Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan

Transcription

Crow Wing County
Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan
November 8, 2005
Acknowledgements
Crow Wing County Parks Department
Michael Kearns, Director
Rachel Trebesch, Senior Technical Clerk
Mark Rudningen, Parks Foreman
Alan Smith, Parks Maintenance Worker
Michael Volk, Parks Maintenance Worker
Crow Wing County Land Department
Tom Cowell, Director
Crow Wing County Board of Commissioners
Dewey Tautges, District 1
Ed Larsen, District 2
Terry Sluss, District 3
Gary Walters, District 4
John “Jinx” Ferrari, District 5
Crow Wing County Parks Advisory Commission
Jon Henke, Chair, District 2
Roger Landers, Vice Chair, Trails Advocate
Greg Smith, District 1
Terry McGaughey, District 3
Steve Van de Putte, District 4
Gloria Perpich, District 5
Larry Moses, Lands and Forestry Advisory Committee
Mary Clair Ryan, Parks and Recreation Professional
John “Jinx” Ferrari, County Commissioner
Gary Walters, County Commissioner
Don Hickman, Secretary, Conservation Advocate
Dennis Slayton, Planning Professional
Steve Masimore, Resort Industry Professional
Crow Wing County Trails Subcommittee
Randy Roach
Jeff Norlin
Brett hardy
Doug Rhode
Larry Moses
Roger Landers
Bill Meyer
Al Steiff
Laurie Majka
Kathy Bernier
CR Planning Project Team
Brian Ross, Project Manager
Carol Ann Sersland, GIS Specialist and Environmental Planner
Maia Mae-Collins, Graphics and Administrative Assistant
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Process Background........................................................................................ 3
1.2 Comprehensive Plan: Overview of Goals and Polices.................................. 3
1.3 Public and Stakeholder Participation............................................................ 4
2.0
3.0
4.0
CURRENT PARKS, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE RESOURCES................... 10
2.1
County Characteristics.............................................................................. 10
2.2
Publicly Managed Lands............................................................................ 15
2.3
Cultural Resources..................................................................................... 17
2.4
Biological Survey........................................................................................ 18
2.5
Potential Conservation Priority Areas...................................................... 21
2.6
Current Park System.................................................................................. 21
2.7
Park Activities and Facilities outside the County’s Jurisdiction............ 25
2.8
Campgrounds.............................................................................................. 26
2.9
Golf Courses................................................................................................ 28
2.10
Beaches, Boat Accesses, Fishing................................................................ 31
2.11
Hunting and other off-trail activities........................................................ 34
2.12
Trails............................................................................................................ 36
PLANNED AND PROPOSED PARKS, TRAILS, AND OPEN SPACE........... 45
3.1
Planned Park Facilities............................................................................... 45
3.2
Proposed Park and Trail Facilities............................................................ 48
PARKS, TRAILS, AND OPEN SPACE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES............. 49
4.1 Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan Goals and Objectives.......................... 49
5.0
NEEDS ASSESSMENT.......................................................................................... 53
5.1 Trails and related facilities.............................................................................. 54
5.2 Park facilities other than trails...................................................................... 66
5.3 Open Space Considerations............................................................................ 72
6.0
STRATEGY PRIORITIES.................................................................................... 78
6.1 Strategy Categories and Selection Criteria................................................... 78
6.2 Implementation Partners................................................................................ 79
6.3 Implementation Process.................................................................................. 81
6.4 Funding Sources............................................................................................... 82
6.5 Strategy Priorities............................................................................................ 87
7.0
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN......................................................................
97
7.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................
97
7.2 Introduction Map ........................................................................................... 98
7.3 Project Evaluation Model....................................................................
100
7.4 Implementation Time Line......................................................................
105
7.5 Cost Examples................................................................................................ 107
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Bylaws
Appendix B: Survey
Appendix C: Regional Tables
Appendix D: Implementation Case Studies
TABLES
1 Most Common Recreational Activity for Survey Participants................................... 6
2 Most Important Recreational Amenity for Crow Wing County to Develop............. 6
3 Management of Parks and Open Space at a Municipal Level.................................... 15
4 Land Ownership in Crow Wing County....................................................................... 15
5 Archeological and Historic Sites.................................................................................... 17
6 County Biological Survey Sites...................................................................................... 19
7 Existing Designated County Park Facilities................................................................. 23
8 Day-use Areas.................................................................................................................. 25
9 Campgrounds.................................................................................................................. 28
10 Golf Courses.................................................................................................................. 30
11 Beaches........................................................................................................................... 31
12 Trailer Launch Water Access....................................................................................... 33
13 Carry-In Water Access................................................................................................. 34
14 State Wildlife Management Areas............................................................................... 35
15 County Trails................................................................................................................. 40
16 State Trails..................................................................................................................... 42
17 Municipal/Community/Regional Trails...................................................................... 43
18 Private Trails................................................................................................................. 43
19 Snowmobile Trails........................................................................................................ 43
20 Bikeways........................................................................................................................ 44
21 Planned Facilities - County.......................................................................................... 45
22 Planned Facilities - Non-County.................................................................................. 45
23 Planned Trails............................................................................................................... 47
24 Proposed Trails............................................................................................................. 48
25 Open Space Needs......................................................................................................... 74
FIGURES
A ECS Province Level........................................................................................... 10
B ECS Subsections................................................................................................ 12
1 Crow Wing County............................................................................................. 11
2 Land Cover 1996................................................................................................. 14
3 Publicly Managed Lands and Forest Industry Lands..................................... 16
4 Minnesota County Biological Survey................................................................ 20
5 Potential Conservation Priority Areas.............................................................. 22
6 County Park Facilities........................................................................................ 24
7 Campgrounds...................................................................................................... 27
8 Golf Courses........................................................................................................ 29
9 Water Access........................................................................................................ 32
10 County Managed Trails.................................................................................... 37
11 Corridor Trails.................................................................................................. 44
12 Possible Trail Locations by Type..................................................................... 46
13 Plan Implementation........................................................................................ 99
CROW WING COUNTY PARKS, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN
1.0
INTRODUCTION
N
atural resources have always played a vital role in the growth and
development of Crow Wing County. What is now a booming tourism industry
began with trapping and fur trading along the Leech Lake Trail, a major
corridor used by Native Americans and trappers during the early to mid 1800s.
Railroads opened Crow Wing County to logging of its large stands of white
and Norway pine trees from 1890 - 1920. Iron mining along the Cuyuna
Range also emerged at this time, as did small-scale agricultural operations in
the southern portion of the County. The railroads brought settlers in search of
logging, mining and farming jobs to the area. They also brought vacationers
and tourists to lakeside resorts and cabins located close to train stations.
Beginning in the 1920’s, Crow Wing County experienced intense growth and
development spurred by the introduction of the automobile and the construction
of roads and highways. The Leech Lake Trail was converted to Trunk Highway
371. Interstate 94, US Highway 10, and US Highways 169 and 210 were also
built, dramatically shortening the travel time from St. Cloud and the Twin Cities.
Not only were more people coming to Crow Wing County, but they were able
to access increasingly remote areas, which lead to large-scale development and
fragmentation of the County’s natural areas. From 1924 to 1965, the number of
seasonal and permanent lake homes along the Highway 371 corridor increased
by 88 percent1.
Today, Crow Wing County continues to attract people of all age groups.
Approximately 28 percent – or 209,211 acres - of the County is covered by
lakes, streams and wetlands, and another 50 percent – or 374,488 acres - is
covered by forests. These features, coupled with the County’s steep hills
and rolling topography, are highly sought by families and retirees looking
to relocate to the area. The Brainerd/Baxter area has emerged as a regional
job and shopping center, which has allowed more people to live and work
in the area year-round. Highway expansions and improvements, along with
advances in telecommunications technology and high-speed internet service
have aided this transition.
In response to rapid development, changing land use patterns, and
increasing pressure on ever more scarce resources, Crow Wing County
completed a Comprehensive Plan in 2004. At virtually every community
meeting held during the development of the Comprehensive Plan the
protection of natural resources, easy access to recreational opportunities,
and preservation of “rural character and open space” were listed as the top
goals. According to the Comprehensive Plan, residents placed significant
value on developing/maintaining a high quality of life by preserving Crow
Wing County’s rural character, high quality lakes and other water bodies.
The presence of quality parks, trails, and open space is recognized as an
important component of a perceived quality of life.
1
The County Comprehensive Plan notes:
As the population of Crow Wing County grows, so too will
demand for parks, recreational opportunities, and open space.
This demand will become increasingly difficult to meet as more
land is developed, thus shrinking the recreational resource base.
Residents are worried that as the population grows, the amount
of acres of public land available per person for recreation will
decline, as is occurring State-wide. They are also concerned
that some recreational opportunities will be lost, particularly in
populated centers. In addition, due to recent legislative changes,
many private lands that have historically been held in forest
reserve are now being converted to development and/or leased,
thereby removing them from public use.
Residents also expressed that parks, historic
sites, and other recreational opportunities
are important assets that enhance quality
of life and economic vitality. They want the
County to coordinate events and the planning
of recreational facilities County-wide, update
existing facilities, and expand recreational
opportunities such as campgrounds, multi-use
trails, and access to lakes and beaches. Trail
users are concerned that major trail corridors
are being encroached upon by housing
developments.
The concerns expressed by residents and stakeholders in the
Comprehensive Plan process led the County to develop this Parks, Trails
and Open Space Plan. The Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan identifies
the vision, sets specific policies, and recommends implementation
strategies for County park and recreation management, acquisition, and
investment. The Plan provides guidelines and indicators for decisions on
a variety of recreational and open space choices, including the following:
selecting future trail corridors and trail areas;
investing in active and passive recreation;
preserving high quality natural areas;
cooperating with private and public entities that provide
recreational services or manage open space or natural resources;
Ø prioritizing investments in the County’s existing parks.
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
No planning process can foresee all the opportunities and barriers
to achieving the desired future conditions. Consequently, this Plan
does not identify specific parcels and investments other than general
2
recommendations. Instead the Plan creates decision criteria in the form
of goals, policies, and strategy priorities that should guide decisions on
specific parcels, corridors, programs, and investments.
1.1 Process Background
In February 2001 the Crow Wing County Board of Commissioners
appointed 13 citizens to serve as members of an “Ad Hoc Parks
and Recreation Committee.” Their assignment was to develop
recommendations to the County Board for the creation of a Parks
Department. The Crow Wing County Parks Department was created
in July 2001 and a full-time Parks Director was appointed in 2002. In
2002 the Crow Wing County Parks Advisory Commission was created to
replace the ad hoc Parks and Recreation Committee. In 2004 the process
was continued with the selection of a consultant to guide the development
of a Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan. The following Plan provides
a detailed policy and strategy guidance document that implements the
priorities of the Comprehensive Plan.
1.2 Comprehensive Plan: Overview of Goals and Polices
In 2004 Crow Wing County completed their County Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan included a section addressing parks, recreation
opportunities, and open spaces within the County. Public comment during
the Comprehensive Plan process included concerns regarding the growing
population, increasing levels of development, and declining amounts of
open land, resulting in fewer and lower quality recreation opportunities.
Concern from citizens was expressed over the growing population and the
shrinking undeveloped land base resource resulting in fewer and lower
quality recreation opportunities.
The Comprehensive Plan includes the following park, recreation, and
open space goal:
Maintain and enhance parks, recreation and open space for
Crow Wing county residents and visitors by providing diverse
recreational opportunities that are accessible to people of all ages
and abilities, while preserving the County’s high quality natural
areas and open space (p. 35).
The Comprehensive Plan goal and accompanying text provide the guiding
vision or principle upon which the goals, policies and strategy priorities of
this Plan are based.
3
Future County land use decisions must build on existing
recreational resources, meet the demands of a growing and
changing population, and reinforce the policies developed by the
Crow Wing County Parks Advisory Commission, which are:
Ø to integrate park, open space, historical, and recreational
values into County planning;
Ø to provide diverse recreational opportunities for people of
all ages, income, and abilities;
Ø to coordinate County-wide parks and recreation functions
and activities; and
Ø to manage County recreational lands in concert with other
County managing authorities (p. 35).
The County Comprehensive Plan also included specific implementation
strategies, including to “develop a park and open space master plan that
establishes Goals and Strategies for the long-term integration, protection,
expansion and recreational use of the County’s public land base” (p. 36).
The Comprehensive Plan also recommended that an advisory committee
be created to conduct the planning process.
1.3 Public and Stakeholder Participation
Parks Advisory Commission
In 2002 the County Board created a permanent stakeholder advisory
commission for park, trail, and open space decisions. The Parks Advisory
Commission’s (PAC) role is to advise the Board on park planning,
park and trail management, and parks and recreation funding; to make
recommendations on management, acquisition, and programming; and to
make recreation recommendations regarding the County’s management
of tax-forfeit lands. The adopted by-laws for the PAC, including its
composition and authority, are provided in Appendix A of this Plan.
The PAC is composed of individuals representing a variety of stakeholder
groups, including County Board members, professional planner, trail
advocate, parks and recreational professional, conservation advocate,
local resort representative, and one member from each commissioner
district for a variety of trail modes, open space and natural area advocates,
and motorized recreation advocates.
The PAC used a facilitated, committee-based, public participation process
to engage citizens, landowners, and public officials in a respectful
dialogue concerning open space, parks and trails planning. In addition,
existing sub-committee workgroups were used to review detailed data
or proposals, and to provide recommendations to the full Advisory
Commission. These include a trails subcommittee and a park planning
subcommittee.
4
Facilitated Public Meetings
The County held two public meetings in 2004 that were designed to
provide a safe and respectful environment where participants’ comments
were considered. The two meetings were designed to gather information
under a facilitated process to guide the decision-making on parks,
recreation and open space planning by the Parks Department and the PAC.
Public meeting participants responded to three questions in order to assess
their park, trail, and open space preferences. The questions were posed
in a small group setting with a facilitator to ensure that responses stayed
approximately on target and to ensure participation by all individuals.
The meeting results demonstrated that trails and related facilities were
the most sought after recreational amentities. Motorized trail facilities
were highly desired, but non-motorized trails and passive recreation
were equally popular as a recreational choice. Water-related activies
were a third general category that generated high priority responses. The
meetings also confirmed the comments from the Comprehensive Plan
process that residents wish to retain the County’s rural character and to
protect its natural areas.
One additional interesting outcome was the frequency with which
participants noted the need for local governments to better coordinate on
recreation and open space planning and investment.
Parks Department Surveys
To meet the goal of creating a parks, trails, and open space blueprint,
the Parks Advisory Committee (PAC) decided to first gauge the interests
and values of County residents and visitors (Appendix B). The County
conducted its own survey on outdoor recreation activities in the summer
of 2004.
These responses were generally consistent with the findings of the DNR
state-wide survey that younger age groups were more interested in active
and organized recreation activities. The Crow Wing County youth survey
also identified recreation markets that are now met through private sector
investment and management, such as paintball and BMX.
Crow Wing County youth also showed significant interest and
participation in hunting and fishing (Table 1), and motorized and nonmotorized trail activities(Table 1 & 2).
