 Comfort Stations 50011 i rE421 Rogers Lake Aerator j 9,500 Gas Service 8,000', Public Works Garage 1,500 Warminc houses i 2,100 4220 Professional Fees - Engineering 4220 I Professional Fees - Drug and alcohol testing _ 400 900 4220 OSHA Training _- - i 3,500 4221 'j Engineerinc Retainer -- 500 4224 Labor Nec_otiations ------- - 19,000 4268 I Other Contractual Services -. - __ --- Sibley Park Maintenance Agreement - -_ _— 16,000- 31000 FORM 0-4B BACK-UP DETAIL FOR CONTRACTUAL SERVICE _ COMMODITIES _X_ OTHER CHARGES _ (CHECK ONE) DEPT. NO ACTIVITY SERVICE LEVEL FUNCTION DEPT. 70 Maintenance Maintenance Public Works Parks LINE COST ITEM LINE ITEM DETAIL 4300 I Office Supplies 4305 Operating Supplies 4320 Gasoline & Oil 4330 Repairs & Maintenance 4330-490 Equipment Repairs & Maintenance 4330-215 Park Maintenance Chemicals & fertilizer Warming house & hockey rink maintenan( Vandalism Enhance tree and landscape plantings (ivl Wildflower maintenance (Kensington/Ivy F Top dress ball fields Maintenance and replacement of park pla Purchase new and replacement picnic tat Trail sweeping Maintain, patch and seal coat trails (1 mils Professional pond maintenance, Ivy Park Striping paint Spray neighborhood parks for weeds 4335 � Public Works Garage Ntaintenance Il Building Maintenance Custodial Service � 4318 j ment t 15,000 I 001 4,000 1,500 11 1,000 2,0001 2,000 1,000 1,500, 10,000 ; 1,200 1,800' 1,500' 1,000 5,000 500 900 13,000 7,000 500' 1,000 1 TOTAL 88,900 FORM O-4C '� '� BACK-UP DETAIL FOR CONTRACTUAL SERVICES _ COMMODITIES _ OTHER CHARGES _X_ (CHECK ONE) Public Works I Parks y0 I ACTIVITY � SERVICE LEVEL 70 ( Maintenance I Maintenance LINE ITEM LINE ITEM DETAIL � I COST 1,400 4400 I Conferences &Schools 200 4404 Membership Dues 780 4410 I Clothing Allowance 400 4415 Mileage 1, 500 4422 Street Maintenance Material 16,150 4425 Water Readings 150 Public Works Garage 2,000 I Hydrant Water P.ezdi; gs 14,0001, Park Irrigation 41,700 4435 I Recreation Programs 4,OOO T-ball (MHAA) Softball Leagues (Summer &Fall Leagues) 13,500' �, Summer Adventure (School District) 1,300 1,600 i i Summer Concerts 500', I Ice Skating Lessons 200 ! Safety Camp 1,0001; i Golf Leagues 150 i Spring "Holiday' ProgramlEgg Hunt i 150 ; i In -line Skate Cllinic and lessons 2,000', Senior Trips � 1,100 � Puppet Wagon 700 Naturzl Wonders Nature Camp 2,500 ' Field Trips 1,500 � Skiing Trips Great Pumpkin PatchlHzlloween Program (Fall/Winter Programs) 150 100 Kids Fishinc Derby 200 ' Bocce, Croqueiie and Picnic Kit 1,000 Recreation Procrzm Contingency 10,000 MHAA Contingency _ — i 1,000 4^-.90 ! Sundry ---- 2,100 ', Commission per diem 2,500 I 4500 '-- Tree Removzl _ — ___ —_ -- ---- — —, i--- 67,73G TOTAL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEVIO June 6, 2002 TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Planning Case #02-19: Tollefson Development, Acacia Site Concept Plan for a Planned Unit Development Discussion Mr. Matt Weiland of Tollefson Development appeared at the May 28, 2002 meeting of the Planning Commission and at the June 4, 2002 meeting of the Council to discuss his revised concept plan for a multi -family housing Planned Unit Development on the Acacia site at the north end of Pilot Knob Road. Tollefson Development has secured a purchase agreement for the Acacia site, although the Garron site is no longer part of the development. Tollefson Development has submitted the attached revised PUD Concept Plan for preliminary feedback from the Planning Commission and the Council. Tollefson Development is working with Hoffman Homes to build owner -occupied townhomes on the site. Staff has advised Mr. Weiland that this development would require applications for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development and a Subdivision. Planner Grittman also suggested that a rezoning from R-3 and R-I to R-2 might be appropriate given the nature of the development. At the Nlay 28, 2002 meeting of The Planning Commission, Ivlr. Jeff hIamiel of the Metropolitan Airports Commission was in the audience. Mr. Haml urged the Planning Commission not only to reject this housing proposal from Tollefson development, but any proposal for housing in the Garron/Acacia area because of airplane noise. At the end of the discussion on May 28, the Planning Commissioners complimented Mr. Weiland on the substantial improvements he had made to the concept plan since his previous concept plan presentation in February and March. Some Commissioners expressed disappointment that the Garron site was no longer part of the proposal. The Commissioners also thanked Mr. Hamiel for his testimony. although not all the Commissioners seemed convinced that no type of housing would be desirable on this site. Chair Lorberbaum then instructed Mr. Weiland to proceed to the Council for preliminary feedback on his concept plan. At the Council meeting on June 4, Roy Fuhrman of the Metropolitan Airports Commission appeared and reiterated Mr. Hamiel's plea to abstain from any housing developments on either the Garron or Acacia sites. The Council appeared to be split on the issue of whether or not housing was appropriate for this area. The Council also provided Mr. Wieland with some general advice about the nature of his proposed development. Mr. Wieland said that he intended to submit his formal application soon. Action Required Review the attached materials pertaining to the Concept Plan. If the Parks and Recreation Commission wishes to make any comments, the Council will see them in the Commission's meeting minutes, and Staff will also convey them to the Council in our memorandum that will accompany Mr. Wieland's formal application. Developers ■ Land Investment ■ Property Managers May 06, 2002 City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Re: Garron/Acacia Preliminary PUD Concept Plan Dear City of Mendota Heights- Tollefson Development and Hoffman Homes are pleased to submit to you a new preliminary PUD concept plan for the Garron and Acacia site as identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The new concept plan was designed in response to comments raised by City Staff and Officials during the previous Pulte Homes concept plan review. Concerns were raised about the density, impervious surface, private drives and the type of units. The new concept plan illustrates a 76 unit executive twin home development developed at a density of 3.1 units per acre. The plan focuses on creating smaller neighborhoods with preserved open space. The builder would be Hoffman Homes, who developed the Augusta Shores project. They are a high quality builder who understand the area and related airport noise. The infrastructure in place serving this development, as well as the convenient proximity to major road systems, is well suited for this development. A trail connection would be made from the Big Rivers Regional Trail System to this project, allowing for future links to the City's trail system. The views, location, adjacent open space and the trail connection will make this a valued and unique neighborhood in the City of Mendota Heights. Tollefson development is aware the location of the project is a gateway to the City of Mendota Heights and will work with the City to design a project that is sensitive to the views of the project. Please let me know what other information I can provide. Tollefson Development looks forward to working with the City of Mendota Heights on the development of the highest and best use for this property. Sincerely, Matthew Weiland, Project Manager Tollefson Development 17271 Kenyon Ave., Suite #103 • Lal<evife, MN 55044 •Phone (952) 435-1010 • FAX (952) 435-1020 Email -info@tollefsondevelopment.com wawv.toI Iefsondeve lop ment.com - a r Heights APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. 0!2(- Zj Date of Application S- ?- O Fee Paid _ n1 krth , w Applicant Name: C) I/C I Su,✓ I% <hnitC�/, T14/C PH: to (Last) (First) (M) Address: 1 -7 -7 1 kc_r—/oy Ave (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Owner Name: _ r -_J C.c 11c J (Last) (First) (M) Address. _ (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question: �� ,� �h �z //C Legal Description of Property: Affo-C. Type of Request: Rezoning Variance Conditional Use Permit Subdivision Approval —.Conditional User Permit for P.U.D. Wetlands Permit ___Plan Approval Other (attach explanation) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number Section Present Zoning of Property u - Present Use vr c<_tnf /S;s/< Proposed Zoning of Property HRI Proposed Use I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. (Sign ture of App icant) (Date Received)_�� (Received by —Title) 1101 Vic Lorin Cune •Mendota Heights, MN 5511II (G51) 452-I II50 •FAX (651) 452-5940 Ownership Information T�ollelson Development. 1NC has sineed purchase aareements with the Iblluv\im1 property owners to purchase 235 acres: 15 acres Acacia Park Cemetery Association 2151 Pilot Knob Rd Mendota Heights MN 55120 8.5 Acres John Allen Industrial Equities Group, LLC 321 First Ave North Mineapolis. MN 55435 Joel Buttenhoff C/O CB Richard Ellis Suite 770 7760 France Ave S Minneapolis, MN 55433 t,r.<s,�� t�rs�►�jE�� That part of I Iubcr s Sub._ St_ George Suh_ and those iiaris>I I _ots ?5. 26 and Auditors Subdi%ision No. 29 Mendota, accordine tothe recorded Mats thercul. Dakota County. \linnesom. and that part of the Southeasl Quarter Of Section 28, Township 28, Range 21_ Dakota (Nount%_ Minnesota described as li))Io%Ns: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of South 00 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds East, along the east line of said Southeast Quarter a distance of 200.00 feet; thence South 89 de(Yrees 21 minutes 37 seconds West 20.00 feet; thence South 76 degrees 51 minutes 37 seconds West 240.00 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 76 degrees 51 minutes 37 seconds East 240.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 21 minutes 37 seconds East 20.00 feet to said east line; thence South 00 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds East along said east line 878.03 feet; thence South 89 degrees 21 minutes 37 seconds West 244.22 feet; thence North 50 degrees 27 minutes 27 seconds West 835.63 feet to the southeasterly_ right of way line of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad; thence North 38 degrees 14 minutes 29 seconds East along said right of way fine to the northerly line of said Huber's Sub.; thence South 78 degrees 31 minutes 23 seconds East 337.22 feet along said northerly line of Huber's Sub, And St. George Sub. To the intersection with a line drawn parallel with said east line of the Southeast Quarter, from the point of beginning; thence southerly along said parallel line to the point of beginning. Except that part platted as Louisiana Lane and except that part taken for Minnesota State Trunk Highway No. 55. AND; All of Acacia Park East Addition, a cemetery and burial place in Dakota County. Minnesota, except Parcel 247C as shown on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way plat No. 19-98 and 19-99. N C C C a o .� .cu 07 N O Cfl n CD N CO CD LO cY D coN _m O IIT d' (� N V � U U U @ m Q O E N — U_ @ E O CO O Cfl N 'E @ O O @ E Q -E dy N O r d' CDO_ co E N — N N o �c O � O O N N LO U I� V CO f 00 O N O) N .3 m QO m N @ O C N N N N m O F N N (n U a) U U U @ @ cop r M n in _m r V N N N O a)> a a Y N O N C a 3 ,> @ � a .0.N N .a N U @ ppp� 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone:952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen W. Grittman DATE: May 22, 2002 MEETING DATE: May 28, 2002 SUBJECT: Preliminary PUD Concept Plan CASE NO: Case No. 02-19; NAC Case 254.04 - 02.19 APPLICANT(S): Tollefson Development and Hoffman Homes LOCP.T!ON: "Carron/Acacia" Property -Pilot Knob Road at Highways 110 and 55 ZONING: B1A and R-3 GUIDE PLAN: High Density Residential and Medium Density Residential Background and Description of Request Tollefson Development is requesting concept review of a residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 76 unit twinhome development on the "Carron/Acacia" property overlooking the Minnesota River and the Mendota Bridge. The property totals 24.41 acres, and includes lands on both sides of Pilot Knob Road. As noted above, the northwest portion of the property overlooking the river is zoned B-1A, and is guided HDR (High Density Residential. The "Acacia" property east of Pilot Knob is zoned R-3, and guided Medium Density Residential. This is the second version of a residential project on this site. Tollefson's first proposal sought nearly 200 units in a much more intense project design. If the project proceeds to more extensive plan review stages, the applicant will need to seek the appropriate rezoning approvals to reflect the intended use. At this time, a concept review is being pursued prior to more extensive development design. Anal At 76 units, the project density is proposed at approximately 3.8 units per acre, based on a calculation that excludes dedicated public street. The applicants site plan llustration uses 3.1 units per acre, based on the entire site. The project no longer relies on a series of internal private streets and driveways toserve the units. The public street is shown to extend Pilot Knob to the north, with a "T' intersection connection to two cul-de-sac streets. The southeast portion of the property is served by a street that connects with Acacia Boulevard on the south, and a short cukde-sac off of Pilot Knob that serves five buildings. The site plan design is a series of 38 twin home buildings spread over the entire property. There are two suggestions to consider relating to the proposed project. The first is the terminal view along Pilot Knob Road. The site plan includes a "park" area along the north boundary of the project, behind the units than front on the "T" portion of the street. A trail proposal is shown to access the park along Pilot Knob, between two buildings and extend west toward the river. However, a twin home building sits at the end of Pilot Knob, and the trail is forced to squeeze around the building. Planning staff would recommend much greater visual access to the park area, and attention to the view at the end of Pilot Knob Road. Whether this would be achieved by eliminating one or more of the buildings in this area, or rearranging them elsewhere on the site would need to be evaluated. The second suggestion relates to the short loop road and cul-de-sac serving the southeast portion of the property. An option to consider would be to reconnect the loop with Pilot Knob and eliminating the need for the cul-de-sac, rather than extending the proposed road south to Acacia Boulevard. This help to integrate the neighborhood better in this area. As designed, some