The youth survey respondent characteristics and highlights of survey
results are shown below:
5
Respondent characteristics
•
•
•
Total: 2,882
50% male, 50% female
Average age – 14.1, median age – 14
Most Common Recreational Activity for Survey Participants
Table 1
Activity
Fishing
Swimming
Walk/Jog/Run
Snowmobiling
Basketball
Hunting
Boating/Sailing
Ski/Snowboard
Football
ATV Riding
# of Responses
1360
1339
1236
1082
1053
969
930
925
897
869
Percent
47%
46%
43%
38%
37%
34%
32%
32%
31%
30%
Most Important Recreational Amenity for Crow Wing County to Develop
Table 2
Activity
A skateboard / in-line skating park
Swimming beaches
Increase the number of basketball courts
Motorized trails
Open space areas
Shooting range
Recreational trails
Large parks dedicated to organized field sports
BMX bicycle course
# of Responses
269
253
175
137
159
159
156
144
125
Finally, youth responses demonstrated a recognition that recreational
investment needs to serve a broad range of interests and abilities. Almost
as many respondents (37%) noted that developing programs for people
with disabilities was ‘very important’ as said developing motorized trails
or new skateboarding parks was ‘very important’ (39%).
Results from the youth portion of the survey were tabulated, discussed by
the PAC and incorporated into the ongoing planning effort.
6
Percent
10.3%
9.3%
6.6%
5.9%
5.8%
5.8%
5.7%
5.2%
4.5%
County Comprehensive Plan Public Comments
During the Comprehensive Plan process, a number of facilitated public
meetings were conducted to identify issues and priorities of County
residents. Each meeting asked similar questions to small groups of
participants, and summary notes of the issues and priorities were kept to
help guide the development of the Comprehensive Plan. To guide the
Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan, the notes from these meetings were
reviewed for specific comments relating to park, recreation, open space,
and natural area priorities.
The review of Comprehensive Plan comments shed additional light
on recreation and open space priorities of County residents. Citizens
expressed a clear concern for loss of open space and compromised natural
systems, placed a high priority on recreational assets, a desire for more
inter-governmental cooperation, and cautioned the County from intruding
on perceived private property rights.
State-wide Outdoor Recreation Survey
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources released the results of its
2004 outdoor recreation survey in early 2005, 2004 Outdoor Recreation
Participation Survey of Minnesotans: Report on Findings (January,
2005) (Excerpts in Appendix C). The information provides a statistically
valid snapshot of outdoor recreation preferences state-wide, where adults
go to recreate outdoors, and identifies some regional and demographic
differences in outdoor recreational activities that can guide decisionmaking by Crow Wing County in completing and implementing its
Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan. The complete report can be found at
www.dnr.state.mn.us.
The survey found, consistent with previous surveys, that outdoor
recreation is an important component of the lives of most Minnesotans.
Fifty-seven percent indicate that outdoor recreation is “very important” to
their life, while another 25 percent indicate it is “moderately important.”
The remainder—comprising nearly one in five Minnesota adults (18%)—
believe outdoor recreation is of little importance.
The survey also found that people who recreate outdoors have numerous
motivations for going outdoors. The primary reason for outdoor recreation
selected by respondents is simply to enjoy nature. Next in the ranking is
exercise and feeling healthier. Additional reasons selected by respondents
included outdoor recreation as:
Ø a means to build bonds with family and friends;
Ø a means to escape the pressures of modern life, to experience
some silence and quiet;
Ø a means of learning or exploring.
7
Preferred Outdoor Activities
The kinds of activities identified by survey respondents as primary to
their outdoor recreation experience tended to cluster around similar
demographic profiles. The survey analysis conducted a hierarchical cluster
analysis on all 32 activities identified by participants. The DNR identified
four activity clusters:
(1) hunting and motorized trail activities,
(2) passive recreation and learning related activities,
(3) active recreation activities, and
(4) boating/fishing/camping/golfing activities, for lack of a better
descriptor.
The “passive recreation and learning-related activities” cluster contains 40
percent of all recreation by Minnesota adults. The activities in this cluster
include walking/hiking, nature observation, and visiting nature centers,
historic/archaeological sites and outdoor zoos.
The “active recreation activities” cluster contains 26 percent of all
recreation by Minnesota adults, and includes activities such as swimming,
biking, running/jogging, outdoor field/court sports, tent camping, inline
skating, non-motorized boating, and downhill skiing/snowboarding.
Younger urban dwellers (aged 20 to 45 in highest population density
class) invested 40 percent of their total recreation time on activities in this
cluster, while older rural dwellers (aged 55+ in lowest population density
class) only invested 11 percent.
The “boating/fishing/camping/golfing activities” cluster contains 24
percent of all recreation by Minnesota adults, including activities such as
motor boating, fishing, camper-vehicle camping, and golfing. Rural men
(lowest population density class) invest 30 percent of their total recreation
time on activities in this cluster, while urban women (highest population
density class) invest 11 percent.
The “hunting and motorized trail activities” cluster contains 10 percent of
all recreation by Minnesota adults, and is typified by big-game and smallgame hunting, snowmobiling, and ATV driving. Activities in this cluster
were more common in areas such as Crow Wing County than in the Metro
area, and more common to men: rural men invest 21 percent of their total
recreation time on activities in this cluster, while urban women invest 1
percent.
8
Outdoor Recreation as Tourism
The survey also identified where Minnesota adults recreated outdoors,
how likely they were to travel for outdoor recreation, and where they
tended to go when they did travel. Most adults tended to recreate within a
relatively short distance of their home, a result that was more pronounced
in the more rural regions of the state, and in the northern regions. Thirtyfive percent of activities by Metro-area adults were outside their region,
while only 20% of activities by Northeast region adults were in other
regions.
For recreation that required travel, the survey analyzed how people
traveled between the five large geographic regions of the state. The
survey did not identify travel to specific counties or recreational amenity
locations. Crow Wing County was included as the southeastern most
portion of the Northeast region, being grouped with the Arrowhead region,
Koochiching, Itasca, Carlton, Pine, and Aitkin counties.
The Northeast region of the state (see map in Appendix B) was the
primary destination for adults who recreated outside their own region of
the state. The Report on Findings notes the following:
The two northern regions import a
large portion of their Minnesotaoriginated recreation use. The flow
of recreation use between Minnesota
regions is accompanied by the flow
of recreation-related spending, which
creates economic impacts (e.g.,
income, jobs) in the regions where the
recreation takes place. In Minnesota,
there is a general south-to-north flow
of recreation use and spending, driven
primarily by the flow from the Metro
Region to the two northern regions.
Additionally, Minnesota regions
receive recreation use and associated
spending from non-Minnesotans. The
large majority of non-resident use and
spending occurs in the two northern
regions, which provide attractive
lake-forest recreation settings for
nonresidents and Minnesotans alike
(p. 9-10).
9
2.0
2.1
CURRENT PARKS, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE RESOURCES
County Characteristics
C
Figure A. ECS Province Level
row Wing County’s population is growing rapidly,
particularly in high amenity areas rich with natural
resources. Since the 1994 Comprehensive Plan update,
the County’s population has grown over 25 percent. Its
total population in 2000 was 55,099, more than the 49,690
projected for the County in 1994. The lure of scenic areas
is consistent with the County’s growth patterns from 19902000. People want to live near water, trees, and hills.
Increasing wealth, leisure time and demand for recreational
activities will keep growth pressure in these areas high.1
Crow Wing County has vast forests, beautiful lakes, rivers
and wetlands, large areas of public land and open space,
interconnected trail systems, and a diversity of rural and
urban areas. Crow Wing County is located in central
Minnesota approximately 100 miles northwest of the Twin
Cities Metropolitan Area (Figure 1). According to the 2004
Comprehensive Plan the County is 999 square miles in size
(639,360 acres)2. Approximately 28 percent (209,211 acres)
of the County is covered by lakes, streams, and wetlands
with 50 percent (374,488 acres) covered by forests.
Landscape Context
The County is situated in the southwest part of the Laurentian Mixed Forest
Province as classified by the MN DNR’s Ecological Classification System
(ECS)3. This province’s land cover is characterized by extensive conifer and
conifer-hardwood mix. To the west of Crow Wing County is the Eastern
Deciduous Forest Province characterized as the transition zone between the
boreal forests to the northeast and the prairie to the southwest.
The Provinces are then further divided into Sections. The northern half of
Crow Wing County is defined by the Northern Minnesota Drift and Lake
Plains Section and the south by the Western Superior Uplands. Sections are
based on the origin of glacial deposits, regional elevation, distribution of
plants and regional climate. 4
Crow Wing County Comprehensive Plan 2004
According to the Mn/DOT BaseMap source the county is 739,800 acres (or 1, 156 sq mi).
3
The ECS is part of a nationwide program to manage natural resources on a sustainable basis. Identifying areas similar in climatic, geologic,
hydrologic, topographic, soil and vegetation conditions is a method of achieving this.
1
2
4
For a more detailed discussion of the Ecological Classification and its application in Crow Wing County, see the “Forest Management Plan
for the Tax-Forfeited Lands of Crow Wing County” 2000 or: www.dnr.state.mn.us/ebm/ecs
10
Figure 1
11
In the next level of the ECS, Crow Wing County is part of five subsections
(Figure B.). The three subsections that comprise the majority of Crow
Wing County, are the:
Figure B. ECS Subsections
•
•
•
Pine Moraines and Outwash Plains,
Mille Lacs Uplands, and
St. Louis Moraines.
Small portions of the County occur within the:
•
•
Anoka Sand Plains, located in the Mississippi River
valley in the southwestern corner of the County
Tamarack Lowlands, located around the Mississippi
River in the east central portion of the County
These ecological subsections define the diverse landscape in
Crow Wing County. Over the last century and a half major
dramatic land use transformations have occurred across
the landscape. The aspen-oak woodland and savannah of
the Mille Lacs Upland transformed to farmlands. Lakes
surrounded by pine and birch forests in the Pine Moraines
and Outwash Plains were logged and then transformed to
recreation development. The St. Louis Moraines subsection
was composed of wetlands and mixed forests dominated by
pines until they were logged. Then the discovery of iron ore
transformed this landscape first to an industrial area, then
transitioned to another tourist destination with the return of
the forests and creation of new lakes as the mine pits filled
with cold clear water.
Ecological Classification System Subsection Characteristics
The three major ecological subsections are the Pine Moraines and
Outwash Plains, the Mille Lacs Uplands, and the St. Louis Moraines. The
Pine Moraines and Outwash Plains subsection is dominated by outwash
plains, outwash channels, and end moraines. The eastern boundary is
based on the interface between the end and ground moraines of the Rainy
Lobe and the western limits of the ice contact sediments of the Des
Moines Lobe. Large outwash areas dominate the center and southeast
corner of the subsection. Ground and end moraines of the Rainy Lobe
underlie areas of the eastern portion of the subsection. The topography
ranges from level to gently rolling.
12
Groups of large lakes are located in the eastern and western portions of the
subsection. Smaller lakes are present in the central area. The Cuyuna Iron
Range is mostly located east of Brainerd in central Crow Wing County at
the east central border of the subsection. In the 19th century the prevalent
tree cover on the well-drained soils of outwash was jack pine, red pine,
white pine, and aspen-birch with a conifer component.
Mille Lacs Uplands are characterized by the end and ground moraines
occurring throughout the subsection. The western boundary is defined by
the interface between the western edge of the Rainy Lobe moraine and
the eastern limits of the Des Moines Lobe end moraine. Lake Mille Lacs
dominates this subsection. The end and ground moraines of the Superior
Lobe define the subsection, though materials from three glacial sources are
evident. Rainy Lobe moraines are located west of Mille Lacs Lake. The
Mille Lacs Uplands is a landscape with flat to gently rolling topography.
Oak openings, barrens and prairies occurred on the margins of the Big
Woods and as inclusions in the mixed forest.
The topography varies from rolling to steep
throughout the St. Louis Moraines subsection. The
“St. Louis” part of the name is from the St. Louis
River which forms one of the two continental
divide drainages in this subsection. The St. Louis
River watershed drains eastward. The Mississippi
River in the southern part of the subsection
drains to the south. Many lakes are interspersed
throughout the hills of this subsection. White and
red pine covered much of the area that is within
the County boundary.
Land Cover/Land Use
The current land cover map shows actual land use as seen from space
satellites. According to the most recent (1996) satellite imagery, the
majority of land in Crow Wing County is still undeveloped and supports
a rich natural heritage (Figure 2). Nearly 50 percent of the land is forested
with 14 percent open water, 14 percent wetland, 16 percent grassland, two
percent cultivated, and three percent developed. Most developed areas
exist around lakeshores, south of the Cuyuna Iron Range and the Brainerd/
Baxter regional center.
13
Figure 2
14
2.2
Publicly Managed Lands
The Crow Wing County Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan directly
impacts the County’s 31 unincorporated townships (Figure 1). The
following jurisdictions are responsible for the management of parks and
open space at a municipal level:
Table 3 Management of Parks and Open Space at a Municipal Level
City of Brainerd
City of Baxter
City of Crosslake
City of Crosby
City of Ironton
City of Nisswa
Crow Wing Township
City of Breezy Point
City of Manhattan Beach
City of Fifty Lakes
City of Emily
City of Deerwood
City of Pequot Lakes
Mission Township
There are two additional public agencies that own and manage land
for public recreation: the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(Mn/DNR) at the state level and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)
at the federal level. A small amount of land is owned and managed for
recreation by the Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians.
Approximately 20% of the land in Crow Wing County is public land.
Of the 20% of total land in Crow Wing County that is public land,
approximately 71.5% is Tax Forfeited Land. Twenty-three percent (23%)
is owned by the State of Minnesota, with the Federal Government (4.5%),
and County Owned (2.5%) make up the remainder (Figure 3).5
Table 4 Land Ownership in Crow Wing County
Owner
Tax Forfeit
County
State
University of Minnesota
Federal
Forest Industry
Other exempt
All Other
TOTAL: 639,360
Acres
103,267
1,840
31,617
1,520
531
23,794
11,059
432,569
606,197
Percent
16%
<1%
5%
<1%
<1%
4%
2%
68%
95%
Source: County Auditor, 1998 via 2000 Forest Management Plan
The 2004 County Comprehensive Plan
describes the public lands in the following
manner:
Most of this land is located in the
northern and central portions of the
County, and 75% of the public land is
tax-forfeited land that is owned and
managed by the County. This land
is largely undeveloped open space
featuring wetlands, grasslands, and
forests. Forests on County land, which
have traditionally been managed for
lumber and pulp production, are valued
more and more for wildlife watching,
hunting, hiking, cross-country skiing,
dirt bike and ATV trail riding, camping,
and scenic open space.
Source: 2004 Crow Wing County Comprehensive Plan – Forestry Section
5
15
Figure 3
16
2.3
Cultural Resources
Archeological
Crow Wing County has many historic and archeological sites. The
Minnesota Historical Society’s State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
maintains the locations and record of sites across the state. In Crow Wing
County, SHPO has recorded approximately 310 archeological sites (Table
5).
The archeological sites date back to the precontact Archaic period from
8000 to 2500 B.P. (Before Present) with burial mounds represented in
this period. There are also sites from the precontact Woodland tradition
(2500 to 300 B.P). Seven sites have been placed on the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP) along with a number of others which are
considered eligible6.
Crow Wing County’s multiple archeological resources are located on
both private and public lands. A more thorough inventory and location of
these sites could be undertaken to determine sites which may be within
county or public land ownership. The results of such an inventory could
provide the county with an opportunity to protect these sites and to offer
educational programs or interpretive recreational areas.
Historical
One hundred and eighty-six (186) Crow Wing County properties have
been inventoried for the SHPO Architecture-History database. Of those
inventoried and entered into the database, 36 have been added to the
National Register of Historic Places.
Table 5 Archeological and Historical Sites
Minnesota SHPO Listed Sites
Archeological Sites
Historical Sites
Total
310
186
6
NRHP
7
36
In addition to the official NRHP sites,
a number of organizations collect,
preserve, and manage facilities
through which history is presented to
the public. The Crow Wing County
Historical Society’s Museum is located
in downtown Brainerd. Historical
organizations with managed facilities
are also found in Crosslake, Ironton, and
Nisswa.
www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/MN/Crow+Wing/state.html
17
2.4
Biological Survey
The Minnesota County Biological Survey (MCBS) is a program within
the Mn/DNR division of Ecological Services. The MCBS began in 1987
as a systematic survey of rare biological features. The goal of the Survey
is to identify significant natural areas and to collect and interpret data on
the distribution and ecology of rare plants, rare animals and native plant
communities. A preliminary survey of Crow Wing County was released
for review in 2002, and in 2004 the final Survey was issued. The final
report lists 44 areas examined and rated by the MCBS staff (see Table 6
and Figure 4).
The areas of land (or ‘sites’), range from tens to thousands of acres in
size. The sites were selected for survey because they are likely to contain
relatively undisturbed native plant communities, large populations and/or
concentrations of rare species, and/or critical animal habitat. The sites
provide a geographic framework for recording and storing data and
compiling descriptive summaries.7
There are six main systems (or natural community types8) identified within
Crow Wing County:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Upland Forest and Woodland Systems
Wetland Forest System
Wetland Grassland, Shrubland and Marsh
Systems
Wetland Grassland, Shrubland and Sparse
Vegetation Systems
Young Forest Complex
Open Water
For each of the areas, a broad ranking is assigned
to assess quality. Ecologists primarily consider the
presence or absence of unnatural or human-induced
disturbances such as logging, plowing, overgrazing
and development.
7
From Minnesota DNR website: www.dnr.mn.us/ecs/index.html
8
Natural communities are functional units of landscape that are characterized and defined by their most prominent habitat features
- a combination of vegetation, hydrology, landform, soil, and natural disturbance cycles. Although natural communities have no legal
protection in Minnesota, the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program and the Minnesota County Biological Survey have
evaluated and ranked community types according to their relative rarity and endangerment throughout their range. Locations of high
quality examples are tracked by the Rare Features Database.
18
Table 6 County Biological Survey Sites
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
SITE_NAME
BLACK BROOK SWAMP
Baxter South
Bay Lake 25
Big Island
Crow Wing 27
Dagget Brook
Dean Lake 14
Duck Lake
EAST RIPLEY 1
Fuch’s Lake Prairie
Gail Lake 24
Galbrath
Gull River
Irondale 13
Irondale 36
Jail Lake
Kego Lake
Larson Lake
Little Nokassippi River
Little Pine Lake
Little Pine River
Lows Lake
Maple Grove 1
Mille Lacs Moraine
Mississippi Half Moon Lake
Mississippi Moraine
Mississippi Pine Confluence
Mississippi Wolford
Mud Lake Peatlands
Nokassippi Lakes
Nokassippi River
Nokay Lake 13
Ossawinnamakee Lake
PULASKI 3
Paul Bunyan Arboretum
Pine River
RICHARDSON 5
Rabbit Lake Peatlands
Rabbit Lake Uplands
Russel Lake
Stewart Lake
Thompson Creek
Upper Cullen Lake
Upper Dean Lake
Rank
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
OUTSTANDING
BELOW
MODERATE
BELOW
HIGH
BELOW
HIGH
MODERATE
MODERATE
HIGH
MODERATE
HIGH
MODERATE
HIGH
MODERATE
HIGH
HIGH
MODERATE
HIGH
MODERATE
OUTSTANDING
MODERATE
HIGH
MODERATE
MODERATE
HIGH
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
BELOW
MODERATE
HIGH
MODERATE
MODERATE
HIGH
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
HIGH
HIGH
The four categories are defined as follows:
Outstanding: sites containing the best
occurrences of the rarest species, the most
outstanding examples of the rarest native plant
communities and /or the largest, most intact
functional landscapes present in the state.
High: sites containing the “best of the
rest”, such as sites with very good quality
occurrences of the rarest species, high
quality examples of the rarest native plant
communities, and/or important functional
landscapes.
Moderate: Sites containing significant
occurrences of rare species, and/or moderately
disturbed native plant communities and
landscapes that have a strong potential for
recovery.
Below MCBS minimum threshold for
statewide significance: Sites lacking
occurrences of rare species and/or natural
features that met MCBS standards for an
outstanding, high or moderate rank. These
include areas of conservation value at the
local level, such as habitat for native plants
and animals, corridors for animal movements,
buffers surrounding higher quality natural
areas, and open space areas.
19
Figure 4
20
2.5 Potential Conservation Priority Areas
In 2004 a coalition of local and regional recreation, open space, and
environmental stakeholders produced a study with a goal of providing
information to “assist decision makers to make informed and prudent
choices on the management of the ecological and recreational
opportunities” in Crow Wing and adjacent areas. The title of the study is
“Inventory and Assessment of Natural Resources in Crow Wing County –
A Framework for Conservation and Recreation Planning.”9 This document
and associated data and maps provide a wealth of high quality background
data for the Parks and Recreation Department, its advisors, and other
concerned citizens.
The study identifies Potential Conservation Priority Areas (Figure 5) and
generates a Development Suitability Analysis intended to guide land use
decisions. The Potential Conservation Priority Areas (which are based in
large part on the locations of the County Biological Survey areas discussed
previously) became a variable in the generation of the Development
Suitability Map. The study process evaluated specific geographic areas
for development suitability by combining the above mentioned variables
with terrain conditions (slopes and erosion susceptibility), groundwater
contamination potential, independent sewage treatment suitability, and
proximity to roads and open water.
While the immediate outcome of the report is to inform
residents and local governments about suitable areas for
development, the report has additional value. The report
includes valuable information emphasizing the unique
natural features of Crow Wing County. The report also
recommends a number of tools for land use managers
within the County that promote responsible land and
water use practices.
2.6 Current Park System
Parks, Trails, And Open Space Facilities
County Parks Department
Currently the Crow Wing County Parks and Recreation Department
manages 22 recreation facilities. The facilities are composed of five parks,
fifteen water accesses (of which three are included in the “parks” category
because of the additional facilities such as picnic grounds at the site), and
five trails. The average size of the parks and water accesses is less than an
acre. Table 7 lists the facilities and Figure 2 shows their location.
The unpublished study created by the Brainerd Lakes Area Conservation Coalition (BLACC) may be obtained on CD through the
County or 1000 Friends of Minnesota.
9
21
Figure 5
22
There are no campgrounds or beaches owned or administered by the Parks and Recreation Department.
Tax forfeited lands are owned by the State of Minnesota but managed and administered by the County.
Table 7 Existing Designated10 County Park Facilities
Facility
Park
Location
Activities
County Island
1
Rush Lake
Picnic
Rollie Johnson
2
Upper Whitefish Lake
Picnic, camping, pit toilets
Jones Bay
3
Pelican Lake – west shore
Motorized Boat Access, Dock, Toilets
Section 6 Mine Pit
4
Section 6, Irondale Township
Motorized Boat Access, Picnic grounds
Little Rabbit Lake/
Rowe Mine Pit
5
Little Rabbit Lake / Rowe Mine Pit,
Riverton, Irondale Township
Motorized Boat Access, Dock
Picnic grounds, Toilets
1
Black Lake
Motorized Boat Access
2
Butternut Lake
Motorized Boat Access (small boats)
3
Fawn Lake
4
French Rapids
5
Gilbert Lake
6
Larson Lake
Carry-in Boat Access
7
Loon Lake
Carry-in Boat Access (small boats only, no trailers)
8
Pelican Lake (Jones Bay, west shore)
Motorized Boat Access, Dock, Toilets
9
Pelican Lake (south shore)
Motorized Boat Access, Dock
10
Little Rabbit Lake/Rowe Mine Pit
2 Motorized Boat Accesses, Dock
11
Red Sand Lake
12
Sebie Lake
13
Section 6 Mine Pit
14
Wolf Lake
Carry-in Access
15
North Long Lake
2 Motorized Boat Accesses
1
Roosevelt Township
ATV trail
2
Sebie Lake
ATV trail
3
Wolf Lake
Cross country skiing, hiking and horseback riding
4
Larson Lake
Cross country ski, hiking and horseback riding
5
Emily to Outing
ATV trail
Water Access
Trails
A “designated” county park facility has a) had a resolution passed by the County Board designating it as an official county park and b)
had specific improvements made and management or maintenance activities as a result
10
23
Figure 6
24
2.7 Park Activities and Facilities outside the County’s Jurisdiction
Local Public Facilities
Twenty-three cities and townships have indicated that they have some type
of recreation facility within their jurisdiction (See Appendix A). Most
of the cities have full responsibility for the facilities, though at least two
have cooperative efforts with private non-profit groups. The facility types
range from a single site with picnic tables and a playground in Barrows
to the City of Crosslake with a community center and maintained cross
country ski trails. Picnic areas are the most common type of facility, with
26 listed, not counting Baxter, Crosby or the State day-use areas. The next
most common facility type is playgrounds, most likely associated with
many of the picnic sites. The recreation sites include over 18 baseball
facilities with varying degrees of enhancements, eight basketball facilities,
eight tennis courts, eight volleyball courts. Sites also include four
horseshoe courts, two fishing piers, three beaches (one on Serpent Lake in
Crosby, one in Lum Park in Brainerd and Whipple Beach in Baxter), and
six hockey/skating rinks.
Crosslake, Baxter and Brainerd are the cities that have listed trails as part
of their recreation resources. Crosslake is the only city with a city owned
and maintained cross-country ski trail. Crosby and Brainerd are the only
cities listing a skateboard park. The Cities of Brainerd and Baxter have a
nature center at the Northland Arboretum and Baxter has the Paul Bunyan
Nature Learning Center.
State Facilities
In addition to the recreation sites listed above involving cities and
municipalities, the state Department of Natural Resources offers day-use
areas that include picnicking activities at the locations listed in Table 8.
Table 8 Day-use Areas
Site name
Pine Lake
Staircase Landing
Pelican Lake Beach
Harvey Drake Landing
Cuyuna Country State
Recreation Area
Jurisdiction
State
State
State
State
6
Crow Wing State Park
State
7
Greer Lake
State
1
2
3
4
5
State
Location
Pine Lake-Hwy 3
Pine River-Cty 11
Pelican Lake-east side
Pine R-CtyRd 36
North of Crosby/
Ironton
Mississippi River, south
of Brainerd
City of Crosslake,
southeast corner
25
2.8 Campgrounds
There are 25 public and private campgrounds in the county, with over 600
campsites (Figure 7). The campground facilities range from primitive to
full hook-up for RVs, and from overnight use to seasonal.
There is one federally owned campground, located on Cross Lake in the
City of Crosslake. There is another 38-site federally owned campground
just across the western county border in Cass County. The three state
campgrounds in Crow Wing County are within Crow Wing State Park,
within the Cuyuna Country State Recreation Area and the third is located
in Crow Wing State Forest on Greer Lake. Three primitive campsites on
the Mississippi River are accessible by water (Lone Pine Creek Campsite
downstream from Dean Brook, Half-Moon Campsite downstream from
the Trommald Landing, and Baxter Canoe Campsite downstream from
Buffalo Creek south of the City of Baxter).
Two cities have campgrounds: Crosby and Brainerd. There are 18
additional campgrounds run by private entities.
The private campgrounds are concentrated in the central lakes district
continuing north to Emily. Fort Ripley contains two campgrounds, three
in the Crosby-Ironton area, and one south of Deerwood.
26
Figure 7
27
Table 9 Campgrounds
Id
1
Site_name
R.L. Cloutier Recreation Area
Hidden Paradise
Resort&Campgroround
Lake Emily Resort and RV/
Campground
Twin Oaks Resort
Rager’s Acres
Highview Campground and RV
Park
Jurisdiction
Federal
Location
Crosslake
Private
Brainerd
Private
Lk Emily
Private
Private
Brainerd
Pequot Lakes
Private
Breezy Pt
7
Sullivan’s Resort and Campground
Private
8
9
10
11
Greer Lake
Lake Edward Resort and RV Park
Portsmouth Bay Campground
Lum Park
State
Private
Private
City
12
Don and Mayva’s Crow Wing Lake
Private
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
State
Private
Private
City
Private
State
Private
Private
Nisswa
21
22
Camp Holiday Resort
Pine Crest Resort and Campground
Serpent Lake
Hart’s RV Park
Cuyuna Country State Rec Area
Galles’ Upper Cullen Campground
Fritz’s Resort and Trailer
Campground
Fifty Lakes Campground
Cozy Bay Resort
N Long Lk-Lk Edward
tnshp
Greer Lake-Crosslake
Lk Edward twnshp
Crosby
Brainerd
Ft Ripley tnshpCrowWing Lk
Ft Ripley-Crow Wing Riv
Bay Lk twnshp
Merrifield
Crosby
Merrifield
Crosby-Ironton
Upper Cullen Lake
Private
Private
23
Family Fun Resort
Private
24
25
ShingWako Resort & Campground
Sissebagamah RV Resort
Private
Private
Fifty Lakes
Lk Edward twnshp
Lk Edward tnshp-N Long
Lk
Lake Edward
Bay Lake
2
3
4
5
6
20
2.9 Golf Courses
Golf has become as nearly a popular activity as fishing in the Brainerd
Lakes area, though demand has been leveling off in the past few years. In
the past 10-15 years a number of new private golf courses have been built.
No new courses are currently being planned. One golf course is being
converted to other land uses (Pine Meadows in Baxter). Crow Wing
County has 19 golf courses. (Figure 8). Eight additional golf courses are
in the vicinity of Gull Lake just outside the county border in Cass County.
28
Figure 8
29
Table 10 Golf Courses
Id
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
30
Golf Courses
Cuyuna Country Club
Ruttger’s Alec’s Nine
Ruttger’s The Lakes
Crosswoods
Emily Greens
Deacon’s Lodge
Golden Eagle Golf Club
Irish Hills Golf Course
Pine River Country Club
Breezy Point Traditional
Breezy Point Whitebirch
Eagle’s Landing Golf Club
Pine Meadows
Dutch Legacy Course
Bobby’s Legacy Course
Par 3 Legacy
The Pines
The Garden
Whitefish Golf Club
Wildwedge Family Golf Park
Fritz’s Nine
The Preserve
Madden’s Pine Beach East
Madden’s Pine Beach West
Madden’s Social Nine
The Classic
Birch Bay
Location
Deerwood
Deerwood
Deerwood
Crosslake
Emily
Pequot Lakes
Fifty Lakes
Cass County
Cass County
Pequot Lakes
Pequot Lakes
Morrison County
Baxter
Cass County
Cass County
Cass County
Nisswa
Nisswa
Pequot Lakes
Pequot Lakes
Nisswa
Pequot Lakes
Cass County
Cass County
Cass County
Cass County
Nisswa
Administration
Private
Private / resort
Private / resort
Private / resort
Private resort
Private resort
Private
Private / resort
Private / resort
Private / resort
Private / resort
Private /resort
Private / resort
Private / resort
Private / resort
Private / resort
Private / resort
Private / resort
2.10 Beaches, Boat Accesses, Fishing
Beaches
Crow Wing County has approximately 700 lakes completely within or
on the County border (101,768 acres).11 Forty-three lakes are larger than
500 acres in size. In spite of the large number of lakes, there are only five
maintained public beaches (Table 11). Three of the five are supervised
by lifeguards (Figure 9). There are numerous beach areas that are not
maintained. There are no public outdoor pools.