of the units appear to be somewhat isolated from others in the development. Setback issues are raised by the proposal. Within the R-3 District, setbacks of 50 from the street, and 40 feet from side or rear lot lines are required. While the PUD allows flexibility within the project area, setbacks from perimeter property lines and public streets are commonly applied as in the district. The proposed concept plan uses 40 foot setbacks from Trunk Highway 55 and Acacia Boulevard, and other lot line setbacks are shown at 30 feet. Internally, the plan shows side to side building separation of 20 to 30 feet. One option to consider that would accommodate these setbacks would be a rezoning to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. In this district, setback requirements are 30 feet from roadways and 10 feet for side yards. Density for 2 family structures is allowed to a maximum of one unit per 10,000 square feet of lot area. At a net total lot area of just under 20 acres, the district density requirements would allow up to approximately 85 units. Planned Unit Development is a zoning technique that is intended to allow a land developer flexibility from certain strict zoning standards, with the goal that the resulting design will exceed the project quality that would have been achieved by apply the basic regulations. Examples of quantifiable PUD design attributes would be increased open space or natural resource preservation, superior housing quality, or extraordinary landscaping details. The applicant in this project is requesting to depart from the general zoning standards in building separation and the use of a building lot/common area subdivision design. Depending on the zoning district applied to this site, the proposal also may vary from the required setbacks. The proposal includes more open space than the previous proposal, and density that is consistent with the City's zoning regulations. Sketches of the proposed buildings are included with the concept plans to assist with the City's review. One comment in this regard is that the illustrations show some side -loaded garages, whereas the concept plan has not incorporated that idea into any of the unit sites. The benefits of this idea should be discussed at this stage so the developer can program the next stage of PUD design. Action Requested: The Concept Plan stage of PUD review is intended to allow informal feedback, comment, and questions related to the project in order to guide the applicant's design process at the next stage. No formal action is required on the concept plan. Staff Recommendation: Planning staff believes that the proposal is more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan direction for this site than previous proposals. Zoning designations would need to be adjusted to accommodate this proposal, and R-2 would appear to be the best fit. Issues raised by the project include the following: a. Terminal view of Pilot Knob Road, and unit location in that area. b. Construction and design of Pilot Knob Road as a parkway or other amenity. c. Access to the park area, both physical and visual. d. View of the project from the adjoining highways, and consistency with the City's anticipation of a strong visual impact. e. Consideration of an alternative layout for the street in the southeast corner of the site. Su�plementanr Materials; 1. Application materials dated May 6, 2002 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 6, 2002 TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Minnesota Valley Wetland Management District Discussion The Fish and Wildlife Service of the US Department of the Interior is soliciting comments on the attached Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Minnesota Valley Wetland Management District. Comments are due by July 1, 2002, Action Required Please review and comment. Staff will convey any comments by July 1, 2002. United States Department of the Interior .4"w FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge 3815 East 80th Street Bloomington, Minnesota 55425-1600 May 8, 2002 Dear Reader: I am pleased to provide you with a Summary of the Drag Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Assessment for the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and the Minnesota Valley Wetland Management District. The CCP will be a vital part of the future of the Refuge and District as it guides management over the next 15 years. The Draft CCP is a product of numerous discussions among citizens, focus group participants, resource specialists, and Refuge planning staff. The enclosed Summary provides an overview of the Drafr CCP. If you want to know more, you can review a copy of the full document in several ways. First, the entire Draft CCP is available on the Internet at httn://midwest.fws.eov/planninL/mnvtop.htin. Second, copies of the plan are available for review at local libraries listed on page 20 of the Summary. Third, paper copies of the CCP are available in a limited supply. Call the Refuge at 952/854-5900 to request a copy. Please rote several important secticns within the Summary and Draft CCP that may be easy to miss. The Management Alternatives section describes how we decided on a preferred 15-year management direction. The Minnesota River Valley Protection Proposal section explores the possibility of expanding the Refuge to additional areas along the river. The Compatibility Determinations section, which is not in the Summary but is in the Draft CCP, reviews a variety of existing or potential public uses and determines whether they are compatible with the purposes of the Refuge and District. Your comments on these sections, as well as the implementation chapters of the Draft Plan, will help us write a Final Plan that is both visionary and practical. We need to hear from you by July 1, 2002, in order to consider your comments for the final Plan. However, comments received after that date are welcome and we will consider them in future management decisions. Please address written comments to: Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, 3815 East 80"' Street, Bloomington, MN 55425-1600. Comments can also be sent through the Service's Website for Planning at the address above. Thank you for your time, thoughts and interest in planning for the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Wetland Management District. Si cerel /4fL� Rick Schultz Refuge Manager Enclosure CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 6, 2002 TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Congratulations to Teresa for Celebrate Mendota Heights Parks Discussion On Saturday, June 1, 2002 Mendota Heights held its annual Celebrate Mendota Heights Parks event. This was Recreation Programmer Teresa Gangelhoff s first year organizing the event. She did a superb job, and the City Council commended her on the success of the event at their meeting on June 4, 2002. I would also like to thank everyone else who contributed to the event. Action Required Join me in congratulating Teresa on a job well done! N�vpoWl I I 0 am l �1=7 piendaketa ' I I f The City of Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Department would like to invite you, your family, friends and neighbors to a day in the park to celebrate our parks and bring our community together along with some of our area merchants and residents who with their donations have made this day in the park a success. 'lease patronize and thank our sponsors. (A COdIPLETE LIST OFSPONSORS {4'/LL BE AVAIL/BLEAT TN£ P.-1 RK LISTED ON OUR DONOR BOARD. PLEASE CONTACT TERESA AT 3SS-13S4IF YOU JJ'OULD LIKE TO BE A SPONSOR) ��`YYBIIiE RODEO*'�"` HEY KIDS! BRING YOUR BIKE AND GET A FREE SAFETY CHECK R RIDE THE OBSTICLE COURSE. THIS EVENT IS SPONSORED BY THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS POLICE DEPARTMENT. MENDOTA SCHWINN R bIENDOTA HEIGHTS NICDONALDS FREE FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT (LISTED WITH EVENT SPONSOR) AT MENDA%OTA PARK PAVILLION • 10:15 — Kit & Kaboodle Sponsored by Dakota Bank • 11:15 - Boltz's Tae Kwon Do Demo. • 11: 45 - Turners Gymnastics Center Demo • 12:15 - Alpha Bits Band Sponsored by Dakota Bank THE FOLLOWING WILL RUN IOAM-IPM • Mendota Heights Fire Dept. Fire Track Rides • Mendota Heights Athletic Association Tournament • IGHClown Club • Sibley Area Sting— Soccer Shootout • Walton's Holloiv Petting Zoo • Face Painting by PROTEC • Caricatures Sponsored by Lapp, Libra Law Firm • Nloon Walk Sponsored by Visitation Itilonaster-y and School and St. Thomas School. • Free Throiv Contest Sponsored by Pat Kaplan of Coldwell Banker -Burnet Realtv • Putting Contest Sponsored b s IIllendota Par 3 • blendakota Animal Hospital — Rabies clinic REGISTER FOR A FREE DRAYVLVG TO BE HELD AT 1:00 FROtyI THE FOLLOWING AREA MERCHANTS -YOU NlUST BE PRESENT TO bVIN!({or 2l veers and older) 2 ROUND TRIP AIR TICKETS FROM SU-N COUNTRY AIRLINES, 2-S2i.00 AXEL'S GIFT CERTIFICATES. ONE NIGHT STAY AT COURTYARD BY MARRIOTT WITH BP.EAKFAST, ONE NIGHT STAY FAIRFIELD I\N' AND SUITES, 2 PACKAGES 18 HOLE GOLF FOR 2 WITH LUNCH Al NIENDAKOTA COUNTRY CLUB, GIFT CERTIFICATE TO CHEROKEE SIRLOIN ROOK/I A SPECIAL DRAJJ7YG JJ'ILL PDE HELD FOR TFIOSE UNDER 21 SOBE SURD TO FILL OUTA{AENTRY' n CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMORANDUM Date: May 9, 2002 To: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION From: TERESA GANGELHOFF RE: MAY PARKS AND RECREATION REPORT Softball We will be using myteam.com to update standings and communicate with teams. Check out our site at www.mytea com/go/mendotaheight Schedules were made and can be viewed on the site also. I have some interest in a fall league so I have put out info in the community papers. Golf Registrations are still being taken. Lessons have started. Rogers Lake Fishing Derby The derby is officially set for Wednesday, June 1 gth with check in starting at 5:30 and concluding with awards at 8:00 p.m. New additions to the derby this year will be entertainment by the "Fishin' Magician" as part of our "Performance in the Parks" series. Also added, Jim Fischer, Tournament Walleye Pro and his sponsor Northland Tackle will donate tackle packs to each participant. Mr. Clifford Timm has again donated 36 tackle boxes. Registration has to be made at City Hall ahead of the derby and space is limited to 36 participants with a fee of $3.00. Our derby is sponsored by Wal-mart, Hooked on Fishing International and IGH Ace Hardware. We will have prizes for many different categories of fish and we will also hold a casting contest. Celebrate Mendota Heights We reached over $2,780.00 in donations. We had a large turnout with good weather. It was a great event to "Celebrate" our parks. I would like to thank all the organizations, city employees, businesses and residents of Mendota Heights that helped make this event a success. Our community came together and celebrated and a fun time was had by all. The weather also cooperated! Look for next years celebration to be held on Saturday, June 7th, 2003. 1 have included on a separate sheet all of the donors and volunteers. This list is also posted on our Website and displayed in the City Hall Lobby. Commissioners, Libra and Portz did a great job running the putting contest. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMORANDUM Imagination Station This traveling variety show will make appearances at both Wentworth and Friendly Hills Parks weekly. These performances will be free to attend and last approximately 30 minutes and are geared to younger children and their families. Mondays: June 24 to July 29th 1:30 — 2:00 at Wentworth Park 3:00 — 3:30 at Friendly Hills Park Special Thanks To The Following Community Groups and Businesses Who Volunteered Their Time and Talent At Today's Celebration! Mendota Heights Athletic Association Ziggy's Deli & Ice Cream Restaurant Mendakota Animal Hospital Mendota Heights Fire Dept. Eagan Shirt Werks Sibley Area Sting Soccer Club Boltz's Tae Kwo Do, Inc. ProTec Environmental Consultants Mendota Heights Par 3 Golf Course Pam Lund — Funtastic Party Rentals Thank You to Mendota Heights Parks Crew Members!! A special thanks to the parks crew for always doing an exceptional job in keeping the City of Mendota Heights parks looking beautiful, and for assisting in the preparation of Mendakota Park for this special day of celebration. City of Mendota Heights MEMORANDUM June 5", 2002 Memo to: Parks and Recreation Commission From: Guy Kullander, Parks Project Manager Subject: Ongoing Project Updates 1. Mendakota Park — Ballfield Containment Netting City Council has authorized this project to proceed with a working budget of $35,000. The Council also directed that an additional six months of Cell Tower rental fees Ito be collected in 2003) go into the Special Park Fund. Rental fees collected in 2001 totaled $64,223.64, 2. Friendly Hills Park Replacement Play Equipment New equipment has been installed as well as the concrete base for the synthetic resilient rubberized surfacing. The surfacing material was scheduled for application two weeks following equipment installation. Public works excavate the access pathway to the new rubberized surfaced area of the playground. This path will be paved with asphalt to complete the upgrade at this play area. 3. Valley Park Replacement Play Equipment Same as above. 4. Marie Park Play Area a. Rubberized surfacing has been ordered for this play area that was upgraded in 2000 and 2001 . This work, estimated at $3,000 will complete the upgrades to this play area. b. The tennis court markings will be repainted sometime in early June. These courts will be recommended for resurfacing in the 2003 City Budget. 