Many resorts have beaches for their clients, but these are closed to the
general public.
Table 11 Beaches
Facility
Whipple
Beach
Lum Park
Beach
Serpent
Beach
Pelican
Beach
Cross Lake
Dam
Location
Jurisdiction
1
Whipple Lake
Baxter
2
Rice Lake
Brainerd
3
Serpent Lake
Crosby
4
Pelican Lake – west shore
Mn/DNR
5
Cross Lake
Army Corps of
Engineers
Activities
Dock, restrooms, parking ,
lifeguards, and picnicking
Two docks, three separate
swimming areas with varied
depths, restrooms, picnic shelter,
lifeguards and parking.
Restrooms, lifeguards, parking
Restrooms, parking.
Two swimming areas,
handicapped accessible, shelter,
restrooms, and parking.
Boat Accesses
The County has 97 water access locations for trailer launched boats and an
additional 20 carry-in water accesses primarily for non-motorized water
craft (Figure 9) for a total of 117. The Mn/DNR maintains the majority of
the accesses, with 16 listed under ‘county’ administration, two as ‘Army
Corps of Engineers’, and eight as ‘city’. (Table 12)
The accesses have varying levels of amenities associated with them.
Some of the basics include docks and toilet facilities. Others have picnic
areas and campgrounds at the water access location.
The following list of boat launches are from the DNR’s water access
database.
11
DNR Public Water Access Map
31
Figure 9
32
Table 12 Trailer Launch Water Access
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Facility/Lake
Adney Lake
Bass Lake (Turkey)
Bay Lake
Black Bear Lake
Black Lake
Blackhoof Lake
Borden Lake
Camp Lake
Clamshell Lake
Clark Lake
Clear Lake
Clearwater Lake
Clinker Lake
Crooked Lake
Cross Lake #1
Cross Lake #2
Crow Wing Lake
Dean Lake
Dolney Lake
Eagle Lake
East Fox Lake
East Twin Lake
Edna Lake
Edwards Lake
Emily Lake
Erskine Lake
Fawn Lake
Gilbert Lake
Gladstone Lake
Grass Lake
Greer Lake
Gull Lake (e)
Island Lake
Kego Lake
Kimball Lake
Lake Hubert
Larson Lake
Little Pelican Lake
Little Rabbit Lake
Little Rabbit Lake 1
Lougee Lake
Lower Cullen Lake
Lower Hay Lake
Lower Mission Lake w
Middle Cullen Lake
Milford - small boat
Mille Lacs Lake
Miss Riv (Crow Wing)
Administration
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
DNR T&W Region Office 3A
DNR Forestry
County Parks
DNR Forestry
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
U.S. Corps of Engineers
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
MN DOT
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
U.S. Corps Of Engineers
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
MN DOT
DNR T&W
County Parks
County Parks
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
DNR Forestry
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
County Parks
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
City Parks Department
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
MN DOT
DNR Parks & Recreation
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
Miss Riv (Evergreen)
Miss Riv (French Rpd
Miss Riv (Ft Ripley)
Miss Riv (Hwy 6)
Miss Riv (Trommold)
Mississippi River
Mississippi River #1
Mitchell Lake
N Long Lake (Merrifield)
N Long Lake (n)
N Long Lake (Nw)
Nokay Lake
Ossawinnamakee Lake
Partridge Lake
Pelican Lake
Pelican Lake (Jones Bay)
Pelican Lake (Sw)
Pelican Lk (North)
Pelican Lk (Nw)
Perch Lake
Pig Lake
Pine Lake
Platte Lake
Portsmouth Lake
Rabbit Lake (Eastside
Cuyuna)
Red Sand Lake
Rice Lake (Lum Park)
Rock Lake
Round Lake
Round Lake
Ruth Lake
Sandbar Lk -horseshoe
Section 6 Mine Pit
Serpent Lake (e)
Serpent Lake (w)
Sibley Lake
Silver Lake
South Long Lake
Stark Lake
Strawberry Lake
Upper Dean Lake
Upper Hay Lake
Upper Mission Lake
Upper S Long Lake
Upper Whitefish Lake
Wolford - motorized
Whipple Lake
White Sand Lake
Wolf Lake
County Parks
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
County Parks
MN DOT
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
County Parks
County Parks
DNR T&W
Breezy Point City Clerk
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
County Parks
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
County Parks
MN DOT
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
DNR Section of Wildlife
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
County Parks
33
Fishing Docks or Piers
County residents have access to several
public fishing piers, but the piers are limited
to urban lakes. Two piers are located in
Kiwanis Park and one in Lum Park, both in
Brainerd.12 There is also a fishing pier in the
City of Pequot Lakes. Crosby/Ironton area
has piers on Pennington Pit and Serpent Lake.
2.11 Hunting and other off-trail activities
Hunting occurs on both public and privately
held land. Hunting on tax forfeit and state
lands is a “significant component of the local
tourism economy.”13 Compared to counties
east and north of Crow Wing County, Crow
Wing County has a relatively small amount of
public land. In addition, as agricultural and
forested areas are developed. There are seven
hunting shack leases on Crow Wing County
administered land due to expire in 2005, with
no new leases being issued.
Table 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Carry-in Water Access
Location
Allen Lake
Bass Lake (Mission)
Birchdale Lake
Dahler Lake
Dean Lake
Duck Lake
Duck Lake (n)
Lwr Mission Lake se
Miss Riv (Green’s)
Miss Riv (Kiwanis)
N Long Lake (s)
Pine Riv (Cross Lk)
Pine Riv (Drake)
Pine Riv (Staircase)
Pleasant Lake
Rice Lake (Hesitation)
Sebie Lake
Gilbert
Butternut
Loon
As noted in Table 4 approximately 20% of the County is in public
ownership, with 16% as tax-forfeit (approximately 103,000 acres) along
with a fraction owned by the County (1800 acres). The forest industry
owns 4% of the property in the County. Potlatch Corporation is the
largest private landowner. Potlatch Corporation lands were accessible to
the general public before the ‘private tree growth tax’ was rescinded in
2001. Potlatch Corporation has now instituted a program of leasing its
land to private parties. The change has resulted in restricting not only
hunting access but access for other activities as well, e.g. OHV use.
Within Crow Wing County the DNR manages Wildlife Management
Areas with a total of 5,800 acres (Figure 3 and Table 14). Three of these
units are cooperatively managed by the County and the State where the
county lands are adjacent to the WMA. WMAs are used for wildlife
management and production. WMAs can be used for timber harvesting
and for recreation activities such as hiking, hunting, wildlife watching,
and cross country skiing. WMA rules generally prohibit the use of OHVs
on roads and trails within wildlife areas.
12
Source: DNR’s Mississippi Headwaters River Trail brochure: Palisade to Brainerd
13
Source: Crow Wing County Forest Plan 2000
34
Administration
DNR Fisheries
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
DNR Fisheries
DNR T&W
County Parks
DNR T&W
DNR T&W
DNR Fisheries
County Parks
DNR T&W
County Parks
County Parks
Table 14 State Wildlife Management Areas
UNIT name
1
Agate Lake WMA
2
acres
area name
34.7
Brainerd
Mission Lake WMA
141.0
Brainerd
3
Poor Farm WMA
354.2
Brainerd
4
Telef Paulson WMA
41.2
Brainerd
5
Upgaard WMA
110.3
Brainerd
6
Twin Heron WMA
161.9
Brainerd
7
Lowell WMA
156.1
Brainerd
8
Loerch WMA
40.0
Brainerd
9
Loerch WMA
166.5
Brainerd
10
Ray Cook WMA
162.7
Brainerd
11
Hesitation WMA
370.0
Brainerd
12
Lower Dean WMA
128.6
Brainerd
13
Deutsch WMA
39.6
Brainerd
14
Deutsch WMA
198.7
Brainerd
15
Lower Dean WMA
115.8
Brainerd
16
WMA01376 Coop - County WMA
1019.2
Brainerd
17
WMA01376 Coop - County WMA
41.0
Brainerd
18
Birchdale WMA
1491.9
Brainerd
19
Duck Lake WMA
869.5
Brainerd
20
Roosevelt WMA
120.8
Brainerd
21
Upper Dean WMA
1.2
Brainerd
22
Upper Dean WMA
38.5
Brainerd
35
2.12 Trails
The 2004 County Comprehensive Plan includes the following
recommendations for trail development:
Promote the enhancement and development of other forms of
transportation, including foot, biking, snowmobile, and ATV trails
and sidewalks.
How: Evaluate existing trails and explore the possibility of
adding new trails or upgrading existing trails. This may include
connecting existing trails.
Who: Crow Wing County Parks Department, Highway
Department and Health Department, MN DOT, cities, townships,
developers, and other trail related agencies
When: Spring 2005
This section provides an account of existing trails in Crow Wing County,
including a discussion of trails that are administered by the County (Table
15) and trails under non-County jurisdictions.
County Parks Department
Non-motorized
The Crow Wing County Parks Department maintains two designated
trails, Larson Lake and Wolf Lake that feature non-motorized activities:
hiking, biking, horse back riding, and cross country skiing (Table 15).
Both cross country ski trails are located in the central part of the county
and are within 15 miles of Brainerd/Baxter and Crosby/Ironton.
The County is not managing any designated bikeways (i.e. paved bike
trails separated from the road right-of-way). There are segments of
CSAH 16 and CSAH 11 (also know as the Paul Bunyan Scenic Byway)
where the shoulders have been widened and paved sufficiently to allow
bicycle use.
Motorized
Three ATV trails are under the jurisdiction of the Parks Department. All
are located on county tax-forfeit land (Figure 12). Two of these County
trails are located in southern Crow Wing County (near Sebie Lake in Fort
Ripley Township and in Roosevelt Township). The third ATV trail is in
northeast Crow Wing County and goes from Emily to Outing in Cass
County.
36
Figure 10
37
County Land Department
The County Land Department has completed the process of locating
(using GPS technology) and classifying roads and trails located on tax
forfeit lands. Prior to this inventory the County estimated that there were
roughly 249 miles of forest roads and forest trails with 15% of these gated
to promote non-motorized uses or to protect the road surface.
Non-motorized
As a result of the 2000 Forest Management
Plan nine trail areas have been specified as
non-motorized areas (Table 15). These trails
are gated and support recreation activities
such as hiking and hunting, and snowshoeing.
Eight are located in the northern part of the
county (Figure 12), with four designated nonmotorized areas in central Crow Wing County.
Motorized
Currently ATV use on county tax forfeit land is
regulated. ATV and other motorized vehicles
(OHV) are allowed on county trails and roads
as long as the trails are not posted “closed to
motorized vehicles.”
The County is currently engaged in a joint effort with the Mn/DNR to
classify forest roads and trails with regard to their use by motorized
vehicles. Because many of the county and state parcels are adjacent and
trails between county to state are continuous, the joint effort was seen as
necessary in order to provide a seamless network of trail activity.
Other areas of the County are also being used by OHV’s. Road ditches
/ road right-of way is the most visible area of use. Private lands are also
being used by OHV riders - with permission, but also in situations where
use would be considered trespassing.
38
Table 15 County Trails
1
Pine Center Township
ATV trail
administrator/
agency/
sponsor
Parks Department
2
Fort Ripley
ATV trail
Parks Department
3
Wolf Lake
9.4 km
4
Larson Lake
10.5 km
5
Emily to Outing
ATV trail
Parks Department
1
Blueberry Bog, Timothy
Non-motorized: hiking
Land Department
2
Thompson Creek Trail, Timothy
Land Department
3
Cranberry Bog Trail, Timothy
Land Department
4
Pine Ridge Trail, Fifty Lakes
Land Department
5
Rock Creek Trail, Fifty Lakes
Land Department
6
White Pine Trail, Fifty Lakes
Land Department
7
Scrub Oak Trail, Mission
Land Department
8
Rice Lake Trail, Irondale
Land Department
9
Poor Farm Trail, Oak Lawn
Land Department
Trail NAME / Location
miles
trail use
Cross-country skiing, Horseback-riding, Hiking, Biking
Cross-country skiing, Horseback-riding, Hiking, Biking
Parks Department
Parks Department
State of Minnesota
Motorized
State legislation enacted in 2003 requires the Commissioner of the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to move toward a ‘closed unless
posted open’ management policy for off-highway vehicles (OHVs) on
State Forest lands. The Minnesota Legislature required the DNR to
inventory forest access routes, designate routes that will be open to OffHighway Vehicle (OHV) use, and reclassify those State Forests that are
currently classified as “managed” to “limited” or “closed” with respect to
motor vehicle use.
State Forest Roads are typically open to use by both highway-licensed
vehicles and off-highway vehicles (ATVs, OHMs, and ORVs). However,
in forests classified as ‘closed’ only highway licensed vehicles are allowed
on forest roads. Nonmotorized users (e.g., hikers, horseback riders, crosscountry skiers, snowshoers, mountain bikers) are allowed to use roads,
trails, and undesignated routes in the forest but they are not the primary
users and the routes are not mapped, signed, or maintained for such uses.
39
Non-motorized
The state Department of Natural Resources also provides trails for
recreation (Table 16).
Crow Wing State Park currently offers trails maintained for hiking,
biking, snowmobiling and cross country skiing.
Island Lake Woods is located along CSAH 16 in Jenkins Township. It is
a 158-acre tract of land managed by the Department of Natural Resources.
In September of 2003, a new footbridge was installed on the Veteran’s
Hiking Trail that takes visitors over Hay Creek to the north side of the
parcel, and over a wetland to high ground for a view of the mixed forest
of red and white pine, spruce, aspen and oak. The trail system continuing
into the bog should be completed in 2005.14 There is another hiking trail
in a forested tract at the Chiarella Forest Management Area on CSAH #11
in Breezy Point.
Pillsbury State Forest has the following recreational management
objectives: horseback riding and camping in the spring, summer, and
early fall; hunting in the fall; and snowmobiling and cross country skiing
in the winter. Given the level of horseback riding in the Pillsbury it is not
feasible to permit OHV use of the existing horse trails.15
Source: Paul Bunyan Scenic Byways Association, www.paulbunyanscenicbyway.org
Source: Proposed Mn/DNR State Forest Trail and Road Designations 2004
www.dnr.state.mn.us/input/mgmtplans/ohv/designation/status.html
14
15
40
Table 16 State Trails
miles
trail use
1
18 (+ 6
miles snowmobile)
administrator/ agency/
sponsor
Hiking, cross country skiing,
snowshoeing, and snowmobile
MN/DNR
2
Emily State Forest
[currently classified “managed”]
MN/DNR
3
Crow Wing State Forest
[currently classified “managed”]
MN/DNR
4
Uppgaard WMA
Hiking, cross country skiing
MN/DNR
5
Paul Bunyan State Trail
MN/DNR
6
Pillsbury State Forest3
7
Wealthwood State Forest
Biking, hiking, snowmobiling
Horse back riding, hiking,
biking, cross country skiing,
snowmobiling (no motorized
use other than snowmobiles
is proposed, i.e. the ‘closed’
classification)
Snowmobile – the only
designated trail within the forest
(no motorized use other than
snowmobiles is proposed, i.e.
the ‘closed’ classification)
26
7.4
Veterans Hiking Trail / Island
Lake Woods
Hiking
Chiarella Forest Mgmt Area/
Breezy Point
Hiking
MN/DNR
MN/DNR
Mn/DNR, Paul Bunyan
Scenic Byways
Association
Mn/DNR, Paul Bunyan
Scenic Byways
Association
Pillsbury is less than 3 miles west of the Crow Wing County border and
provides a major recreation facility for residents and visitors of densely
populated areas of Crow Wing County and thus is included in the review.