5. Ivy Park Tennis Courts a. Cracks have been milled out and patched. The asphalt patching material must cure for two weeks before the leveling and color coats can be applied. This work should be started in the second or third week of June. All work, including court markings should be completed before the end of June. Release Date: May 17, 2002 For More Information Contact: Ann Sarnecki, 651-290-3030 x234 ann_sarnecki@nps.gov SUMMER FUN ALONG THE RIVER WITH THE MIGHTY MISSISSIPPI PASSPORT PROGRAM (Saint Paul, MN) Want to bike with a historian? Canoe through a working lock on the Mississippi River? Ride a paddlewheel tour boat for free and help clean up the Mighty Mississippi? Find out about these and more family friendly activities at the Mighty Mississippi Passport Program's website - www.mississippipassport.com. The Mighty Mississippi Passport is a collection of more than 100 family -friendly activities on or near the Mississippi River in the MinneapolislSt. Paul Metro Area and at the Mississippi River Headwaters in northern Minnesota. The National Park Service's Mississippi National River and Recreation Area and over sixty partner organizations collaborate to offer fun -filled Mississippi River programs within the Twin Cities. Throughout the summer, Mighty Mississippi Passport participants can explore, discover, and learn to care for the river and collect passport stamps for each activity completed. Activities include exploring trails along the River on your own, attending riverside festivals and stenciling a special message near sidewalk and street storm drains. Three passport stamps and completing the "It Starts With You" activity are all it takes to become a Mighty Mississippi Junior Ranger! Mighty Mississippi Junior Rangers will receive a certificate and badge after the stamped form is submitted. Visit www.mississippipassport.com to find out more about the Mighty Mississippi Passport Program. See you on the River! Note to Editor: Digital photographs of people participating in past passport activities and the Mighty Mississippi Passport's logo of Freddie the Flathead Catfish are available by contacting Ann Sarnecki at 651-290-3030 x234 or ann_sarnecki@nps.gov. Congress established the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) as a unit of the National Park System in 1988 to represent the national significance of the Mississippi River. The area begins at the Mississippi's confluence with the Crow River near the Cities of Dayton and Ramsey and stretches just south of the City of Hastings. Unlike other National Park System units, less than 50 acres within the 54,000-acre MNRRA boundary are owned by the agency. Along the 72-mile stretch of the MNRRA, the National Park Service cooperates with numerous public agencies and private organizations to increase awareness, advocacy, and stewardship of the river's resources, and to encourage increased recreational enjoyment and sensitive economic use and development within the river corridor. -NPS- MENDOTA HEIGHTS POLICE DEPARTMENT INCIDENT SUMMARIES - PARKS 06-04-2002 CN: 02001399 OFFENSE/INCIDENT: Damage to Property DATE: 05/02/2002 12:38:0 OFFICER: Willson, C 2238 LOCATION: Wentworth Park SYNOPSIS: On 05-02-02 at 1238 dispatched to location on graffitti on the hockey rink boards. The northernmost side of the rink had several names and symbols painted along -the enitire length of the rink. Photos taken of the graffitti and parks dept. advised they could paint over the graffitti. I cleared at 1310. CN: 02001429 OFFENSE/INCIDENT: Suspicious Activity DATE: 05/04/2002 16:00:0 OFFICER: Rosse, T 2237 LOCATION: Kensington Park SYNOPSIS: I contacted the comp via phone regarding a suspicious occupied vehicle. DICTATED CN: 02001570 OFFENSE/INCIDENT: D.O.B.s DATE: 05/17/2002 16:10:0 OFFICER: Larrive, J 2233 ,CATION: Rogers Lake Park SYNOPSIS: Dispatched to location on a report of several unknown males tipping over trash cans. Upon arrival, the males were advised to pick up the trash. No further action. CN: 02001572 OFFENSEIINCIDENT: Found Property DATE: 05/17/2002 17:14:0 OFFICER: Larrive, J 2233 LOCATION: Valley View Heights Park SYNOPSIS: Dispatched to the bike path south of Valley View Heights Park on a report of a found bike. The bike is a blue Lotus Beach Pedaler. The bike was removed from the woods and placed in the water tower. No further action. CN: 02001580 OFFENSE/INCIDENT: Noise Complaint DATE: 05/17/2002 23:17:0 OFFICER: Lambert, B 2234 LOCATION: Friendly Hills Park SYNOPSIS: Responded to park on complaint of loud DOBs playing basketball. Parties were GOA. Neighborhood checked and nobody found. Officer cleared. �: 4s - _ .. Y �. ;- ,o�. .,. ,- 'o. s � Table of Contents Preface.... —__....__.._..........._...._.....__.._......................._......._...__.._..................3 ntroduction...................................................................................................................................... S What Is Green Infrastructure? .... ............. ............._.....__.....__...................................... .......... --......... -..._ 6 What Does Green Infrastructure Look Like?.........__...___....__......._.._____..._.............................._.__..- 7 What's in a Name?......._..................................----___..__..............._......._.._..._................. _....... _..... 7 What Are the Origins of Green Infrastructure?._....._..........._....._..........._................................................... 8 Benton MacKaye's Prescription for Urban Sprawl .... ................... ....._...._-..............._.............._._.__... .... 9 Why Do We Need to Plan and Protect Green Infrastructure........................................................... 10 Consequences of Haphazard Development .. ...... ............. .... ..._..... ._..... .._... ............._........_..........._......._ 11 Costof Service Analysis .......... ....... ......... ........_.__..__....... ........ .........._.................................__..... 12 SmartGrowth . ............ ........ ...... ........ ...... ..............................._......__..............................................._.... 13 SmartConservation.................................................................................................................................. 13 Case Study: Smart Growth & Smart Conservation in the State of Maryland ............... ....... .._.._............ 14 Green Infrastructure Functions and Benefits . ........... ........... ......... .._............. ..................................._..._..... 14 Green Infrastructure Planning Trends Influencing the Shift to Green Infrastructure ...... _..._........ .............._................_._......................._. 15 Green Infrastructure Planning Approaches .... ......... ._................_.._......_........ ............ ..................... .._........ 15 Benefits of Integrating Green Infrastructure Into the Land Planning Process ...... a .... . __ _.... _..... _....... ........ 16 Green Infrastructure Principles......................................................................................................... 17 Principle I: Green infrastructure should be the framework for conservation and development ....... ._................. 17 Principle 2: Design and plan green infrastructure before development............................................................ 18 Case Study: Protecting Green Infrastructure Before Development —Montgomery County, Maryland ....._.. 18 Principle3: Linkage is key.......................................................................................................................... 19 Case Study: Metro Greenways Program — Twin Cities Region. Minnesota ............................................. 20 Principle 4: Green in frastructu e Functions across multiple jurisdictions and at different scales ...........................20 Case Study: A Conservation Development — Prairie Crossing. Illinois .. .... .... ... ... .... ......_..._..........__.. 21 Principle 5: Green infrastructure is grounded in sound science and land -use planning theories and prctices...... 22 Case Study: EPA's Southeastern Ecological Framework ..._ ................... ............ .......... ........ ................. 22 Principle 6: Green infrastructure is a critical public investment ._._ .............._............... _ ...... ..........._...........23 Case Study: Green Topeka — Topeka. Kansas....................................................................................... 23 Case Study: A Greenprint that Makes Fiscal Sense — Pittsford. New York ..... .............. ........... ...... ..._.... .24 Principle 7: Green infrastructure involves diverse stakeholders.._.._.... l,......._.................._._...a........_......._...24 Case Study: Chicago Wilderness ....... _............. .__._...._......... ........ ....... ............._................._...... a.25 - Case Study: The Florida GreenwaysCommission .........._...._....... ._.........._........_..............._......___..26 Green Infrastructure Examples.........................................................................................................27 Continental Scale and Multi -State Initiatives ...... ...... ............._.............. __............. ......_........._.._....._.......27 StatewideInitiatives ................. ..... ......... ..._........._............_.._..........._.._.__......_......_.__............a._.27 Regional Initiatives . 8 Local and Community Initiatives ......... .......__..._ ........._._. .......... .......______. 28 Case Study: Metropolitan Greenspaces Program — Portland. Oregon ..... .._.... _.............._............... 28 Conservation Developments .... ....... .........._._. ..._........_. .._._._.._..._._.._........_._......_...... 29 OtherExamD125....... ......... ._ ...... ........._.......____-..............................._............._....._.. 29 Ccse Study: Green Infrastructure Plan — Kinston/Lenoir County. North Carolina ... .... _........_......... 29 Green Inirasirudure Versus Traditional Conservation ......................... __.......-..._.-.........._....... ........ 30 References....... _._..__...._.._........._..-....._........._................._......--_-.- ........ 32 2 - Gaaen bCr.,=.- When we started in conservation many of us were winging it. We hadn't been educated or trained or what we were doing. There wasn't much science and even less thinking about economic development. and there were few opportunities for professional development. By almost every measure, the work of conservation is becoming more complex. Conservationists need to understand marketing, business planning, real estate and tax law, as well as ecology and geographic information systems. We need to build the capacity of our movement embracing the concepts of training, education and lifelong learning. We also need to educate the public about the benefits derived from green infrastructure. We believe that now is the time for a more strategic and comprehensive approach to land conservation. This monograph sets out that approach. Mark A. Benedict &Edward T. McMahon The Conservation Fund What Is Green Infrastructure? ebster's New World defines infrastructure infrastructure as "the substructure or underlying foundation, especially the basic installations and facilities on which the continuance and growth of a community depends." When they hear the term infrastructure, most people think of roads. sewers, utility lines, and other gray infrastructure: or hospitals, schools, prisons, and other social infrastructure. Taken together, these types of facilities are often referred to as built infrastructure. Today, many people and organizations are talking about another type of infrastructure that is critical to the "continuance and growth of a community": green infrastructure. In August 1999 under the leadership of The Conservation Fund and the USDA Forest Service, a working group of local, state and federal agencies and non -governmental. organizations came together to develop a "Just as we must carefully pion for eital .. infrastructure —our roads, bridges and waterlines, we must invest in our environmental or green infrastructure — our forests, wetlands, stream and rivers ... lust as we must carefutly plan for and invest in our human infrastructure —education, health service, care for the elderly and disabled — we must also invest in our green infrastructure." — hlc.ryicnd Governor Peril Glendening January 1999 aining program that would help comm!m t;es and their partners make green infras ruc_u e an ntegral part of local, regional and state Plans and policies. This Green Infrastructure Work Group developed the following definition for green infrastructure: "green infrastructure is our nation's natural life support system — an ntereonneeted network of waterways, wetlands, woodlands. wildlife habitats, and other natural areas: greenways, parks and other conse,vation lands: working farms, ranches and forests: and wilderness and other open spaces that support native species, maintain natural ecological processes, sustain air and water resources and contribute to the health and quality of life for America's communities and people." The elements of a green infrastructure network need to be protected over the long term. This equires long-range planning and management, as well as an ongoing commitment. protected and/or restored. LINKS are the connections that tie the system together and enable green infrastructure networks to work. They range in size, function and ownership. including: LANDSCAPE LINKAGES — Large protected natural areas that connect existing parks, preserves, or natural areas and provide sufficient space for native plants and animals to flourish while serving as corridors connecting ecosystems and landscapes. Landscape linkages may also provide space for the protection of historic sites and opportunities for recreational use: CONSERVATION CORRIDORS — Less extensive linear protected areas, such as river and stream corridors that serve as biological conduits for wildlife and may provide recreational opportunities: GREENWAYS — Protected corridors of land managed for resource conservation and/or recreational use: GREENBELTS — Protected natural lands or working lands that serve as a framework for development while also preserving native ecosystems and/or farms or ranchland: and ECOBELTS — Linear woody buffers that can ease the zone of tension between urban and rural land uses while providing ecological and social benefits for urban and rural residents. What Are the Origins of Green Infrastructure? Green infrastructure is a new term, but it's not a new idea. It has roots in planning and conser- vation efforts that started a hundred and fifty years ago. Green infrastructure has its origin in wo important concepts: (I) linking parks and other green spaces for the benefit of people. and (2) preserving and linking natural areas to benefit biodiversity and counter habitat fragmentation. In his work in public parks in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. land- scape architect Frederick Law Olmsted believed that "no single park, no matter how large and how well designed, would provide the citizens with the beneficial influences of nature." Instead parks need "to be linked to one another and to surrounding residential neighborhoods."' - This idea of linking parks for the benefit of people (e.g. with a focus on recreation, pedes- trian and bicycle trails and public health) has evolved into the modern greenways movement. "A connected system of parks and parkways s manifestly for more complete and useful than a series of isolated parks" — John Olmsted and Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. 1903' Second, wildlife biologists and ecologists have long recognized that the best way to preserve native plants, animals and ecological processes s to create an interconnected conservation system to counter habitat fragmentation. Protecting and restoring connections between parks. preserves and other important ecological areas is a key concept for the science of conservation biology and the practice of ecosystem management. In the 1990's, Florida, Maryland and several other states and communities initiated programs to strategically identify, protect and estore interconnected systems of conservation land and other sites of ecological value. These states and communities recognized that these nterconnected green space systems represent their green infrastructure. They further ecognized that the protection and maintenance of green infrastructure is vital to their sustainable future because it provides a way to link land use planning to the preservation of biodiversin.-. In its May 1999 report, "Towards a Sustainable America," the President's Council on Sustainable Development identified Green Why Do We Need to Plan and Protect Green Infrastructure? and is being developed faster today than ever before. This accelerated consump- tion and the resulting fragmentation of open land are the primary conservation challenges facing our nation today. The following statistics illustrate the problem: �l According to the December 2000 update of the Natural Resource Conservation Service's National Resources Inventory, over the 15-year period from 1982 to 1997, the total acreage of developed land in the United States increased by 34 percent (25 million acres). From 1982 to 1992, land was converted at 1.4 million acres per year; from 1992 to 1997, land was converted at 2.2 million acres a year. This rate is more than 1.5 times the previous 10-year rate.° The 1997 American Housing Survey conducted by the Census Bureau and HUD found that, between 1993 and 1997, 2.3 million acres of open space were converted to new single-family homes each year. Almost 90 percent of this land conversion occurred with lots of one acre or larger. These lots were purchased by only 33 percent of new homebuyers.' According to a July 2001 report by the Center on Urban & Metropolitan Policy at The Brookings Institution, "between 1982 and 1997, the amount of urbanized land in the United States increased by 47 percent ...During this same period, the nation's population grew by only 17 percent. is The amount of working lands in the United States has declined by nearly 20 percent — more than 200 million acres over the last half -century. Further, the rate of conversion has doubled over the last five years. We are now developing almost 2 million acres of farmland and half a million acres of private forest land each year. In many major metropolitan areas, green space is rapidly disappearing. For example, the Atlanta metropolitan area has lost 25 percent of its tree cover since 1973; the 350,000 acres that have been developed translates to nearly 50 acres of trees lost every day.9 From 1970 to 1990, Cook County and the five other counties closest to Chicago experienced a 35 percent increase in developed land, but an ncrease in population of only 4 percent. Over 4S0 square miles of agricultural land was suburbanized during this time.10 Some of our most threatened lands are in rapidly urbanizing counties where we produce nearly 80 percent of our fruit and vegetables and more than half of our dairy products. Rural communities are aiso affected by development: 60 percent of new homes built from 1994-1997 were built in communities of less than 40,000 people." Population Growth Versus Land Development: 1982-1997'� U.S: Regions Change in Population Change in Urbanized Land Midwest 7.0690 32,23 Northeast 6.91 % 39.10 South 22.23% I 59.610/10 West 32.2190 48,949a United States 17.02% 47.14/0 zas=ucTuRr MoNooR,:w - � 1 •'dci 7. �.� of public infrastructure and public services. ncluding the costs for stormwater management and water treatment systems. Investing in green infrastructure can often be more cost effective than conventional public works projects. for example, in the 1990s New York City avoided the need to spend $6-$8 billion on new water filtration and treatment plants by instead purchasing and protecting watershed land in the Catskill Mountains for about $1.5 billion. Likewise Arnold. Missouri, has dramatically reduced the cost to taxpayers of disaster relief and flood damage repair by purchasing threatened properties and creating a greenway in the flood plain. Two nonprofit organizations, the Center for Neighborhood Technology and Urban Logic, believe a shift in governmental accounting ules may help standardize these examples. In 19994 the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) issued comprehensive changes n state and local government financial eporting. The standards, known as "GASB- 34," require governments to develop, maintain and present capital accounts in their balance sheets. The two organizations are working with economists, accountants, bond financiers and others to explore using GASB-34 to help capture our natural environment's inherent capital. Gwen L -.-�Asr..-uc qua_ MONOGR4 ri DESIGNED HOLISTICALLY — Like our transportation system, green infrastructure should be designed to link diverse green space elements into a system that functions as a whole, rather than as separate, unrelated parts. PLANNED COMPREHENSIVELY — Like our electric power and telecommunication systems, our green space systems need to be planned comprehensively to provide ecological, social and economic benefits, functions, and values. � LAID OUT STRATEGICALLY — Like our roads and water systems, our green space systems need to be laid out strategically to cross multiple jurisdictions and incorporate green space elements at each level of government. PLANNED AND IMPLEMENTED PUBLICLY — Like our built infrastructure systems, our green infrastructure systems should be planned and implemented with input from and involvement or the public, including community organizations and private landowners. GROUNDED IN THE PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES OF DIVERSE PROFESSIONS — Like the design and planning of our transportation, water, electrical and phone systems, green space systems should be based on sound science and should build on the knowledge of professional disciplines such as landscape ecology. urban and regional planning, and landscape architecture. FUNDED UP -FRONT — Like other infrastructure systems, our green space systems need to be funded as a primary public investment. In other words, green infrastructure should be funded up front with other essential services, rather than with money that is left over after all other services have been provided. Green infrastructure planning should take place at all scales: from the individual parcel, to the ocal, regional and statewide scales. At the parcel level this could mean designing homes and businesses around green space. At the community level this could mean creating greenways to link existing parks. And at the statewide level this could mean protecting broad wildlife movement corridors to connect state and national forests. Benefits of Integrating Green Infrastructure Into the Land Planning Process Just as there are many benefits.to green nfrastructure, there are many benefits to utilizing a green infrastructure approach to conservation and development planning. Green nfrastructure planning: Recognizes and addresses the needs of both people and nature; Provides a mechanism to balance environmental and economic factors; Provides a framework for integrating diverse natural resource and growth management activities in a holistic, ecosystem -based approach; Ensures that both green space and development are placed where most needed and most appropriate; Identifies vital ecological areas and linkages prior to development in suburban and rural landscapes; Identifies opportunities for the restoration and enhancement of naturally functioning systems in already developed areas; Provides a broad, unifying vision for the future that diverse people and organiza- tions can buy into; Enables communities to create a system that is greater than the sum of its pars, Helps provide both communities and developers with predictability and certainty, and r Enables conservation and development to be planned in harmony, not in opposition to one another. populations cannot flourish if they are isolated and ecological processes cannot function if natural connections are severed. By contrast. oads and other forms of gray infrastructure upon which America's communities depend — and that provide the framework for future growth and development — are planned, built and maintained as a system of inter -connected parts. By making green infrastructure the framework for conservation, communities can plan for and protect interconnected, green space systems. And where isolated "islands" of nature already exist, green infrastructure planning can help them identify opportunities to restore the vital ecological connections that are necessary for the survival of those protected areas. Having a green infrastructure strategy also helps planners and developers minimize the adverse impacts that rapid growth can have on ecosystem functions and services, such as ; : �ifdlKabe �i.a: and mig corridors and the loss of riparian and other natural areas that absorb nutrients, recharge ground and surface water supplies, slow and absorb stormwater runoff, and replenish soils. Protecting green infrastructure up front ensures that existing open space and working lands are seen as part of the community's essential assets and not left vulnerable to development pressures that would leave green infrastructure further reduced and fragmented. PRINCIPLE 2: Desian and plan green infrastructure before development. Restoration of natural systems is far more expensive than protection and preservation of existing landscapes. Because green infrastruc- ture provides the ecological framework for the sustainable use of land, it is essential to identify and protect critical ecological sites and linkages n advance of the planning and construction of oads, houses, stores and other development. Because restoration is expensive and because man-made wetlands and other restoration projects can cease to function over the long term, planning for and protecting green space systems should come before development whenever possible. But in situations in which development has already occurred, it is still mportant to assess where restoring green nfrastmcture would benefit people and natural systems. A green infrastructure plan will focus acquisition and restoration priorities and help communities take advantage of opportunities to reconnect isolated habitat islands as existing developed areas and built infrastructure age or other redevelopment opportunities occur. 1 8 = Ga�w Ire=a.�snucv�- Nio�o��.'N PRINCIPLE 4: Green infrastructure functions across multiple jurisdictions and at different scales. Our nation's transportation, power, telecommunication and other gray infrastruc- ture systems are designed to connect across multiple jurisdictions and incorporate facilities that function at different scales. Likewise, we need to design green infrastructure systems strategically to connect across urban, suburban, rural and wilderness landscapes and ncorporate green space elements and functions at the state, regional, community and parcel scales. Green infrastructure strategies can be used for initiatives of any size or scale, including: The project scale, involving individual parcels and within single real estate developments (e.g., the Fields of St. Croix in St. Elmo, Minnesota or Prairie Crossing in Grays Lake, Illinois): The community scale, supporting local resource conservation and restoration efforts and including park, recreation and other open -space projects (e.g., the Northern Illinois Regional Greenway Plan. which involves six counties in and around the Chicago metropolitan region): The landscape scale, encompassing statewide and national conservation and open space resources (e.g., the Florida Statewide Greenway System for wildlife habitat, water quality, and recreation). Green infrastructure may be most successful when it functions at multiple scales in tandem. For example, Toronto's "Greening the Portlands" project in Ontario, Canada focuses on major parks, minor parks, wide corridors, narrow corridors, and development parcel landscapes. 20 � GFerry 1.=as.._��_�� tvto^coca:=r PRINCIPLE 5: Green infrastructure is grounded in sound science and land - use planning theories and practices. No single science or planning discipline can lay claim to the evolution of green infrastructure. Instead, theories and practices of many scientific and land planning professions —'including conservation biology. landscape ecology, urban and regional planning. landscape architecture, geography, and civil engineering —all contribute to the successful design and planning of green infrastructure systems. The twentieth century included experiments- . lion with different approaches to protecting our natural resources and environment. Scientists, engineers, and land use planners have come to recognize that natural systems already function efficiently when it comes to protecting our water supply and air resources. \�iith stategic use of environmental design, professional and laypersons alike are finding that networks of linked natural areas and habitats managed for biodiversity purposes also can protect developed urban and rural areas from natural disasters, can improve the general health of the human community, and can provide recreation opportunities and other public amenities. STRATEGY: Draw from the theories and practices of a variety of disciplines in designing green infrastructure systems. A green infrastructure approach employs theories and practices from a diversity of disciplinzs including conservation biology and landscape ecology. urban and regional planning. and geographic analysis and information systems. Green infrastructure initiatives should therefore engage and incorporate the expertise of professionals from all relevant disciplinzs. 