Wealthwood is located less than 1 mile east of the County border.
Cities, Townships and Other Organizations
There are a number of cities which have constructed and now maintain
trails within their borders and connect to regional trails (Table 17).
For example the Baxter trail system is designed to connect to the Paul
Bunyan State Trail. Pequot Lakes has included proposed trails in their
Comprehensive Plan which will provide connections to the Paul Bunyan
Trail and the Paul Bunyan Scenic Byway. A third trail at French Rapids
is used for cross country skiing, hiking, and mountain biking is located on
county-owned airport land. A local ski group maintains and grooms the
trails.
41
Table 17 Municipal/ Community /Regional Trails
administrator/agency/
sponsor
Arboretum / Brainerd
Nordic Ski Club
trail use
1
Northland Arboretum (aka Paul Bunyan
Conservation Area)
20 km of Cross country skiing,
hiking
2
French Rapids
Cross country skiing, hiking
3
Crosslake
4
Brainerd
5
Baxter
Hiking, biking, in-line skating
City of Baxter
6
Pillsbury State Park (Cass County)
Cross country skiing, hiking,
snowshoeing, snowmobiling
Mn/DNR
Cross-country skiing, hiking,
biking
Hiking, biking, in-line skating,
snowmobiling
#6 Source: www.paulbunyanscenicbyway.org
County / Brainerd
Nordic Ski Club
City of Crosslake
City of Brainerd
Table 18 Private Trails (Golf Course/Skiing)
trail use
administrator/
agency/
sponsor
1
Pine Beach
Cross country skiing
Private
2
Breezy Point
Private
3
West Gull
Private
4
Grandview Lodge
Private
5
Boyd Lodge
Private
A network of snowmobile trails (Table 19)
traverses Crow Wing County providing
connections across the County and connections
to Aitkin, Cass, Morrison, and Todd Counties.
These trails are located along roadways and
across private lands. Because permanent
easements have not been obtained for trails
that cross private land, these trails are subject
to regular re-alignment. Agreements for trail
use, mapping, and distribution of snowmobile
trail information are done by the private sector,
without formal involvement of the County,
although the County acts as the fiscal agent for
state grants (i.e. the Grant-in-Aid program which
distributes the snowmobile registration fees for
maintenance and grooming purposes).
42
Table 19 Snowmobile Trails
Trail NAME
miles*
Sponsor
1
Baxter Trail
22
Club
2
Brainerd Sno Deos
60
Club
3
Cuyuna Trail
84
Club
4
Emily Trail
34
Club
5
Fort Ripley Trail
57
Club
6
Garrison
41
Club
7
Gull Lake Drifters
17
Club
8
Ideal Sno-Pros
60
Club
9
Merrifield Marathons Trail
36
Club
* Mileage is approximate and subject to change
Trail Corridors
The Paul Bunyan State trail (from Brainerd to Pine River and beyond)
and the snowmobile trails (administered by private clubs with assistance
from the Grant-in-Aid state program) provide the only long distance
trail corridors in the county. All other County trails are contained within
county tax forfeit boundaries.
The Paul Bunyan State Trail, following an abandoned railroad
right-of-way, currently has over 71 miles of paved trail from
Baxter to Walker. An additional 37 miles of unpaved trail
runs from Walker to Lake Bemidji State Park (northeast of
Bemidji). Sanctioned activities on the trail include biking, inline skating, and walking during the summer, and it is groomed
for snowmobile traffic in the winter months.
The Paul Bunyan Scenic Byway, which runs along County
Highways 11 and 16 east of Pequot Lakes, is another important
recreational asset primarily for driving and sight-seeing (Figure
12). Though there are also paved shoulders in limited areas
along the Paul Bunyan Scenic Byways that are available for
biking. The Paul Bunyan Scenic Byway is a 54 mile loop road
route. County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 16 is the spine of
the route. At the intersection with CSAH 66, the route travels
both north around the Whitefish Chain and south along the
north side of Pelican Lake. The Byway passes through 14 local
government jurisdictions: Jenkins, Ideal Township, Crosslake,
Manhattan Beach, Mission Township, Pelican Township,
Timothy Township, Pequot Lakes, Breezy Point, Pine River,
Jenkins Township, Gail Lake Township, Wilson Township, and
Barclay Township. The Byway connects with the Paul Bunyan
Trail in four locations, at CSAH 16, at CSAH 11, and at CSAH
15 in Crow Wing County and at CSAH 1 in Cass County.
Hikers share the trail with bikers during the summer. The trail is used for
snowmobiling in the winter.
Table 20 Bikeways
miles
1
Paul Bunyan State Trail
(Baxter to Jenkins)
administrator/
agency/sponsor
31.4
Mn/DNR
2
Paul Bunyan Scenic Byway
54
Paul Bunyan Scenic
Byway Association, a
non-profit organization
43
Figure 11
44
3.0
PLANNED AND PROPOSED PARKS, TRAILS, AND OPEN SPACE
3.1 Planned Park Facilities
Crow Wing County Jurisdiction
The County Board has designated two park sites that remain undeveloped
at this time (Table 21 and Figure 6). Land on the southern end of Lower
South Long Lake was recently donated to the County for a recreation site.
The site has been used for many years as if it were a public recreation
site, with no services. The site will now be developed, supervised, and
maintained by the County. Approximately 100 acres on the west shore
of Gilbert Lake has also been designated for use as a County park by the
County Board.
Outside County Jurisdiction
Table 21 Planned Facilities - County
to be developed
Location
Park
1
South Long Lake
Park
2 Gilbert Lake
1 Source: January ’04 PAC meeting minutes
2 Source: July ’04 PAC meeting minutes
potential features
Fishing pier, carry-in water
access, toilets, parking, picnic
Multi-use, low impact park
There are also a number of
recreation facilities that are
being planned by entities
other than Crow Wing
County. Table 22 lists the
facilities that have been
identified by the County
PAC.
Table 22 Planned Facilities – Non-county
Planned
Location
Jurisdiction
Park expansion
1
State
Park
improvements
2
Whipple Park
City of Baxter
Cross Lake, south bay
Army Corps
of Engineers/
City of
Crosslake
New Park
Additional acreage to add to existing
park Expanded parking, bus loading area,
sewer and water, improved public
access, new playground (already
installed). Connected to Baxter Trail
system.
Picnic, walking, beach
Picnic shelter, grills, bike racks,
picnic tables, bathrooms, horseshoe
4
Township
pits, baseball, basketball, hiking and
horse trails
January ’04 PAC meeting minutes, December ’04 personal correspondence
February ’04 PAC meeting minutes
February ’04 PAC meeting minutes
May ’04 PAC meeting minutes
New Park and
Recreation Area
1 Source:
2 Source:
3 Source:
4 Source:
3
potential features
Crow Wing Township,
Barrows
45
Figure 12
46
Table 23 lists trails that are proposed for development. A connecting
section of the Paul Bunyan Trail is proposed to connect to Crow Wing
State Park.
The Cuyuna Lakes State Trail will be a vital link in the recreation system
of the central Minnesota lakes region. The trail will connect to the Paul
Bunyan State Trail, a 100-mile long trail between Baxter/Brainerd and
Bemidji. The Cuyuna Lakes State Trail is also planned to be a link to
other state and regional trails, such as the Munger State Trail to the east,
the Mesabi Regional Trail to the north, and the Glacial Lake Aitkin Trail
system in Aitkin County. The Cuyuna Lakes State Trail will also be part
of the national Mississippi River Trail – a 10-state cycling route that will
allow cyclists to tour from the headwaters of the Mississippi to the Gulf of
Mexico.16
Cuyuna Country State Recreation Area (CCSRA), located in the CrosbyIronton vicinity, has nearly 60 miles of paths, trails, roads, and railroad
grades that are planned to support mountain biking, hiking, horseback
riding along with cross country skiing. The future connecting local trail
system between Deerwood and Bay Lake will pass through or near, the
Lansin R. Hamilton Memorial Forest, a Crow Wing County Forest.
Table 23 Planned Trails
1
2
trail use
Paul Bunyan Trail – Brainerd
to Crow Wing State Park
Connection south to
including Excelsior
Boulevard Overpass to
Hwy 210 underpass
Cuyuna Lakes State Trail
Seven miles of dualtreadway: paved for
biking and in-line
skating, unpaved
for snowmobile and
mountain bikes
administrator/
agency/
sponsor
State and Paul
Bunyan Trail
Association/ MN
Parks and Trails
Council
State/ Cuyuna Trail
Association
Mountain biking,
hiking, horseback
3
Mn/DNR
riding, cross country
skiing, snowmobiling
1 Source: January ’04 PAC meeting minutes and MN Parks and Trails Council/Paul Bunyan
Trail Association representative
2 Source: September ’04 Trails Subcommittee meeting minutes, January ’04 PAC meeting
minutes
Cuyuna Country State
Recreation Area
Minnesota DNR Cuyuna Lakes State Trail Plan
16
47
3.2
Proposed Park and Trail Facilities
Proposed park facilities are those that are under
consideration by the County, but have no funds
allocated for their development at this time.
Crow Wing County Jurisdiction
The County PAC and County Board have
discussed a number of potential new recreation
facilities or sites, including the following:
•
•
•
OHV Park
Milford Mine site
Flanders Lake and surrounding area
Outside County Jurisdiction
The Paul Bunyan Scenic Byway Association has proposed an interpretive
Center in Crosslake, and is investigating funding opportunities.
An Interpretive Center as part of the Cuyuna Country State Recreation
Area has been included in the Plan for the Area.
There are a number of trails and/or trail segments that would be desirable
in order to create a more continuous network (Table 24).
Table 24 Proposed Trails
trail use
administrator/
agency/
sponsor
1
Extend Crosslake ski trails onto
County lands
City of Crosslake
and County
2
County Hwy 66 snowmobile trail /
Crosslake
Snowmobile
Undetermined
3
Snowmobile trail bridge over the Pine
River to connect Crosby/Ironton and
Crosslake trail system
Snowmobile
Undetermined
1 Source: May ’04 PAC meeting minutes
2 Source: September ’04 Trails Subcommittee meeting minutes, January ’04 PAC meeting minutes
48
4.0
PARKS, TRAILS, AND OPEN SPACE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The 2004 County Comprehensive Plan notes that future County land
use decisions must build on existing recreational resources, meet the
demands of a growing and changing population, and reinforce the policies
developed by the Crow Wing County Parks Advisory Commission, which
are:
Ø to integrate park, open space, historical, and recreational values
into County planning;
Ø to provide diverse recreational opportunities for people of all
ages, income, and abilities;
Ø to coordinate County-wide parks and recreation functions and
activities; and
Ø to manage County recreational lands in concert with other County
managing authorities.
The Comprehensive Plan also sets the guiding policy for the Parks,Trails,
and Open Space Plan:
Maintain and enhance parks, recreation, and open space for Crow
Wing County residents and visitors by providing diverse recreational
opportunities that are accessible to people of all ages and abilities, while
preserving the County’s high quality natural areas and open space.
4.1 Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan Goals and Objectives
In response to the need for a Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan, as stated
in the 2004 Comprehensive Plan, the following goals and objectives
articulate the priorities of residents and stakeholders, and are designed to
enhance the 2004 Comprehensive Plan for Parks, Recreation, and Open
Space policy.
1. Meet Resident and Visitor Demand for Parks, Trails, and Open Space
Facilities and Areas
Crow Wing County will strive to meet public demand for parks, trails, and
open space. The County will:
A. Develop opportunities that meet demand for active and
passive recreation facilities and trails in its investment
and acquisition decisions.
B. Create open space and natural areas to embrace residents’
and visitors’ priorities for maintaining the County’s
community character.
C. Evaluate whether the County’s investment of dollars or
staff meets specific demands for services, facilities, or
programs.
49
D. Meet demand for a wide range of recreation activities,
including niche or specialized recreation activities,
through creative design of facilities to accommodate a
mix of uses.
2. Respect Natural Systems and Carrying Capacity of the County’s
Resources
Crow Wing County will respect the physical attributes and limitations of
each park, trail, or open space area and the natural systems that might be
affected by park, trail, and open space decisions. The County will:
A. Minimize conflicts between recreational uses in multi-use
facilities or parcels.
B. Protect habitat and watershed functions in both active and
passive recreation areas.
C. Use each site in a manner that suits the unique
characteristics of the site.
D. Recognize that lakes, forest, rivers, watersheds, and other
natural systems have carrying capacities that must be
carefully managed to ensure long-term sustainability.
3. Recognizing Community Diversity and Practicing
Community-oriented Planning
Crow Wing County recognizes the diversity of its natural
landscapes and population centers, and will develop park,
trail, and open space facilities in appropriate locations
that provide access, preserve local character, and minimize
nuisances. The County will:
A. Locate facilities that have appropriate access
to the target population for local facilities,
regional facilities, and county-wide facilities.
B. Minimize nuisances from its facilities through
good planning and recognition of individual
and community property rights.
C. Create single-use facilities that preserve or
enhance the qualities implicit to particular
recreation or natural area uses.
D. Create facilities oriented to the recreational
needs of diverse age groups: children, youth,
adults, families, and seniors.
E. Create facilities appropriate for quiet activities
and loud activities.
F. Limit fragmentation of natural areas through
the use of non-motorized trail corridors,
greenways, or watercourses where appropriate.
50
4. Ensure Park Program and Facility Efficiency
Crow Wing County will efficiently manage its park and trail facilities.
The County will:
A. Avoid unnecessary duplication of facilities or services
when making new acquisitions or investments.
B. Consider whether new investment will enhance
or degrade existing public or private recreational
development.
C. Partner with cities, townships, state and federal agencies
to improve efficiency and enhance delivery of services.
D. Create an appropriate balance of local, regional, and interregional facilities.
E. Coordinate and cooperate, where appropriate, with the
Crow Wing County Land Department to ensure efficient
management of multi-purpose County lands.
5. Respect Public Process and Decision-making Procedures
Crow Wing County respects public input and will implement
the long-term vision described in its 2004 Comprehensive
Plan and its Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan. The
County will:
A. Make investment, acquisition, and
management decisions based on
consistency with its long-term goals and
needs analysis as articulated in the 2004
Comprehensive Plan and Parks, Trails, and
Open Space Plan.
B. Regularly engage the public in its park,
trail, and open space investment and
management decisions.
C. Follow a public and open procedure when
evaluating park, trail and open space
options.
51
6. Practice Responsible Financial management
Crow Wing County will sustainably and equitably manage the short- and
long-term costs of its parks, trails, and open space facilities. The County
will:
A. Consider comparable facilities or land, including the
market price, when considering facility or land purchases.
B. Identify the potential for creating a revenue stream with
facilities that are appropriate for charging fees.
C. Evaluate operating and management costs of its facilities.
D. Consider whether the costs of a facility are commensurate
with the value of the proposed use or the number of
people who will use the facility.
E. Consider both the fiscal costs and benefits and the
qualitative costs and benefits of its management,
investment, and acquisition decisions.
52
5.0
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
After identifying goals and policies, the consultant team conducted a
needs assessment to direct strategy priorities and the implementation plan.
The needs assessment was broken into three primary foci, within which
needs-oriented questions were answered. The three focus areas were:
A. Trails and related facilities
B. Park facilities other than trails
C. Open Space considerations
Within these three focus areas the consultants followed the same
assessment process:
•
•
•
•
Identify potential needs categories
Review existing facilities and programs within each need category.
Consider whether existing facilities and programs meet the
evaluation criteria identified in the Plan’s goals and policies (demand
for services, access, geographic location, carrying capacity)
Review proposed facilities and programs within each need category.
Consider whether proposed facilities meet the evaluation criteria
identified in the Plan’s goals and policies.
Identify potential unmet needs for consideration and prioritization
by Parks staff, the Parks Advisory Committee (PAC), and the Trails
Subcommittee.
53
Enforcement and Maintenance Needs
When the County invests capital in and provides land for projects it
also takes on the responsibility for taking proper care of those assets.
Investment that encourages public use requires that the County consider
the safety of those users and take reasonable steps to make facilities
safe and to educate users of the risks associated with certain facilities.
The County must also monitor facilities to minimize nuisances, ensure
appropriate facility use, and protect the facilities or park area from harm.
If user fees are a part of the funding, the County must insure that only
those who have paid fees are using the facility. Meeting any of the needs
identified in this plan creates additional needs for education efforts and
regulatory initiatives to ensure sustainable use of the new facilities.
5.1 Trails and Related Facilities
Needs Categories
In public comments on parks, trails, and open space issues, trails garner
the majority of comments and issues. In Comprehensive Plan public
meetings, Parks Plan public meetings, and in public surveys the most
desired facilities related to trails. To address this highly visible recreation
need, the County has formed a Trails Subcommittee to the PAC, which
has been holding its own discussions and setting trail priorities. In
response to the increased trail activities in the county, the Trails
Subcommittee has been meeting to gain insight into potential trail issues
and formulate possible solutions to address those issues. Another County
committee has been meeting to understand the use of ATVs in County
road right-of-ways and how to deal with the safety and environmental
implications of this activity. Other organizations are also working on the
expansion of trail facilities, including Minnesota Parks and Trails, the
Cuyuna Lakes Trails Association, the Brainerd Nordic Ski Club, a number
of snowmobile organizations, four ATV clubs, and Paul Bunyan Scenic
Byway Association.
The following trail needs categories were derived from the trail categories
identified by the Trails Subcommittee and responses from public
comments and surveys. The Subcommittee also identified typical features
of desirable trail facilities, which have been included here to help define
trail needs.
54
Trail User Group
Typical features of desirable facilities
Motorcycles
• Users will trailer motorcycles to site
• Loops, 15-50 miles of trail, mostly single track
• May be combined with ATV use if needed.
ATV
• Long distance riding is desirable. ATVs may ride in ROWs unless
local road authority prohibits
• Destination to destination routes
• Loop system with up to 1,500 acres and 70+ miles of trail
• Divide into ‘Unit trails’ with some built and maintained by a public
agency, and others built and maintained by clubs and reimbursed by
the DNR dedicated funds.
Horseback riding
•
•
•
•
•
•
• 80 to 640 acres with 20 km of trails
• About 16 foot wide trail for dual use to accommodate skating and
classic techniques and still maintain ground cover
• Must have a level cross section for grooming small amounts of snow
• Incompatible with motorized activities
Hiking
• Day hiking areas similar to ski areas
• Destination to destination, similar to the North Shore trail or North
Country trail
At least 15, and up to 30 miles of trail (more with overnight camping)
Intersecting and looping trail system
Accessible for parking and turning around with truck and trailer
Parking for at least 10 rigs
Compatible with snowmobile, ski, hiking, and mountain bike trails
Need ample warning signage both ways at motorized trail crossing,
minimize motor and other loud noises on trails
• Camping would require additional facilities: toilets, water
55
Trail User Group
facilities (cont)
Typical features of desirable
Snowmobile
• Destination to destination (“touring”)
• Grant-in-Aid system is model with long distance corridors crossing water,
wetlands and private lands with permission
• ATV use across private lands on snowmobile trails is prohibited
• Winter snowmobile grooming is not compatible with ATVs
Bicycles
•
•
•
•
Dog sledding
•
•
•
•
•
4x4/Mudder trucks
No specific trail standards proposed – challenge areas are addressed in Park
Facilities section of the needs assessment
Solitude areas
Campsites, hiking and hunting trails, high value natural areas, and scenic areas
Canoe/Kayak trails
• Well-marked accesses every 5- 8 miles
• Camping facilities
• Good route maps
Mountain bike
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
In-line skating
• Wide (more than 8 feet) and paved roadway
• Flat terrain more popular (abandoned railways)
• Looped systems most popular, however trails will depend upon
skaters physical condition
• Parking and toilet facilities
• Camping/lodging/food close by
• Good sightlines for safety
56
Paved roads with clean paved shoulders
Linear paved trail systems (i.e. Paul Bunyan State Trail)
Parking and toilet facilities in high use areas
Wayfinding - Trail and or route maps, Information Kiosk, Secondary roads
(low traffic) signed and mapped.
• Camping/lodging/food close by
Intersecting and looping trail system, with up to 30+ miles of trail
Average width should be at least 10 feet
Accessible for parking and turning around with a trailer
Variety of terrain, winding, wooded, gentle hills
Compatible with snowmobile, hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding and
ATV trails.
• Need ample warning signage both ways at motorized trail crossing, minimize
motor and other loud noises on trails
Variety of trail widths including single track trails
Variety of challenging terrain through wooded areas
Looped trail systems
Wayfinding - Trail maps, Information kiosk,
Parking and toilet facility
Camping/lodging/food close by
Terrain/soils that can withstand use without excessive erosion
Existing Facilities and Programs
The consultant evaluated the existing facilities identified in the trail
facility inventory and in discussions with Trails Subcommittee members.
The trail facilities include trails managed by a range of entities, including
the following managers:
•
•
•
•
•
County-owned or managed trail facilities
Local government owned or managed facilities
State owned or managed facilities
Privately owned or managed facilities
Non-profit or club owned or managed facilities
A summary of existing trail facilities by trail user group is shown below:
Ø Motorcycle trails - There are no specified areas for motorcycle/
motocross activities in the County. An area that motorcycles had
been using was the Potlatch lands east of the airport lands. These
have now been closed for public use because of changes to the
property tax regulations. Motorcycles are not allowed to ride in
road side ROWs, though they are allowed on state and county
forest roads and trails not marked ‘closed’ – though many of these
are not the type of experience the motorcyclists are interested in.
The trail area that most closely meets Subcommittee criteria is in
Paul Bunyan State Forest in Hubbard County.
Ø ATV/OHV trails - ATVs currently have access to certain road
ROWs throughout the county, to state and county forest roads
and trails that are not marked ‘closed to motorized vehicles’.
There are three trail systems designated by the County as ATV
trails, including one in the north and the others in the southwest
and southeast corners of the County. ATV/OHV riders also have
access to much of the trail and road system within the countymanaged tax forfeit lands.
Ø Equestrian trails - Multi-use non-motorized trails are meeting
some of the need for horseback trails. The County has designated
two non-motorized trails (Larson and Wolf) as equestrian trail
areas in addition to other allowed uses. Three miles to the west
of Baxter is an additional site for horse back riding in Pillsbury
State Forest with over 25 miles of trails plus trailer and overnight
accommodations.
57
Horse back riding is also permitted on non-motorized trails
within the state forest and county lands, though the trail mileage
does not meet the desired length for most users. Examples of
existing facilities that meet the Subcommittee’s recommended
specifications include Pillsbury State Forest with 28 miles of
trails/30-40 campers, Kathio State Park with 20 miles of trails/10
campers
Ø Cross country ski trails - There are two county maintained
facilities for cross country skiing located within 15 miles of one
another in the east central portion of the County. The County also
partners with the City of Crosslake in Crosslake Park to maintain
approximately 3.5 miles of trails. Two others are maintained by
non-profit or club organizations and located within one mile of
Brainerd (French Rapids, owned by the Airport Authority and
the Arboretum). A fifth system of trails is located within Crow
Wing State Park. A maintained trail in Pillsbury State Forest is
outside Crow Wing County (in Cass County) but is less than three
miles west of Baxter. Other cross country ski trails are groomed
by private entities located in the resort area of west central Crow
Wing County.
Ø Hiking trails - Hiking trails correspond with many of the trails
described for cross country skiing. In addition to these there are
a number of trails on county tax forfeit land designated as nonmotorized and gated to discourage motor vehicle access. These
trails are concentrated in the northern part of the county, but there
are at least three others located in central areas of the County.
Hiking for recreation and for hunting are permitted on most trails
and roads within State and County forests, though these would be
‘shared’ with motorized vehicles.
Ø Snowmobile trails - There are approximately 875 miles of
snowmobile trail in Crow Wing County supervised and
maintained by a variety of organizations both public to private.
Ø Bicycle trails, in-line skate trails - The Paul Bunyan State Trail
is the major paved trail for bikes and in-line skating in the area
that is separated from motorized traffic. Approximately 26 miles
of the Paul Bunyan State Trail is located in Crow Wing County.
850 miles of bikeways (in the form of road shoulders) have
been identified as bikeable by the local bike club (Paul Bunyan
Cyclists).
58
Ø Dogsledding trails - There are no specified areas for dog sledding
and carting activities in the County. Mushers usually use
snowmobile trails or multi-use trails on public land.
Ø Canoe/Kayak trails - There are three DNR designated canoe
routes within the County. The Pine River meanders 31 miles
through Crow Wing County and has two designated campsites
and 3 access points. The Mississippi River traverses 62 miles
through the county and has 4 designated camping areas and 10
access points. The Mississippi River and the Pine River have
carry-in accesses and campsites along the routes.
Ø Mountain bike trails (off road) - Mountain bikers use ski, hiking
and forest roads and trails in the county.
The needs assessment must address primary needs issues raised in the
Plan’s Goals and Policies section. The goals raise four specific issues
goals in assessing need: Demand for facilities (Goal 1); Geographic
distribution of and access to facilities (Goal 3); Diversity of targeted
user ages and recreation activities (Goal 3), and; Carrying capacity of
existing facilities (Goal 2). These four needs issues were evaluated in the
following manner when reviewing existing facilities as part of the needs
assessment.
• Demand – Existing facilities were evaluated based on how demand
for trail needs were expressed in the record of public comment, survey
responses, and staff and Trails Subcommittee comments.
• Geographic distribution and access – Some types of trails and trail
activities are necessarily dependent on the natural environment
to create a high quality recreation experience, such as hiking, or
by specific elements of the terrain, such as ATV/OHV challenge
areas. Specific trail activities will be enhanced by natural amenities
that may include woods, hilly terrain, scenic overlooks, and large
acreages. Other experiences are less specific in qualitative need, or
are destination oriented, and may depend only on the availability of
land in the form of an easement or purchase or public agency policy
allowing that use.
A number of access issues exist for trail facilities. Trail heads may
need access to major roads, parking, and restrooms. Maps need to be
created showing locations. Bridges are needed to connect divided trail
sections. Some trails follow one-year trail easements that frequently
change as land owners change, creating additional access problems.
59
• Diversity of target user/activity – Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan
Goal 3 policies call for a diversity of active and passive areas, of quiet
and motorized trails and related facilities. The mix of opportunity for
diverse trail activities was considered, as well as the ability of multiuse trails to meet a diversity of activities. Some passive trail activities
can be met simultaneously with the open space needs described later in
this analysis.
• Carrying capacity – Carrying capacity issues of trail and related
facilities were considered in two specific ways: is the capacity of the
facility adequate to demand, and is the carrying capacity of economic,
social or natural resources affected by the trail facility? Some facilities
have capacity issues related to maintenance – facility use is dependent
on regular maintenance in order for ongoing use (grooming, erosion
control). Trails and related facilities can also affect sensitive areas,
and must sometime include design or additional control facilities to
minimize risk to sensitive features or water resources from erosion and
pollution.
Proposed Trail Facilities or Programs
Proposed facilities or programs were considered to see if on-going
efforts by the County were addressing potential unmeet needs. Proposed
facilities included potential locations for trail or related investments,
even those only considered at the most conceptual stage. The proposed
facilities or programs included the following efforts:
•
•
•
•
•
On-going planning for an ATV/OHV area on County land
New water access and associated facilities on South Long Lake
The Cuyuna Lakes State Trail for bicycle use. The first 5 miles
is scheduled to be paved in the summer of 2005, and extended in
subsequent years.
A County Board committee to study the use of county highway
ROWs for ATV use
Ongoing classification and surveying of trails in state forests by
DNR.
Proposed facilities are geographically distributed in several areas in the
County. Some facilities are intended to be regional in nature, where
people are anticipated to travel to the facility, and thus should include
amenities related to a regional park (parking, restrooms, campgrounds
or shelter areas). Long corridors and/or looped trails have both been
proposed as needed features. Corridors are the preferred trail design for
snowmobiles, ATVs, biking, and canoeing. Looped trails are preferred
in the case of motorcycles, horse back riders, non-motorized (hiking and
skiing), and also for trail-related ATV facilities, such as challenge areas.
60
Potential Unmet Trail Needs
Demand for trail-based recreation is the single largest category of use
that residents and visitors are demanding. The public comment and
survey information clearly reflect a growing demand for trails and related
facilities.
The Trails Subcommittee has identified a number of unmet trail needs.
Specific areas or locations for facilities have been discussed as well. The
table below shows the potential needs under discussion, some additional
potential needs that arose from this analysis, and the geographic locations
that have been discussed.
Several needs categories appear to have no trails
or related facilities (such as challenge areas),
including motorcycles, dog sleds, mudder truck
facilities, and mountain bike trails. Informal trail
use does occur for all of these need categories,
but no existing formal designated or managed
areas have been identified. Multi-use trails can
and do accommodate some of these uses, but can
also create conflicts between non-motorized and
motorized uses.
Some unmet needs are applicable across trail need
categories. Trail amenities such as reasonable
access, appropriate signage, maps, parking,
and other investments that enhance the use of
recreational trails need to be considered for all
kinds of trails.
Similarly, enforcement of trail rules, usage limitations, speed limits, and
payment of user fees are a potential programmatic need identified in
public and stakeholder comments. Recreational trail use (both motorized
and non-motorized) has real and perceived nuisances that require
management, including users who leave the designated trail, damage to
sensitive slopes and natural areas, littering, illegal parking, and speeding.
Effective enforcement programs ultimately enhance the recreational trail
experience for users and ensure that trail use is sustainable over time.
61
Trail User Group
62
Potential need
Potential areas to meet needs
4x4/Mudder
trucks
Demand for challenge areas is indicated
in public comments and surveys. The
County has no existing facilities, but can
incorporate such areas in a motorized
regional park.
• Area could include facilities 4X4
challenges
ATV
Several ATV/OHV trails exist in the
County, and regional facilities exist north
of the County, but appear not to meet
demand. In addition to trail facilities
there is a demand for related motorized
challenge areas and similar facilities. A
regional motorized park could address
not only ATV/OHV but demand for other
motorized facilities.
• East side of the Airport
• Between Riverton and Trommald,
including Crosby area (around the
Section 6 Mine Pit)
• South of Crosslake
• Timothy township
• Existing trails at Emily expanded
Bicycle
Few officially designated bicycle trails
exist other than the State trails and some
locally designated bike paths, such as in
Baxter and Brainerd. Some roadways
have been designed to accommodate
bicycle traffic but liability issues are
high when motorized and non-motorized
uses share a facility. Resolution of the
liability issues and ongoing cooperation
with traffic and road planners to enhance
bicycle opportunities could be a priority.