22 - Ga-r: Le=�a=.uc�u=° Moraocz==r Green infrastructure provides a diversity of public and private functions and values that address both natural and human needs and benefit the environment and communities. These benefits need to be documented, both n terms of their ecological values for people and the environment and their economic values to society. just as all forms of built nfrastructure are promoted for the wide range of public and private benefits they provide, we need to promote green infrastructure systems actively for the wide range of essential ecological. economic and social functions, values and benefits that accrue to people and nature. Green infrastructure initiatives describe and define the values and functions of intercon- nected networks of open space in a context that enables citizens to understand the ecological, human, and economic benefits. PRINCIPLE 7: Green infrastructure involves diverse stakeholders. The stakeholders of green infrastructure nitiatives have diverse backgrounds and needs. Successful green infrastructure efforts forge alliances and interrelationships among various organizations — both public and private. A few examples of how diverse organizations have been brought together for a single purpose: The Chicago Wilderness is a grassroots collaboration of over 100 organizations representing all sectors with an interest in the region. Keep America Growing is designed to create partnerships to balance the demands for growth and development with the protection of vital working lands The Cooper River Wildlife Corridor Initiative in South Carolina uses an agreement for common land management practices with DuPont, Amoco, Medway Plantations, Cypress Gardens, and the Francis Marion National Forest. Community buy -in is better than mandates or regulations, because community support is lasting and sensitive to the economic value of the land, private property rights and responsibilities, and local home rule. STRI3TEGY: Engage key partners and the general public. By necessity, green infrastructure projects ncorporate the experiences and programs of diverse public, private and nonprofit partners. For this reason, it is critical to provide open forums that bring together key individuals, organizations and agencies to coordinate and help guide the activities that will make green nfrastructure a reality. To be successful, green nfrastructure initiatives must excite people, engage them at the start, and keep them nvolved. It is important to involve participants in the 24 � GREEN I� I�RASTRUCiU:e_ MONOGR�aIi 20 - Ga_n In��asaucTu�� Mouo�.=,;,2n Regional Initiatives � Chicago Wilderness Biodiversity Conservation Plan — a regional biodiversity conservation initiative developed by a public, private and nonprofit alliance and incorporating green infrastructure concepts and principles (www.chiwild.org/ biodiversiry.html) Twin Citres Minnesota Metro Greenways - a regional green infrastructure network design that identifies, protects and restores important ecological resource features in a multi -county metropolitan area (www.dncstate.mn.uslgreenprintl metro-green.h[ml) Portland, Oregon Metro Greenspace Program — a regional conservation initiative that protects and restores natural areas and recreational open spaces through a partnership of state, regional and local government agencies and nongovernmental community organiza- tion,> (w-vw.metro-region.org/parks,' parkfuture.html) Local and Community Initiatives Montgomery County, Maryland, Legacy Open Space — a comprehensive open space initiative that will target and protect exceptional resource lands over a 10 year period (www.mc-mncppe.org/legacy/ index.html). + Palm Beach County, Florida, Linked Open Space Network —Conservation Greenways/Wildlife Corridors — a community open space and land conservation effort that incorporates a system of conservation greenways. wildlife corridors, trails and other conservation and recreational spaces [hat benefit both the environment and the community (www.pbcgov.comlpzbl). Kinston!Lenoir County. North Carolina. Green Infrastructure Plan — a community green infrastructure plan encompassing conservation and recreation objectives as 26 r. Gpeery I!v� and z�c*uae MONOGRAPH Ai 4. F 11 •1.1 �� r �Fil i. References I. Edward T. McMahon. "Green Infrstrudure," Planning Commissioners Journal. Number 37. Winter 2000. 2. Charles E. Little, Qreenways jor America. The Johns Hookins University Press. Baltimore and Londen. 1989. 3. Charles E. Little. Greenways jor America, The Johns Hookins University Press, Baltimore and London. 1989. q. The President s Council on Sustainable Development. Towards a Sustainable America - P,dvcrcing Prosperity, Opportunity, and a Healthy Environment jor the 21st Century. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1999. 5. Benton MacKaye. The New Exploration - A Philosophy o/ Regional Planning, The Appalachian Trail Conference, Harpers Ferry, West Virginia and The University of Illinois Press. Urbana -Champaign, 1990. 6. United States Department of Agriculture. Natural Resource Conservation Service. National Resources Inventory. revised December 2000 (available at www.nhq.nres.usda.govlNRl)- 7. United States Census Bureau and Department of Health and Urban Development. American Housing Survey. 1997. 8. William Fulton. Rolf Pendall. Mai Nguyen and Alicia Harrison. Who Sprawls Most? How Growth Patterns Dij%r Across the U.S., The Brookings Institution, Survey Series. July 2001 (available at www.brook.edules/ urban/pubiirtions/fulton.pdp. 9. Fen Montaigne. "There Goes [he Neighborhood." Audubon. March -April 2000. 10. Chicago Wi(demess. Summary of the Biodiversiry Recovery Plan, f999 (available at www.chiwiid.orgl summary.himl). I I. American Farmland Trusi. see www.keepamericagrowing.org/ 2. William Riiton, Rolf PendzO. Mai Nguyen and Alicia Harrison, Who Sprawls Most? Now Growth Patterns DijJ2r Across Gee U.S.. The Brookings Institution. Survey Series. July 2001 (available a[ www.brook.edu/esl urban/publications/fulton.pdf). 13. For more information on the Florida and Maryland projects: T.S. Hoctor. M.H. Carr, and P.D. Zwick. 2000. "Identifying a Linked Reserve System Using a Regional Landscape Approach: The Florida Ecological Network." Conservation Biology Iq:q:98q-1000. T. Weber, and J. Wolf, 2000. "Maryland's Green Infrastructure -Using Landscape Assessment Tools to Identify a Regional Conservation Strategy." Environmental Monitoring andAssessment 63:265-277. 14. www.geoolan.ufl.edulepalindex.html 15. Mark Greene, "Topeka, Kansas: Getting Greener Gets thejob Done," Inside Agroforestry, lne USDA National Agroforestry Center Newsletter, Summer 2001. I6. John L. Behan. Planning and Financing Open Space Resource Protection - Pittsjord's Greenprint Initictiue. P,merican Institute of Certified Planners, Planners' Casebook. Spring/Summer 1999. 17. The Forida Greenways Commission, Creating a Statewide Greenways System.- For People._jor Wildlije...jor Florida, Report to the Governor. January 1995. I8. For more information on the Southeastern framework: B. Richard Durbrow, Neil B. Burns. John R. Richardson, and Cory W. 6erish, 200I. "Southeastern Ecological Framework: A Planning Tool for Managing Ecosystem Integrity." Proceedings o/the 2001 Georgia Weer Rescurces Conference. J. Hatcher. editor, Institute o(Ecology. The University of Georgia, Athens. Georgia. 19. httpJloregoniwo.(ws.govlgreenspaceslgs-program.h[m 20. vns�scgreeninLasiruc[ure.nedkins[on-lenoichtm o_ �- G� _-,�� I,u=r::.� �ucru=.=_ MO,VOGv��=H U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service innesota National Wildlife Refuge and Wetland Management District SZtmmary Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan May 2002 Contents Introduction................................................................ 2 Vital Statistics............................................4............... 2 Vision Statement......................................4....4...........4 3 Who We Are and What We Do ................................. 4 RefugeIssues............................................................. 4 Management Alternatives ......................................... 8 The Refuge Environment.............. ...... I'La'a ......... 4 ... 10 Airport Mitigation Projects ........................................ 13 Minnesota River Valley Protection Proposal ............. 14 Management Direction...............4.....4........................ 15 Plan Implementation'... ............ I ... 44 ... 44 .... 4 .... 19 Where You Can Find the Draft CCP .b......................... 20 Te11 Us What You Think .... ......... ..............I.................. 20 Introduction In the midst of 2.5 million people, down the road from the largest shopping mall n the nation, Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge is a small vestige of Minnesota wilderness. Bald Eagles nest here, Woodcock preen, and Black - crowned Night Herons stand poised on the edge of ponds, still as statues, waiting for the glint of an unlucky fish. Waterfowl nest here, and Tundra Swans rest up from a long migration. River otters play, beavers build their meticulous and highly effective dams, and foxes den within a few miles of the'Itvin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota. It is a truly unique place. Of the more than 500 national wildlife refuges managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) is one of only four urban refuges. Long Meadow Lake, the northern most unit of the Refuge, is just 10 miles south of downtowns Minneapolis. Vital Statistics Established in 1976, the Refuge was borne out of citizen concern for the diverse and abundant fish, wildlife, and plant communities of the Lower Minnesota River Valley. Today it consists of eight units along a 34-mile stretch of the Minnesota River located between historic Fort Snelling and the City of Jordan (a map of the refiage is provided on pages 10-11). The Savage Fen Unit is also located in the valley but is not immediately adjacent to the river. About 12,000 acres of the authorized 14,000 acres are currently owned or managed as part of the Refuge. Some areas are not owned by the Service but are administered through management agree - menu. The Refuge was established by Congress through the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge Act (Public Law 94-466; October 8, 19i6). In general, its pro- poses are to (1) provide habitat for a large number of migratory waterfowl, fish, and other wildlife species; (2) to provide environmental education, wildlife recreational opportunities, and interpretive programs for hundreds of thousands of'I\vin Cities residents; (3) to protect important natural resource areas from degradation; and to (4) protect the valley's unique social, educational, and envi- ronmental assets. The Round Lake Unit is a 152-acre tract containing a large permanent wetland located in the City of Arden Hills. The unit is administered as a remote part of the Refuge. Unless stated otherwise, the use of the term "Refuge" in this document refers to all Refuge units including Round Lake and the Savage Fen. An estimated 300,000 visitors annually visit the Refuge and its associated waterfowl production areas for a variety of reasons, including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and interpretive programs. Minnesota Valley is truly a place where modern technology and development coexist with some of nature's most primitive and timeless rhythms of life. Minnesota Valley Wetland Management District The Refuge is also responsible for a I4-county reg on known as the 1nnesota Valley Wetland Management District (District). It currently consists of more than 5,000 acres of waterfowl production areas and conservation easements. District activities, plus a very active Partners for Fish and Wildlife program, are seamlessly applied within the watershed to complement the Refuge as well as other important natural areas associated with the Minnesota River and the Cannon River watersheds. A map of the District is provided on page 10. The Distr ct was established in 1988 when the Great LakesBig Rivers Reg on of the Service implemented its broad -based Partners for Fish and Wildlife program (then called "Partners for Wildlife"). Between 1988 and 1994, several Farmers Aome Administration easements within this 14-county district were assigned to Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge for management purposes. The District's primary purpose is to administer a complex of wetlands, grasslands, and limited amount of forests that provide good habitat for waterfowl, grassland nesting birds, and associated species. Second - objectives of the District include providing wildlife - pendent recreation, wildlife interpretation, and environmental education to area citizens. In addition, the restoration of wildlife habitats on fee, easement, and private lands contributes to the restoration and protection of the Minnesota River watershed as well as the Cannon River in the Mississippi River drainage basin. Vision Statement The Refuge and the District will add richness to the social, cultural, economic, and ecological commun ties by holding in public trust, a portion of the natural heritage of the Minnesota River Basin and the Cannon River Watershed for the continuing benefit of the American people. Within its area of influence, the Refuge and District will make significant contributions toward: ■ Establishing an unbroken corridor of floodplain and hillside forest, wetlands, oak savanna, and native prairie along the Minnesota River beginning at historic Fort Snelling and proceeding up river to its origin at Big Stone Lake; ■ IVIanaging diverse and abundant native fish and Nvzldlife populations that use healthy and productive native plant communities of the ivIinnesota River and its watershed plus the Cannon River and its watershed; ■ Providing Minnesota citizens the opportunity to revitalize their spirits through high quality wildlife -dependent recreation such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental educa- tion, and interpretation; ■ Supporting acommunity-based effort where citizens, businesses, private conservation organizations, and local, state, and federal agencies com- bine their efforts to restore and protect the Minnesota and Cannon rivers and their watersheds for fixture generations. Who We Are and What We Do The Refuge and District are administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the primary federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing the nation's fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. The Service oversees the enforcement of federal wildlife laws, management and protection of migra- tory bird populations, restoration of nationally significant fisheries, administra- tion of the Endangered Species Act, and the restoration of wildlife habitat such as wetlands. The Service also manages the National Wildlife Refuge System. Refuge and District lands are part of the National Wildlife Refuge System, rh ch was founded in 1903 when President Theodore Roosevelt designated Pelican Island in Florida as a sanctuary for brown pelicans. Today, the System is a network of over 500 refuges covering more than 93 million acres of public lands and waters. Most of these lands (82 percent) are in Alaska, with approximately 16 million acres located in the lower 48 states and several island territories. The National Wildlife