• Extension of Paul Bunyan State Trail
to the south and connecting to Crow
Wing State Park
• Seven mile trail from Crosby to
Riverton within the Cuyuna Country
State Recreation Area, eventually
extending east to Aitkin
• The Cuyuna Country trail may be
extended west to Brainerd
• Paul Bunyan Scenic byway with its 10
foot shoulders
• State and county highways (targeting
low-traffic roads) designated as
bikeways if shoulder width and
surface are appropriate
• Route signs, maps on county web site.
• New or resurfaced roads with paved
shoulders
Trail User Group
Potential need
Canoe/Kayak
trails
The Pine and Mississippi rivers have
water trails with primitive camping sites
managed by DNR. Expanded access,
improved supporting facilities (parking,
camping, signage, canoe maps).
• Pine River - below Crosslake Dam, in
Mission Twps sec. 2, 3 or 4
• Mississippi River - Improve existing
access (i.e. Hwy 6 landing), new
access near Aitkin County border
Cross country
skiing
Several existing cross country skiing
trails are in or near the County, and at
least one new facility is ready for use this
winter. Some additional facilities may be
needed near population centers. Some ski
trail needs can be met through adapting
existing summer use recreational
facilities.
• Crosslake area – the City of Crosslake
is working with the County on
additional ski trails
• Nisswa/Pequot Lakes
• Emily
• Within the GCWESF STUDY AREA
(Fairfield township)
Dog sledding
Dog sledding is a growing sport in the
area. Mushers now use snowmobile trails
and horse trails in the county. Otherwise,
there is no place for them to go. Dog
sledding has minimal impact on the
environment.
• Dog sledding is compatible with
summer non-paved trail use.
Horseback riding, ATV, hiking and
mountain biking trails are a good
match if the trails are wide enough
and do not become deeply rutted.
Hiking
Public comments and survey responses
show interest in additional passive
recreation areas, including hiking. A
number of hiking opportunities exist in
the County, but don’t have some of the
supporting facilities to encourage use
or ensure adequate access. Open space
and natural areas, as defined in the Open
Space section, can accommodate hiking
and related activities well.
Horseback riding
Existing county facilities are well used
during peak riding season. The Trails
Subcommittee has identified Equestrian
facilities as a specific need and developed
some criteria for additional facilities.
• Within the GCWESF STUDY AREA
- Section 15 in Mission township
(Flanders Lake) is currently used by
riders
• French Rapids (on the ski trails)
• Greer Lake area
• Timothy Township
63
Trail User Group
Potential Need
In-line skating
Motorcycles
64
• Extension of Paul Bunyan State Trail
to the south and connecting to Crow
Wing State Park
• Seven mile trail from Crosby to
Riverton within the Cuyuna Country
State Recreation Area, eventually
extending east to Aitkin. The Cuyuna
Country trail may be extended west to
Brainerd
• Paul Bunyan Scenic byway with its 10
foot shoulders
• State and county highways (targeting
low-traffic roads) designated as
bikeways if shoulder width and
surface are appropriate
• Route signs, maps on county web site.
• New or resurfaced roads with paved
shoulders
No motorcycle trails or related facilities
currently exist. The Trails Subcommittee
has identified draft criteria for motorcycle
facilities.
•
•
•
•
Area east of the Airport
Between Riverton and Trommald
City of Crosslake
West of Garrison in Sections 17 and
20
Trail User Group
Potential Need
Mountain bike/
Off road bike
Mountain bike and other off-road biking
currently uses multi-use trails, private
land use, and informal use at some public
sites. Off-road challenge areas or trails
might be included at a regional park if
separation from motorized facilities is
assured.
• Sagamore Mine pit area
• French Rapids Ski Trails, Larson and
Wolf Lake Ski Trails,
• Northland Arboretum
• County/state public land (logging
roads and trails).
Snowmobile
Snowmobile trails are also in demand,
and a large number of trails are across the
County. The Subcommittee has identified
trail criteria new trails and improved
access to existing trails. Permanent
easements and additional enforcement of
trail boundaries are two issues that could
be additional priorities.
• Bridge over the Pine River to connect
Crosby-Ironton with the Crosslake
trail system
Remote hiking, backpacking,
experiencing natural areas can be
accommodated on existing public
lands and in conjunction with natural
infrastructure protection as discussed in
the Open Space section.
• Timothy Township area
• Mission Township
• Fifty Lakes
Solitude areas
65
5.2 Park facilities other than trails
Most sport and recreational activities require special facilities, fields, or
other set-aside areas. Crow Wing County residents and visitors engage
in a wide variety of recreational activities that require or are enhanced by
specific facilities, from playgrounds to ski hills, from nature preserves to
indoor swimming.
Facility-based Sports/
Activities
Baseball
Softball
Soccer
Hockey
Football
Basketball
Tennis
Indoor swim/Swim Team
Gymnastics
Volleyball
Other Specialized Facilities
ATV/OHV Challenge
Downhill Ski/Snowboard
Golf
Disk (Frisbee) Golf
Climbing
Skateboard
BMX Racing
Paint Ball
Weight Training
Racquetball
Dance
Fitness/aerobics
66
General Park Facilities
Playground/tot lot
Picnic areas
Pavilion/Shelters
Skating rinks
Multi-use fields
Restrooms
Sledding
Lake/River Facilities
Boating/Sailing
Canoeing/Kayaking
Wind Surfing
Wake Board/Water Skiing
Swimming Beaches
Fishing – boat and shore
Outdoor Non-Facility-Based
Bird/Wildlife
Watching/Photography
Hunting
Sledding
Camping
Cultural/Educational
Citywide festivals & events
Crafts/hobbies
Museums/galleries
Historic sites and cultural
events
Different types of park facilities are frequently managed by different
entities. The Parks, Trails, and Open Space goals and policies direct
the County to meet demand for park facilities, but to take advantage
of partnering opportunities and to evaluate the costs and benefits of
investment and management activities. The needs assessment must
consider not only the recreation and sport priorities of Crow Wing County
residents and visitors, but whether the County is the best entity for
meeting those needs. The existing facilities discussion therefore includes
an analysis of both the kinds of facilities in Crow Wing County and what
entity (if any) is currently providing or managing facilities.
Needs categories
Park facilities include a very wide range of facility types, including
lake/river-related facilities, sports facilities, community gathering areas
and facilities, general recreation areas, and natural areas. The following
needs categories were derived from the facilities identified on the park and
recreation surveys conducted in 2004. The categories include both the
facilities listed on the questionnaires and additional facilities identified by
survey respondents and via public comments.
Existing facilities and programs
Park planning typically uses distinct categories of parks to address distinct
activity and community needs. The needs assessment used a simplified
version of park categories, as described below:
•
Neighborhood Park. A small park serving primarily
the residential community within walking distance
of the park. Neighborhood parks are typically
owned and maintained by or on behalf of the local
government (city or township) or community
service organization (Lions or Rotary). The parks
can include a variety of general facilities and sports
fields, including playgrounds, picnic shelters,
generalized sport fields (softball/baseball, soccer/
football), and restrooms.
•
Community Park. A mid-sized to large park serving
a community-wide need. Community parks are
typically owned and maintained by the local
government, but can be managed by a county or
regional entity. Community parks can include more
intense recreational facilities (i.e. little league, adult
softball, regulation soccer, court games), swimming
pool, community center, parking, natural areas, or
amphitheaters.
67
•
Regional Park. A mid-sized to very large
park serving a regional, inter-community
need. Regional parks are typically owned
and maintained by county, regional, or state
governments. Regional parks usually include
natural amenities or large natural areas and
associated recreational facilities, including
beaches, fishing and boating access, sensitive
environmental areas, environmental learning
centers, camping, and links to regional trails.
Specialized regional parks can include motorized
trails and related facilities for motorized sports.
The needs assessment also considers existing facilities owned or managed
by the following categories of facility managers:
•
•
•
•
•
County-owned or managed park facilities
Local government or public school owned or managed facilities
State owned or managed facilities
Privately owned or managed facilities
Non-profit owned or managed facilities
The needs assessment must address primary needs issues raised in the
Goals and Policies section of the Plan. In considering the policies that
describe the goals, four specific issues address assessing need for facilities
or investment: Demand for facilities (Goal 1); Geographic distribution
of and access to facilities (Goal 3); Diversity of targeted user ages and
recreation activities (Goal 3), and; Carrying capacity of existing facilities
(Goal 2). These four needs issues were evaluated in the following manner
when reviewing existing facilities as part of the needs assessment.
68
•
Demand – Existing facilities were evaluated based on the
record of public comment, survey responses, and staff and PAC
comments. The County will need to create means to measure
demand for services or facilities to meet its demand-oriented
policies (Goal 1).
•
Geographic distribution and access – Different park facilities have
quite different geographic distribution criteria. Neighborhood
parks, for instance, need to be accessible at the neighborhood
level. Regional facility needs, such as unique sport facilities,
must have access to population centers and transportation
systems. Parking and restrooms are access issues for some types
of facilities but not others. Walkability or access to trail systems
enhances access for some facilities, while access to transportation
arteries is critical for ensuring access to other facilities.
•
Diversity of target user/activity – The range of existing facilities
was evaluated according to the target age market and the targeted
type of activity. Generally, sport facilities and active recreation
areas will appeal to youth and young adults (consistent with the
youth survey results). More generalized park facilities (picnic
areas, playgrounds) will draw more families. Fishing, hunting,
golf, nature areas, and similar lower intensity activities draw more
adults. Goal 3 policies similarly call for a diversity of active and
passive activities.
•
Carrying capacity – the capacity of the park or amenity can be
evaluated in two ways: is the facility’s capacity underused,
overcrowded, or sufficient, and; does the facility affect natural
systems that might have carrying capacity issues? Some facilities
have additional capacity issues related to maintenance – facility
use is dependent on regular maintenance in order to continue to be
used.
Proposed Park Facilities or Programs
New or planned facilities for many of the above need categories are
being primarily addressed by local government or schools. The County
is planning on expanding some lake and river accesses and beach areas,
including South Long Lake and Flanders Lake. An undeveloped U.S.
Army Corps site in Crosslake is likely to be developed with trails,
bathrooms, picnic areas, and additional beach facilities. The proposed
Gilbert Lake park would add picnic areas, bathrooms, and park land.
The County’s Forest Management Plan (December, 2000) has identified
some areas in which timber management activities are subordinate to
recreational activities (in scheduling, managing visual impacts, and size
of any forest or timber management action). Many of the recreational
opportunities discussed in the Forest Management Plan are hunting,
hiking, and related open space recreation, and some motorized and nonmotorized recreational trails. As the Forest Management Plan notes,
however, opportunities may exist for investment into some portion of
these lands to increase access and use of recreational land. Some smaller
parcels, furthermore, may be appropriate for a larger investment in
facilities and official designation as parks. Few specific plans have been
made to meet the recreational facility elements of the Forest Management
Plan, and the Crow Wing Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan should
provide guidance for meeting some of the objectives stated in the Forest
Plan.
69
The value and demand for an ATV/OHV trail and challenge area has been
discussed. The motorized sport facility could include other motorized
facilities, such as a mudder truck (4X4) area, motocross challenge,
or other similar facilities as well as parking areas and campgrounds.
While ATV/OHV trails are discussed in the Trails section of the needs
assessment, this proposed facility would be unique in the County and
Region, and would more appropriately be categorized as a destination
park facility rather than a trail facility.
Potential Unmet Park Needs
Based on the above-noted criteria and qualitative assessment, the
following potential needs were identified for further discussion and
prioritization.
Ø Beaches – The County has relatively few public beaches, and has
several informal beach sites at boat access points and unimproved
beaches on tax forfeit lands. Unimproved sites limit access,
present safety issues, diminish the recreational opportunity, and
sometimes allow activities that degrade the very resource (water
quality and beach quality) that endow the site with opportunity.
Additional opportunities may exist for cooperative efforts with
local governments and the State to create beach access.
Ø Campgrounds – The County does not manage any of its own
camping areas, and has relatively few public campgrounds
managed by local governments or the State. While few data exist
to evaluate capacity against demand, anecdotal evidence points to
a need for some additional campground space. The County does
have a number of private campgrounds, but the capacity of these
facilities is uncertain.
Ø Golf courses – The County has some private golf facilities within
its borders, but the primary facilities lie just outside the County.
Most courses are privately managed, but may sufficiently meet
demand for golf by residents. There may be a need to encourage
a more even distribution of golf facilities, or to develop a niche
facilities, such as for beginning golfers. Unmet golf facility
demand may, however, be primarily a demand by visitors rather
than residents. The private market may be sufficient if that is the
case.
Ø Lake and river boat accesses – the number of boat accesses
appears to be adequate. In addition to the County accesses the
State maintains a number of access points, and private access
is well developed. Geographic distribution of access points is
70
an issue, however, as well as the lack of supporting facilities
(parking, restrooms) at some existing accesses. Additional
information may be needed to assess the carrying capacity of
lakes for additional recreational use prior to expanding access
on some waters, the condition of facilities, and the maintenance
needs of the accesses.
Ø Motorized challenge areas – The public response at meetings and
in surveys identifies demand for OHV parks and trails. These
facilities are often ideally associated with trail systems that allow
more remote access and meet multiple needs (challenge areas and
motor vehicle trail systems)
Ø Neighborhood and general park facilities – The population of
the County is growing rapidly. Access to neighborhood and
community-specific parks, and the capacity of existing general
park and recreational amenities, must increase with population
growth in order to maintain a consistent standard of service.
Neighborhood or community parks are generally maintained by
local governments, but opportunities may exist for the County to
partner on creating new facilities in geographic areas with limited
options.
Ø Passive recreation areas – Public response in meetings, hearings,
and surveys identified a need for passive or quiet recreation areas
for hiking, wildlife watching, and similar activities. These areas
typically can meet both recreational needs and open space needs,
as described in the section on open space considerations.
Ø Public swimming pool – the County does not have a public
outdoor swimming pool that is accessible to the general
population, and only limited access to indoor swimming pools.
Such facilities can be expensive to construct and maintain, but
would fill a need for which demand clearly exists.
Ø Regional parks – Crow Wing County does not have the large
Federal and State holdings that other northern Minnesota
counties rely on to meet some regional recreational needs.
The County has an abundance of lands that are managed for
multiple uses, including both recreational uses and timber
production. The County also has a number of state-designated
wildlife management areas, and one State park. Neither of these,
however, serve as regional park facilities. Regional facilities will
generally address multiple uses, including open areas for ad hoc
sports activities, picnicking, small amphitheater or community
gathering areas, and perhaps associated with trail systems, hiking
areas, interpretive sites of historic, cultural, or natural resource
71
interest such as environmental learning centers (as currently exist
at the Northland Arboretum or the Paul Bunyan Learning Center).
These areas can be larger than 40 acres, and opportunities may
exist for creation of such facilities on or adjacent to tax-forfeit
County-managed lands. Larger regional parks, encompassing
hundreds of acres, could include a broader range of activities
and purposes, including some motorized uses and natural
infrastructure sites (see Open Space section for definition of
natural infrastructure).
Ø Supporting facilities at other County facilities – access to
County facilities and recreational amenities can be limited
by undeveloped or primitive facilities. Some public forum
comments suggest that opportunities for improving access may
exist at unimproved boat access, fishing access, and beach areas.
Shore fishing facilities (fishing piers) could enhance access to
recreational fishing waters that might otherwise require a boat.
5.3 Open Space Considerations
The draft goals and policies for the Crow Wing County Parks, Trails, and
Open Space plan note the importance of open space and natural areas
in maintaining community character, natural systems, and providing for
recreational amenities.