Refuge System is the w-orld's largest collection of lands specifically managed for fish and wildlife. Overall, it provides habitat for more than 5,000 species of birds, mammals, fish, and insects. Refuges also provide unique opportunities for people. When it is compatible with wildlife and habitat conservation, they are places where people can enjoy wild- life -dependent recreation such as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photogra- phy, environmental education, and environmental interpretation. Many refuges have visitor centers, wildlife trails, automobile tours, and environmental educa- tion programs. Nationwide, approximately 30 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 1997. Refuge Issues As an urban refuge, Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge faces a variety of challenges related to how habitat is managed for wildlife, how wildlife is managed for biological and human consid- erations, and how people use the refuge. Numerous discussions among citizens, focus group participants, resource specialists, and Refuge planning staff revealed recurring themes that are dis- cussed in the following paragraphs. Refuge Recreational Use Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge provides a variety of wildlife -dependent recreational uses including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental educa- tion and interpretation. Overall, many participants identified a need for greater public understanding and appreciation of the Refuge and District lands and the recreational opportunities thev offer. This need can be addressed in several ways, including enhanced communications through appropriate brochures, web sites, signage, visitor center exhibitry, and high quality recreational programming. A number of recreational issues became apparent during the planning process and deserve further discussion. Specific recreational concerns, issues, and opportunities are summarized as follows: Eliminate Confusing Rules and Regulations Due in part to the land ownership patterns within the Minnesota River Valley, there is a great deal of public confusion about what type of recreation is appro- priate on Refuge lands and where this recreation is allowed. This perplexity is compounded by several issues including inconsistent use regulations among public land management agencies, lack of appropriate signs and brochures, a limited law enforcement presence, and the yet to be completed Minnesota Valley State Trail. It was recognized that the first steps toward addressing this very important issue are enhanced interagency coordination and a commitment by all public land managers to address this issue. Compete the Minnesota Valley State Trail The Minnesota Valley State Trail has not been completed as originally planned. Although the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) is making progress toward this end, several significant trail sections through Refuge lands await completion. To some degree, the absence of this multiple -use trail has lead to some inappropriate uses of Refuge lands. For example, a myriad of informal and un-maintained trails have been established in several locations within the valley between Old Cedar Avenue and Lyndale Avenue. Likewise, the absence of bridges and trail crossings over streams and creeks has contrib- uted to the development of numerous braided trails by those seeking access across these obstructions. Without an established and maintained trail, it has been difficult to restrict public use along this corridor and limit damage to adjacent fragile natural habitats. There are several reasons why the Minnesota Valley State Trail has not been completed including limited funding, unwilling sellers of keys tracts, and perhaps lack of public support. Its completion has also been recently complicated by a local debate over the proposed trail surface. More specifically, many mountain bike enthusiasts have expressed opposition to a hard surfaced and/or paved trail. Hardened trail surfaces were called for in the original Comprehensive Plan to provide access for elderly or disabled individuals. We hope that preparation of this plan will prompt a renewed effort by citizens, public agencies, private conservation organizations, and recreational users of the vaHey to place a high priority on the completion of the Minnesota Valley State ,ail. Upon its completion, there is great potential for recreational users of this trail to develop an enhanced appreciation for the cultural and natural resource vaInes of the Refuge as well as the greater Minnesota River Valley. Continue High -quality Hunting and fishing Ooportunities Although not endorsed by everyone, there was strong support among stake holders to continue hunting and fishing programs on Refuge and District lands. Consistent with requests to maintain these activities, the need to offer high quality recreational experiences to Refuge users was frequently expressed throughout the planning process. For example, public waterfowl hunting as it now occurs on Rice Lake is characterized by over -crowding and a great deal of competition between hunters. Likewise, this area is notable for hunting viola- tions that occur each year including the killing of tundra swans, late shooting, and the use of lead shot. In this particular case, some people suggested improving the quality of this experience by initiating an adult hunter education program and (Smiting the number of hunters allowed to hunt Rice Lake at any one time. Resolve Conflicts Between Mountain Biking and Other Visitors A very vocal and organized mountain biking group expressed the desire to continue using much of the N'finnesota River Valley for mountain biking. The rugged terrain and undeveloped landscape of the valley has attracted a growing number of bikers who use the new heavy -framed bikes designed to traverse rough and uneven terrain. With the exception of one semi-official trail estab- lished on City of Bloomington property, no mountain bike trails have been designated or developed in this area. As a result, some mountain bike enthusi- asts took it upon themselves to establish a continuous trail between the Bloomington Ferry Bridge and Lyndale Avenue. Much of this single tract trail crosses both Refuge and private lands without authorization. Several comments were received about the use of mountain bikes on Refuge lands and conflicts with other Refuge visitors. For example, bird watchers and nature photographers have encountered aggressive mountain bikers on Refuge trails. In many cases, these pedestrians were forced off hiking trails by these bikers. On a related issue, some people noted the excessive and unchecked erosion that currently exists in the Bloomington Bluffs area of the Refuge northeast of Lyndale Avenue. This natural resource degradation is due, in part, to improperly designed trails and off -trail usage by some mountain bikers. Resolve Issues Related to Horseback Ridino Horseback riding is currently limited on the Refuge to those portions transected by the Minnesota Valley State Trail and a small, unofficial trail around Fisher Lake on the Wilkie Unit. In light of the popularity of this activity, a number of equestrians attended the open houses to express their desire to maintain and possibly expand riding opportunities on Refuge lands. Most of the requests came from people who live upstream from Shakopee and who currently use portions of the State Trail for this pastime. Several individuals suggested that any new lands added to the Refuge allow for horseback riding. Environmental Education and Interpretation Several comments were received in support of the Refuge's existing environ- mental education and interpretive programs. Some people suggested program modifications or improvements through enhanced partnerships and cooperation with other agencies, non-profit organizations, industry and neighboring landown- ers. It was also suggested that new sources of volunteers could be developed to improve educational and interpretive programs as well as other Refuge activi- ties. More importantly, many people suggested that a renewed effort to strengthen partnerships with schools throughout the area would greatly benefit the Refuge. Refuge Biology and Habitat Management A thorough understanding of the biological communities and their processes is fundamental to sound fish and wildlife habitat management. Many stakeholders under- stand this concept and consequently, several expressed a strong desire to enhance the capability of the Refuge biological program. Among other items, participants recommended a comprehensive inventory of the flora and fauna, especially rare remnant native plant and animal communities existing on Refuge and District lands. The group acknowledged the importance of continuing F.efuge and District habitat management programs such as prescribed burning and marsh manage- ment, consistent with well prepared habitat management plans. Future efforts should include plans for target species such as neotropical migrants and the control of exotic plant and animal species. It was also recommended that scien- tifically -based monitoring programs be designed and implemented to document changes in plant and animal communities in response to habitat management. Refuge Land Acquisition and Watershed Activities Vlany stakeholders understood that the health and vitality of many natural resource areas, including Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, is very dependent upon the overall health of its watershed. In light of this, the Refuge was encouraged to continue its work within the watershed of the Minnesota River in cooperation with many others. In particular, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and the acquisition of Waterfowl Production Areas and ease- ments were believed to be very beneficial for a host of species and resource concerns. Concurrent with the need to work within the watershed, many stakeholders suggested expanding the Refuge upstream by acquiring lands from willing sellers that would provide good quality wildlife habitat. Many suggested that adjacent hillside forest and bluff land should be acquired along with floodplain parcels to ensure long-term biological values of the Minnesota River Valley. External Threats and Conflicts Because of its urban location, the Refuge is subject to numer- ous threats and conflicts to its lands and natural resources. As the Twin Cities population increases, so does the demand to use any available open space for dissipation of noise, installa- tion of utilities, and drainage of storm waters. Other potential conflicts include incompatible land use and development, toxic spills, and general degradation of the river and its watershed. Several stakeholders expressed their concern throughout the planning process about these threats and conveyed their views about how they should be addressed. Although the Service, as an agency, only plays a minor role in all of these issues, it was believed that the Refuge needs to continue to cooper- ate and communicate with developers and city/county planners to avoid or minimize any potential threats. Mosquito Control Since I93S, the Refuge has prohibited treatment of its lands for mosquitoes except in the case of a health emergency. The policy was implemented after the Defenders of Wildlife and other environmental organizations filed a suit against the Service for allowing control of mosquitoes on Refuge lands. An out -of -court settlement was reached after the Service agreed to conduct an environmental review of its program. Following the completion of an environmental assessment and because of potential negative environmental effects, the Service adopted a policy that allows treatment on the refuge to occur only in the event of a human health emergency. Since the policy was adopted. there has not been a human health emergency associated with mosquitoes on the Refuge. Maintenance of Refuge and District Infrastructure 'Phe Refuge and its facilities are considered some of the finest in the area and most stakeholders believe that they need to be maintained at a high standard. E15 The Refuge Environment All lands administered by Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge are located n east central Minnesota. This portion of the State is characterized by the confluences of the Minnesota and the St. Croix rivers with the Mississippi River. The Cannon River and the Vermillion River, both smaller tributaries of the Mississippi, are also located in east central Minnesota. These river systems lend a great deal of historic sign ficance to this part of Minnesota. Today it is the most populous portion of the State with more than 2.5 million citizens living within the seven -county rAvin Cities metropolitan area. Its continued growth places additional development pressure on any remaining open space and natm•al resources. Consequently, many natural resource agencies and non-profit conservation organizations are doing what they can to save the most important natural resource sites in this area from development. The Minnesota River The river units of the Refuge lie along a 34-mile stretch of the lower portion of the Minnesota River between historic Fort Snelling and the City of Jordan. Approximately 90 percent of the Refuge is located within the 100-year flood - plain, and wetlands within the floodplain are very productive and of considerable mportance to waterfowl and waterbirds. The Minnesota River is the largest tributary of the Upper Mississippi River. From its source near Big Stone Lake in western Minnesota, the Minnesota flows southeast for 224 rrles to Mankato, then northeast for 106 miles to its confluence with the Mississippi River at Fort Snelling. It transects the Minneapolis -St. Paul metropolitan area in a northeast direction and contains lands typical of an urban to rural continuum. The watershed of the Minnesota River is approximately 16,900 square miles, of which 2,000 square miles are located in South Dakota and Iowa. Most of the area was historic tallgrass prairie with high densities of prairie potholes. Since development, modern day agriculture has converted over 99 percent and 90 percent of its historic grasslands and wetlands, respectively, to cropland. Due in part to this dramatic change in land use, the Minnesota River is subject to frequent flooding that has precluded most development within its floodplain. Although water quality seems to be improving, the Minnesota River remains the most silt -laden and pol- luted tributary of the Upper Mississippi River. Other sources of pollution that may affect the Minnesota River and its associated resources include leachates from landfills, storm water runoff, and untreated municipal waste. Situated in the lower portion of the Minnesota River, the Refuge and its physical, biological, cultural, and historical features are greatly affected by the river's distinct personality. Plant Communities Wetlands Refuge units contain a variety of wetlands ranging from shallow we meadows and calcareous fens to perma- nently flooded mixed emergent marshes. Nearly all of these wetlands are spring fed and most of these large The map shown above illusnntes t{te boundaries of Alinnesola Valle v National Wildlife Reftge mid identifies the individual Reftge units. The map to the left identifies the locations of Watetfoo l Production Areas that are Part of the Minnesota Geller TT,Mand Alanagenent Dist ict. EadsCounties N Lakes Major Ro r verine basins are sur- rounded by mature cotton- wood, willow, silver maple, and box elder. Many species of waterfowl, marsh, and waterbirds are attracted to the resulting hemi marsh conditions in search of food and cover. Purple loos- estrife, although not found universally, does occur in some of these wetlands and is a major concern. The Waterfowl Production Areas and easements Iccated within the District are characterized by temporary, seasonally flooded, and semiperma- nent emergent and cattail marshes. The productivity of these wetlands is gener- ally high due to periodic drought and recharging. The value of these areas to birds, mamals, reptiles, amphibians, and inverte- bratesincreases as the diversity of wetland types increases within any geographic area. ° s Miles � � Forests _ Floodplain forests histori- cally dominated much of the ---- floodplain along the Minne- sota River and its tributar- es. Today, this plant community remains on several of the Refuge river units and a few Waterfowl Production Areas. Typical tree species found in these seasonally flooded areas include silver maple, cottonwood, American elm, green ash, boxelder, and occasionally, bur oak. Oak forests dominated by northern pin and white oaks are the most common upland forest community on the Refuge. These stands occur on nutrient -poor hillsides and well -drained sandy soils along the Minnesota River Valley. The control of European buckthorn, a prolific exotic in some of these plant communities, is a very significant challenge. Since 1994, several oak savanna restoration sites have been identified on the Refuge. ReAo- ration has been initiated on these sites through a rigorous combination of me- chanical treatment and prescribed burning. Initial results are encouraging as evidenced by the return of a diverse understory of native grasses and forbs. Grasslands atiye grassland restoration has occurred on upland sites of Refitge units, Waterfowl Production Areas, easements, and associated private lands for man- years. Former croplands are typically planted to native grass mixtures consist- ing of big bluestem, little bluestem, s pitch grass, side oats grama, and Canada %gild rye. A mixture offorbs is also planted to enhance the biological diversity of many of these sites. Fish and Wildlife Communities The habitats described above support an array of wildlife species that are common to east central Minnesota. A rich diversity of birds, mammals, fish. reptiles, and amphibians inhabit lands administered by Minnesota Valley N a- tional Wildlife Refuge. Birds The Refuge and its associated District attracts more than 260 species each year to its diverse habitats. Of these, over 120 are known to nest in the area. Common waterfowl of the area include Canada Goose, Mallard, Wood Duck, Green -winged Teal, Gadwall, and American Wigeon. Waterfowl concentrate on Refuge and District wetlands during spring and fall. Marsh and waterbirds frequently observed in the valley and surrounding areas include Great Egrets, Double -crested Cormorants, Great Blue Heron, Green Heron, and Black -crowned Night- Heron. A heron rookery consisting of an estimated 750 nest sites exists on the Willie Unit. The most prolific species of this colony are Great Blue Herons and Great Egrets. Exposed mud flats on Refuge riverbanks and Waterfowl Production Area wetlands attract shorebirds including Greater and Lesser Yellowlegs and Spotted Sandpiper. Both Common Snipe and American Woodcock are commonly found on these lands as well. Neo-tropical mib •ants attracted to forested habitats include nighthawk, wood thrush, vireo, and several warbler species. Year-round residents include Downy, Hairy, Pileated and Red -bellied Woodpecker; Wild Turkey; and Ring-necked Pheasant. Birds of prey inhabiting Refuge lands include Red-tailed Hawk, American kestrel, Sharp -shinned Hawk and Cooper's Hawk, Mammals At least 50 mammals occur on Refirge lands as year-round resi- dents and the most risible of these, of course, is the whitetail deer. Mammals attracted to aquatic habitats include mink, muskrat, raccoon and beaver. As with most refuges, relatively high popula- tions of bearer tend to complicate water management activities. River otter, once nearly eliminated in this area, are now occasion- ally seen utilizing Refuge wetlands and river banks. Small mammals typical of this area include short -tail shrew, white- footed mouse, thirteen -lined ground squirrel, and plains pocket gopher. Eastern chipmunks plus eastern gray, eastern fox, and red squirrels are commonly founded in forested habitats. Both big and little brown bats use the Refuge and its associated lands. Red fox are the most common carnivores of the area followed by coyote and gray fox. Fish The Rinnesota Ricer is inhabited by an ar-r•ay of fish including game species such as northern pike, large mouth bass, walleye, bluegill, and crappie. Other species nclude shovel nose sturgeon, catfish, and red horse. Like most other fresh water systems in the United States, high populations of carp inhabit the Minnesota River. Reptiles and Amphibians Thirty species of reptiles and amphibians have been reported on the Refuge but little is known about their populations or their limit ng factors. Many of these, such as the snapping and painted turtles, are associated with marsh and open waters while others, such as the common garter snake and the hognosed snake, occur in oak savanna and prairie. People and the Refuge The Refuge is an outstanding resource for people seeking both knowledge and solace. It is estimated that up to 300,000 people visit Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge annually. Visitors enjoy a variety of activities, including six that are recognized as priority public uses on national wildlife refuges: hunting, fishing, wildlife photography, wildlife observation, environmental interpretation and environmental education. The Refuge visitor center contains nearly 8,000 square feet of exhibit space, a 120-seat auditorium, two multi -purpose education rooms, a resource library, a hearth room, a bookstore, and administrative offices. The visitor center also has an art gallery where local artists display works related to natural resources. Refuge staff and volunteers conduct many education and observation oriented activities every month. The Waterfowl Production Areas within the Minnesota Valley Wetland Manage- ment District also provide local communities with the opportunity to participate in wildlife -dependent recreation and environmental education. All Waterfowl Production Areas are open to hunting and fishing consistent with state regula- tions. To a limited degree, Waterfowl Production Areas are used for bird watch- ng, wildlife interpretation and environmental education. Airport Mitigation Projects Background At the direction of the Minnesota State Legislattue, the Metropolitan Airpm-ts Commission (MAC) will construct a new norh-south runway on existing a r port property. The new runway will be constructed on the west side of the airport roughly parallel to Cedar Avenue. Although the south threshold of the runway w 11 be nearly 1 mile away from Refuge lands, the use of this runway will result n overflights, on average, every other minute between 500 and 1,000 feet above the river valley. The impact of these overflights to the Refuge and its various programs is significant. Although current literature is not conclusive concerning the impacts of overflights on area wildlife, there is no question that the noise generated from these flights will significantly affect noise -sensitive public use activities such as bird watching, environmental education, and nature hikes. Following lengthy negotiations, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to a cash settlement of $20,090,000 to compensate for damages associated to Refiige facilities and programs. As specified in the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife P.efuge Funding Agreement dated September 14, 1999, a non-profit organization would be established to administer these funds and to serve as a mitigation agent o work on behalf of MAC. In close coordination and cooperation with the Ser- vice, mitigation activities to be accomplished include but are not limited to: (1) Acquisition of a minimum of 4,090 acres of lands within an area identified as appropriate, and malting such lands available for environmental education and wildlife -dependent recreational opportunities as part of the Refuge. (2) Construction and development of a visitor and education center on the Rapids Lake L'nit or another suitable location approved by the Service on Refuge lands; and J4: - 3) Construction of visitor access, environmental education, and wildlife interpretive facilities at suitable locations approved by the Service. On August 01, 2000, the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge II ust, Inc. Trust) was formally established for the primary purpose of administering these funds and completing Refuge mitigation projects. Consistent with prior agree- ments, MAC transferred $26,090,000 into the account of the Trust. The Trust's Board of Directors includes a representative of the following organizations: Friends of the Minnesota Valley, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, National Audubon Society, Minnesota Waterfowl Association, and the Minnesota River Joint Powers Board. Use of Funds The cash settlement is to be upended on mitigation projects for Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge. As a general rule, the Trust will expend these funds as follows: Approximately 60 percent of the Tivst and earnings generated thereof will be spent on acquiring and restoring new lands for the Refuge within the Minnesota River Watershed. Additional Refuge units will be identi- fied and of these, no fewer than 4,090 additional acres will be acquired from willing sellers using these funds. Up to 25 percent of funds desig- nated for land acquisition may also be used to acquire high priority Vdaterfowl Production Areas within the watershed of the Minnesota River. Approximately 20 percent of the '1]•ust and earnings generated thereof will be spent on public use facilities such as an environmental education center, trails, wildlife interpretive sites, and associated support facilities. Some of these facilities will be constructed on existing Refuge lands while the remainder will be placed on new lands acquired with mitigation funding. Approximately 20 percent of the Trust and earnings generated thereof may be spent on planning for new lands and facilities, plus the operation of the new environmental education facilities. As of 2001, up to $250,000 of the Trust can be spent annually on these items. Under no circum- stances should funds from the Trust be used to replace or supplant the Refuge's existing operational funds. The full draft CCP lists projects that have been designated as airport mitigation projects. They include the acquisition of lands, the construction of the environ- mental education center and interpretive facilities, plus intern housing and a Refuge residence. Minnesota River Valley Protection Proposal The poor water quality of the Minnesota River has received a great deal of attention in recent years from conservation agencies, non-profit groups and the media. Runoff from agricultural operations in the watershed and storm water events from adjacent developments contribute significant amounts of sediments and chemicals into the river. However, commercial and residential development ontinues to be the most imminent threat to wildlife habitats in the valley. After considerable study, the Refuge is proposing to expand its boundary by up to o67000 acres. In 1991, the Service proposed a 6,445-acre addition to Minnesota Valley National wildlife Refuge. The primary purpose of the expansion proposal was to provide a contiguous corridor of habitat from Fort Snelling upstream to LeSueur, Minne- sota, a distance of 60 river miles. During public meetings concerning this pro- posal, the Service received recommendations to evaluate the feasibility of including important habitats further upstream along the Minnesota River, possibly as far as New Ulm, Minnesota. At the same time, an interagency planning team commissioned by the Governor of Minnesota began work on the broader task of making recommendations for protection of habitat and improving water quality throughout the entire Minnesota River watershed. Beginning in October 1994, the Service decided to suspend further work on a Refuge expansion assessment pending the outcome of this study and further development of public support for restoration and protection of existing habitats of the Minnesota River. Concun•ent with the Service's initiative to expand the Refuge in the early 1990s, a citizens advisory group was convened by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to develop recommen- dations for the restoration of the Minnesota River. In Decem- ber 1994, the group's final product, known as Working Together: A Plan to Restore the A/linnesota River, was released to the public. Along with other recommendations, this plan identified the need to restore and protect up to 200,000 acres of Minne- sota River floodplain habitat between Fort Snelling and Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge. The plan also identified the need to restore riparian and wetland habitat in the watershed of the Minnesota River and its associated tributaries. in 1998, the Refuge began the process of comprehensive conservation planning. Public comment obtained during initial open houses and focus group meetings again confirmed a high level of interest in refuge expansion. The planning team decided to explore a larger role for the Refuge in the Minnesota River Valley. The decision to mote forward with this proposal also coincides with a unique opportun ty brought by the airport mitigation fiords. If the Refuge proceeds with the proposal, potential new refuge units would be selected by a set of cr terra based on the site's potential to provide habitat for m gratory birds, threatened and endangered species, or rare plant communities. At this time, the Service has identified some general areas with high resource values and a few parcels that could serve as 'anchors' for new units. However, no boundaries have been drawn for potential refuge units. We are seeking com- ments on the proposed expansion during the public review period for the draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment. Management Direction Goals, objectives and strategies for the Minnesota Valley National �Cildlife Refuge and Wetland Management District were developed with the participation of many citizens, cooperating agencies, conservation organizations, and Refuge staff. The following pages describe the goals established for major management areas and summarize how we propose to achieve those goals. The goals are organized into the broad categories of Biological, Land Protection, and Public Use. Biological Goals Floodplain Forest Goal: Restore, protect and maintain natural species diversity while emphasizing priority wildlife and plants characteristic of floodplain forests within the northern tallgrass prairie ecosystem. The forested floodplain of the Minnesota P.iver %alley provides migration and production habitat for several bird species that are signifi- cant locally or are included in the Region 3 Regional Conservation Priority list. These species include Bald Eagles, Red-headed Woodpeckers, Red -shouldered Hawks, Wood Ducks, Great Blue Herons, and Black -crowned Night Herons. By 2017, we ntend to provide an additional 4,700 acres of this habitat along the Minnesota River and its tributaries to benefit a wide range of avian species. Wetland Goal: Restore, protect and maintain natural species diversity while emphasizing priority fish, wildlife and plants characteristic of wetlands within the northern tallgrass prairie ecosystem. Refuge and District wetlands contribute migration and production habitat for waterfowl, waterbirds, and shorebirds. Floodplain and riverine wetlands located on the Refuge also provide important spawning and nursery habitats for resident fish. By 2017, we intend to provide 7,400 acres of wetlands within the floodplain of the Minnesota River and 4,600 acres of prairie pothole wetlands in the Wet- land Management District to benefit priority waterfowl species, marsh, shore and wading birds, and healthy aquatic ecosystems. We will control and ultimately reduce the distribution of e.xotic plant species on wetlands, pr mar ly through biological control methods. Tools will include releasing and monitoring purple loosestrife beetles and seeking methods to reduce giant reed grass existing on the Refuge. Both to address aircraft safety concerns and to allow effective wetland management, we will maintain beaver and Canada Geese populations at levels that are sup- ported by available habitat. We will maintain Round Lake at full basin water level (2001 level) to provide migration habitat for Bald Eagles and waterfowl. We will maintain the capability to actively manage water levels in the future upon assurances that periodic drawdowms and reflooding would not cause undue risk to the ecosystem. Upland Forest Goal: Restore, protect, and maintain natural species diversity while emphasizing priority wildlife and plants characteristic of upland forests within the northern tallgrass prairie ecosystem. Upland forests, primarily those located along the bluffs of the river valley, provide migration and production habitat for several species of songbads that are significant locally or are included in the Region 3 Regional Conservation Priority list. Within the Wetland Management District, we will provide 1,000 acres of upland forest along the Minnesota River in 50-acre or larger blocks by 2017. We will control and ultimately reduce the distribution of exotic plant species on upland forests, primarily through biological control methods. We will ask volunteers and youth groups to help with hand cutting to reduce the distribution of European buckthorn in forested areas. We will address safety concerns and allow effective land management by controlling wildlife populations at levels that are consistent w th available habitat. When it is necessary and feasible, we will allow public hunting of white-tailed deer to maintain populations of 15-25 deer per square mile. Grasslands and Oak Savanna Goal: Restore, protect and maintain natural species diversity while emphasizing priority grassland -dependent wildlife and plants characteristic of the northern tallgrass prairie ecosystem. Refuge and District grasslands, especially those within the uplands of Waterfowl Production Areas, have the potential to provide benefits for birds that require large blocks of grasslands for nesting success and population viability. Oak savannas, historically found throughout the Minnesota River Valley, also afford critical habitat for some of these birds. By 2017, we will provide 800 acres of original native prairie and 8,700 acres of restored native grasses in block sizes larger than 50 acres and with varying grass height, density and grass/forb ratios. We will control the spread of and ultimately reduce the distribution of exotic or nuisance plant species, primarily through biological control methods. Land Protection Goal Enhance the integrity of lands within the authorized boundary of the Refuge and contribute to the protection and restoration of fish and wildlife habitats within the Minnesota River watershed. Over the next 15 years, we intend to achieve the appropriate conservation status necessary for permanent protection and management viability of any remain ng lands within the original authorized boundary. In cooperation with many others, we will contribute to the restoration of the Minnesota River by acquiring, tlu•ough fee or easement, up to 36,000 additional acres of high quality fish and wildlife habitat within or adjacent to the Minnesota River Valley beyond the existing Refuge boundary and proceeding upstream to New Ulm, Minnesota. We intend to use'hvst funds to acquire no less than 4,090 of those acres in order to satisfy airport mitigation settlement requirements. We will make a concerted effort to leverage all land acquisition funding with programs such as the Wet- land Restoration Prog1 am, North American Wetlands Conservation Act, Conservation Reserve Enhance- ment Program and Reinvest in Minnesota. In addition, we will work cooperatively with commu- nities to correct existing impacts and avoid firture impacts to Refuge flora and fauna resulting from development of neighboring lands. We will cork Nrith Friends of the Minnesota Vallev to increase land- owner participation in private land stewardship. Within the Minnesota Wetland Management District, we intend to acquire, restore and manage an additional 10,000 acres of fee and easement lands. We will work with others to locate funding for land acquisition and habitat restoration. In partnership with others, we will restore 1,000 acres of habitat located on private lands through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. We will work with a wide range of organizations and individuals to further conservation efforts on private land. Refuge lands harbor rich cultural, historic and prehistoric resources, and we will continue to protect these resources on existing Refuge and District lands as well as newly acquired land. Public Use Goal Provide high -quality wildlife -dependent recreational and environmental education opportunities to a diverse audience. These activities will promote understanding, appre- ciation and support for Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Wetland Manage- ment District as well as the entire National Wildlife Refuge System. The Refuge exists because people cared about habitat and wildlife, so we feel a strong commitment to fostering enthusiasm for the natural environment and conservation. We will work to ensure that priority public uses are avail- able on the Refuge and District lands and that people have a rewarding experience. People who enjoy hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, wildlife interpre- tation and environmental education experiences will know that they have been on a national wildlife refuge, they will enjoy the experience, and they will have a stronger desire to protect fish and wildlife habitats. Inappropriate public use activities degrade habitat and decrease other people's ability to enjoy pr or ty public uses. For a number of reasons, including a collective inability to complete the State nail, portions of the river valley and the Bloomington Bluffs have been used for several years by mountain biking enthusiasts. This area is very popular and, due to extensive and virtually unrestricted mountain bike use, considerable bluff and trail erosion has occurred over time. Unfortunately, sign ficant unauthorized mountain biking currently occurs on Refuge lands. This situation must be corrected in the near future if we are to remain responsible natural resource managers. Accordingly, within the next year we will work with the City of Bloomington, mountain biking organizations and others to eliminate inappropri- ate biking on Refuge lands and work to concentrate this activity on designated trails onlv. A limited amount of horseback riding occurs on Refuge lands beyond the State •ail. Some of it occurs on specific trails on both the Wilkie and Louisville Swamp units consistent with the 1984 Master Plan. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 called for a focus on wildlife -dependent activities and a re-examination of other recreational uses. Horseback riding is not considered to be a wildlife -dependent activity and may conflict with other priority recreational uses. In light of the Act, the Refuge will limit horseback riding to lands that are part of the State Trail System. Volunteers are an integral part of Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge. We will provide a very visible and dynamic cadre of volunteers and interns to assist in all aspects 0f Refiige and District operations. Accomplishing our public use goal demands excellent public use facilities. We will set high standards for maintaining the facilities that exist now and we will develop outstanding new facilities that promote public advocacy of wildlife and habitat. This includes making existing facilities more accessible to disabled people, constructing new facilities on or near the Rapids Lake Unit, working w th others to complete the Minnesota State Trail, working with communities on interpretive facilities, and adding staff who can assist in planning and conducting new environmental programming. Plan Implementation This draft comprehensive conservation plan outlines an ambitious couu•se of action for the future management of Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and the Wetland Management District. Achieving the goals set out in this plan will require considerable staff commitment as well as funding commitment to acquire more wildlife habitats, to maintain existing public use facilities and develop outstanding new facilities. To fully implement the comprehensive conservation plan, we will need to adcl 10.5 full-time equivalent positions to the Refuge and District staff. Partnership Opportunities Pautnerships have become an essential element for the suc- cessful accomplishment of Refuge and Wetland District goals, objectives and strategies. The objectives outlined in this plan need the support and the partnerships of federal, state and local agencies, non -governmental organizations and individual citizens. This broad -based approach to managing fish and wildlife resources extends beyond social and political bound- aries and requires a foundation of support from many organiza- tions and people. We will continue to seek creative partnership opportunities to achieve our vision for the future. Monitoring and Evaluation Tlu•oughout the life of this plan we will monitor our progress on achieving the goals, objectives and strategies it establishes. On a periodic basis, the Service will evaluate Refuge activities in light of the plan. Plan Review and Revision This plan is intended to provide guidance to P.efuge managers and staff for the nest 15 years. It is also intended to be a dynamic and flexible document. How- ever, many of the strategies are susceptible to funding availability, and others can be derailed by such things as drought, extreme floods, windstorms and other acts of nature. Because of these factors, the recommendations included in the comprehensive conservation plan w-ill be reviewed pe7�odically and, if necessary, revised to meet new circumstances. Where You Can Find the CCP You can see the complete draft comprehensive conservation plan in a number of places. If you have access to the Internet, you can find a link to the plan at the following address: http://rnidwest.f\vs,gov/planning/Mnvtop.htm Paper copies of the draft comprehensive conservation plan are also available in a limited supply. Please call the Refuge at 952/854-5900 to request a copy. Copies of the plan are also available at local libraries, including: Bloomington / Oxboro Bloomington / PennLake Arden Hills Eden Prairie Eagan Burnsville Savage Shakopee Chanhassen Chaska Carver Jordan Faribault Gaylord Belle Plaine Henderson Le Sueur St. Peter North Mankato Mankato New Ulm Tell Us What You Think Public participation is the cornerstone of comprehensive conservation planning. By letting us know what you think of the draft plan, you can help the Refuge develop a plan that accomplishes conservation goals and fulfills the needs of people visiting Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Wetland Management District. We want to know if you feel we have addressed the key . issues facing the Refuge and District, and whether we have missed any issues. For example, are there opportu- nities for land protection or habitat management or public use that we have failed to recognize? In reviewing the management alternatives, do you agree with our selection of a preferred alternative? A public review period follows the release of the draft comprehensive conserva- tion plan and this summary. You are invited to submit comments electronically through our web site (http://midwest.fws.gov/planning/index.htm) or in writing. Comments are welcome at any stage tlu•oughout this planning effort, but in order for us to consider your comment as we prepare the final comprehensive conservation plan, we need to hear from you by July 1, 2002. Correspondence should be mailed to: U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service Minnesota Valley NWR and Wetland Management District Attention: CCP Comment 3815 East 80th Street Bloomington, MN 55425-1600