One of the primary difficulties in an ‘open space’ needs assessment is
simply defining open space. Open space is a community-specific term
that means one thing in the City of Minneapolis, and quite another thing
in northern Minnesota. A number of communities across the nation
have adopted land use policies that encourage protection of open space
and define it within the context of their own perspective. Community
perceptions of what constitutes open space can vary considerably within
Crow Wing County, having distinct urban and rural definitions.
In this diversity of opinion there is some basic agreement on what
constitutes open space. First, open space is not development (buildings,
parking lots, commercial or industrial facilities, streets and roads, etc.).
Second, open space has some visual, natural resource, or recreational
value that distinguishes it from adjacent spaces. Finally, open space can
be either public land or private.
The 2004 Crow Wing County Comprehensive Plan makes numerous
references to open space, and defines open space on page 34 as including
“undeveloped land with forests, wetlands, grasslands, agricultural fields,
and parks.” The Plan goes on to state the value of open space:
72
Some actively use open space for hiking, wildlifewatching, and hunting. Others passively use it for the
scenery and the sense of serenity it provides. Still others
value it for its intrinsic qualities and wish to preserve it
for future generations to enjoy. No matter the reason,
open-space drives the character – and the economic value
– of the County.
The Brainerd Lakes Area Conservation Collaborative (BLACC), a
coalition of 12 organizations and government agencies (including Crow
Wing County agencies) working to protect and conserve ecologically
significant terrestrial and aquatic habitats, defines open space in the
following manner:
Open space is a general, all-encompassing term to
describe the following: green space, wetlands, woodlands,
waterways, riparian corridors, wildlife habitat, critical
environmental areas, public and private conservation
lands (including nature preserves, conservation
easements, green corridors, landscape linkages, wildlife
corridors and wilderness areas), private working lands
of conservation value (including forests, farms and
agricultural greenbelts), scenic vistas, and other protected
lands that include greenways, utility corridors, trails and
parks.
Under either of these definitions, Crow Wing County has an abundance
of open space. How that open space is being managed, however, and
whether the County’s character is changing as open space is developed are
different considerations. In evaluating open space needs, public comment
and priorities clearly express concerns regarding the ongoing maintenance
of existing open space as the County develops.
Needs categories. The 2004 Comprehensive Plan, results from public
meetings and surveys, and staff and PAC comments provide the basis for
identifying needs categories associated with open space.
73
Table 25 Open Space Needs
Open Space Need Categories
Conservation/hunting areas
County public lands
High-quality or threatened native landscapes
Native species habitat
Nature park
Parks
Private agricultural fields
Private forests and grasslands
Prominent viewsheds
Urban or suburban green space
Watersheds of sensitive/impacted waters
Wetlands
Wilderness areas
Primary Open Space Value
Natural
Visual/
Recreation
Infrastructure
Character
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
The needs categories shown above include identification of the primary
open space value. As noted above, the 2004 Comprehensive Plan
identified distinct qualitative values associated with open space. To
clarify the needs assessment for open space, three qualitative values of
open space have been identified:
Ø Open space as ‘natural infrastructure.’ Natural infrastructure is
a term that refers to the proper functioning of natural systems to
manage stormwater, sustain native animal and plant communities,
sustain harvests of forest products, and protect soils, groundwater,
and other natural amenities. Considering natural systems as
infrastructure recognizes both that such system require periodic
maintenance and investment similar to ‘gray infrastructure’
(roads, wastewater systems, energy utilities, etc.), and that
natural systems contribute to our quality of life similar to gray
infrastructure.
Ø Open space as a recreational asset. Open space can serve a
variety of passive or dispersed recreational activities such as
hiking, bird and animal photography, orienteering, and berry
gathering, as well as hunting and related activities that do not
require infrastructure other than open space.
Ø Open space as visually defining community character. Great
attention was given to maintaining Crow Wing County’s rural
or ‘up-north’ character in public comments and discussion.
Open space visually defines such character even if the viewer is
merely passing by on road or trail, or looking out over a vista or
landscape.
74
Existing and Proposed Open Space Areas and Initiatives
The County has a variety of private and public open space areas. Public
areas include two state forests, a state park, a number of state conservation
areas, and the County’s tax forfeit lands. The single biggest public
land category is the tax forfeit lands, primarily managed by the County
Land Department. The Crow Wing County Forest Management Plan
(December, 2000) notes the following in regard to the County’s public
lands (p. 2-3):
Unlike more northern Minnesota counties, Crow Wing
County lacks any substantial non-County publicly owned
land. Consequently, nearly all the economic, social, and
ecological pressures generally applied to undeveloped
forested public lands fall upon the County and its limited
amount of tax-forfeited lands. Given the relative sparsity
of other public lands in the county, this situation suggests
that much of the unmet demands will have to be met
through the use of private lands. As noted in this plan,
the County will cooperate with private landowners, as
individuals and groups, to coordinate land management to
help achieve the objectives of this plan.
The County has initiated some programmatic and regulatory efforts
to ensure that private open space is protected or incorporated into
development. Coalitions of organizations, such as the Brainerd Lakes
Area Conservation Coalition, have formed to encourage programmatic
efforts that meet open space goals on public and private lands. The use of
natural vegetation as buffers in developed areas, watershed management
of private land use impacts to protect water quality, public or non-profit
acquisition of conservation easements on critical habitat or sensitive
landscape, and connecting public and private open space areas throughout
Crow Wing County are methods by which private lands are used to meet
open space goals.
The State of Minnesota is enhancing County open space through the
acquisition of land and protection of viewsheds along the Mississippi
River and in planning for the Cuyuna Lakes State Trail. The State is the
second largest manager of public open space in the County, managing
Crow Wing State Park, Crow Wing and Emily State Forests, Cuyuna
Country State Recreation Area, and a variety of wildlife management
areas.
Existing areas and proposed initiatives were evaluated under the four
needs criteria to determine unmet needs.
75
•
Demand – Open space considerations were evaluated based on
the record of public comment, survey responses, and staff and
PAC comments. Open space and its related concepts of rural
or ‘up-north’ character are clearly a priority to County residents
and visitors, as was the preservation or protection of natural
infrastructure (natural systems, water quality, and native habitat).
•
Geographic distribution and access – Open space areas, including
private lands, are geographically distributed across the County.
Development is displacing private agricultural, grassland, and
forest lands around the County’s urban areas, creating urban- or
suburban-oriented open space/green space needs. Open space
needs in the rural portions of the County were evaluated based
on access to public lands, whether lands had adequate access to
allow dispersed recreation and use of specific amenities such as
lakes. Potential natural infrastructure needs were evaluated based
on the sensitivity of the landscape and the quality of the existing
natural systems.
•
Diversity of target user/activities – As noted in the 2004
Comprehensive Plan, open space serves a variety of purposes
and activities. Existing open space was considered based on
the breadth of activities allowed and encouraged (including
natural infrastructure functions), and whether the allowed
activities were commensurate with the diversity envisioned in the
Comprehensive Plan and Parks, Trails, and Open Space goals and
policies.
•
Carrying capacity – Open space is frequently a tool to address
carrying capacity issues for natural systems and for gray
infrastructure in and around developed areas. The needs
assessment considered the role of open space in protecting natural
systems and mitigating the impacts of development and other land
uses.
Potential Unmet Open Space Needs
Based on the above-noted criteria and qualitative assessment, the
following potential needs were identified for further discussion and
prioritization.
Ø County-managed lands – The County’s tax-forfeit lands are
the most significant and most widespread public open space
areas in the County. Recreation, natural infrastructure, and
visual/character considerations are already explicit components
76
of the Crow Wing County Forest Management Plan (see
Social Sustainability Objectives #5, #6, and #8; and Ecological
Sustainability Objectives #1-#8). Implementation of these
objectives is an on-going process that may require coordination
of planning efforts between the Parks and Land departments.
Implementation may also require coordination between the
County and private land owners adjacent to public lands or within
the same natural system or landscape boundaries.
Ø Corridors connecting open space areas
– corridors connecting open space areas
greatly enhance the resource and frequently
the recreational value of open spaces. The
corridors must sometime run across local
government boundaries, and the County
may have opportunities to coordinate
corridor planning.
Ø Natural infrastructure functions
in developing areas - areas where
development is occurring can be both risk
and opportunity for natural systems in the
area. Park dedication requirements can
be used to enhance natural infrastructure
as well as provide recreation. The County
may have an opportunity to partner
with local governments on planning for
enhancing natural infrastructure in targeted
areas.
Ø Viewshed protection – selected viewsheds can be identified for
protection along scenic drives or trails, particularly where public
lands lie in the viewshed.
Other Enhancement of Natural Infrastructure
The County can coordinate with local governments to protect watersheds
of heavily used waterbodies, sensitive environmental areas, and unusual
features that enhance Crow Wing County’s character. The County can
use a variety of land protection tools to create or enhance natural park
areas or interpretive areas in addition to enhancing the County’s natural
infrastructure. Such tools include the following:
1. Use of conservation easements or purchase-of-development-rights
(PDR) programs;
2. Transfer of development rights (TDR) programs or ordinances;
3. Land exchanges, and;
4. Land acquisition.
77
6.0
STRATEGY PRIORITIES
The strategy priorities in the Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan should
direct action by the County and its related entities, residents, land
owners, and others. The priorities discuss not only what the County
Parks Department can do, but what the Parks Department might do in
conjunction with the Land Department, Planning and Zoning, the Soil and
Water Conservation District, and other County agencies. Furthermore, the
County needs to play a coordinating role with other units of government
in the County, including cities, townships, and state and federal agencies.
The following strategies are the beginning of the decisions that go into
capital improvement planning, management priorities within the Park
Department budget, coordination with the Land Department on Countymanaged land, ordinance language, educational efforts and programs,
and incentive programs. The following priorities should thus not be
considered the final word, but the start of the discussion.
6.1 Strategy Categories and Selection Criteria
The Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan goals and objectives are made
more specific by identifying priorities for implementation strategies. The
County has a wide variety of strategies at its disposal, and must decide
how to choose the most effective and sustainable portfolio of strategies
in order to achieve the Plan goals and objectives. In discussing strategy
options, this section uses the four strategy categories below to provide an
outline for setting priorities:
Ø Encouragement – Educating or encouraging individuals or land
owners to act consistently with the community’s goals.
Ø Incentives – Providing an inducement for individuals or land
owners to act consistently with the community’s goals.
Ø Regulation – Requiring individuals or land owners to act in
ways that are consistent with the community’s goals.
Ø Public Ownership or Management – Buying or keeping land
or resources in public ownership to ensure management and use
that is consistent with the community’s goals.
As described in these four strategy categories, Plan implementation
can include the establishment of programs and educational efforts, the
creation of incentive programs, changes to regulations and ordinances,
and setting public acquisition or management priorities.
In choosing among the variety of tools to implement goals, and in
evaluating the sustainability of a particular strategy, the County will
need to evaluate strategies based on a variety of criteria, including the
following:
78
Selection Criteria
Ø Cost - the initial implementation and any ongoing maintenance or
administration costs. The community must be willing and able to
expend sufficient resources on its selected strategies.
Ø Political Will – the willingness of political decision-makers to
use a particular tool or strategy. A strategy may be effective, but
is not sustainable if it requires large changes in the community’s
political culture.
Ø Market Characteristics – the compatibility of the strategy
with current market conditions and market forces. The market
does not dictate the community’s goals, but does influence the
community’s ability to achieve its goals. Strategy selection must
acknowledge the direction of the market forces.
Ø Permanency – the length of time for which the strategy is
effective. Regulation can, for instance, be changed. An incentive
program for using conservation easements or to meet design
standards will, however, be more permanent.
Ø Importance of Policy– the level of societal benefit to be achieved
in meeting the policy or goal. Different policies or goals carry
different levels of priority to the community.
Thus, higher priority needs will be more likely to use higher cost or
more complex strategies, while lower priority items will rely more on
education, market-driven incentives or investment, and non-controversial
regulation.
6. 2 Implementation Partners
As noted above, the potential strategies described in this section include
actions that are taken by the Parks Department, other County agencies or
departments, other units of government, non-profit entities, and the private
sector. The relationship of the County to other governmental entities is
particularly important in park planning given the many entities engaged
in park planning. The relative roles of different governmental entities in
park, trail and open space planning is described below:
Ø Coordinating Role of the County - The County’s parks,
recreation, and open space role is to acquire, develop and
maintain parks and to administer public recreation programs
that will serve the needs of communities larger than the
local neighborhood, but smaller than statewide or national
communities. The County provides park and open space areas
and trail systems to accommodate active and passive recreational
pursuits for both current and future residents. In addition,
the County coordinates the actions of government units with
79
citizens and special interest groups to provide a collaborative,
county-wide recreation system. The recreation system must be
coordinated and responsibility delineated between the County,
cities, townships, the State and Federal levels of government, as
well as the private sector.
Ø Cities – Cities typically have the prime responsibility for
providing active recreation areas, parks and open space within
their boundaries.
Ø Townships – A number of Crow Wing County’s townships
have their own land use policies and/or zoning ordinances. The
townships also fill the role of providing local park and recreation
facilities. Township involvement may afford opportunities for
cooperative recreation planning and implementation within
growing communities.
Ø State Government – Crow Wing County supports the
continuation of existing state programs aimed at providing public
water access, grant-in-aid-trails, rail-to-trail corridors, canoe and
boating routes, wildlife management areas, and bikeways, and
motorized recreation planning.
Ø Federal Government – While the County has little or no
control over federal activities, the goal of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to acquire and provide waterfowl production
areas are endorsed by the County. Additionally, the County
supports coordination of the natural, historic, economic, scenic,
recreational and cultural value of the Mississippi River Corridor.
The Camp Ripley program to purchase development rights
from landowners around the Camp (to keep incompatible land
uses such as new housing from being developed near to the
National Guard training facility) can also serve to meet natural
infrastructure protection goals.
In addition to governmental entities, the County should work with a
variety of non-governmental organizations and the private sector.
Ø Non-governmental Organizations – A wide variety of formal
and ad hoc organizations play a role in park, trail, and open space
initiatives in the County. Collaboration will greatly enhance
programmatic efforts and provide opportunities to use County
resources to leverage other resources. The Brainerd Lakes Areas
Conservation Coalition (BLACC) that provided much of the
natural resources prioritization for this report is an example of
such a collaborative effort. Other kinds of organizations that need
to be brought into collaborative efforts include:
80
ü Recreation-focused clubs (snowmobile and ATV clubs, hunting
and fishing clubs, local trail groups),
ü Open space and natural area advocacy organizations (1000
Friends of Minnesota, Trust of Public Land, Nature Conservancy,
Izaak Walton League);
ü Community-oriented foundations and organizations
ü Economic development and business organizations
Ø Private – The private sector is encouraged to become a partner
with the public sector in supplying recreation facilities and
open space to achieve the economic benefits and efficiencies a
coordinated recreation system can provide.
6.3 Implementation Process
Finally, the strategies must be selected in the context of specific projects
that reflect locations, access, capacity, and cost. These decisions should
be made in explicit recognition of the Parks, Trails, and Open Space goals
and policies. A sample decisional flow chart is noted below:
81
6.4 Funding Sources
Crow Wing County has a number of funding alternatives for making
improvements to or acquisitions of parks, trails and natural areas. Below
is a list of potential funding sources that can be utilized for various types
of improvements. Other sources are available, but the general categories
and examples provided below can inform the decision-making process.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
County funding
City funding
Grants - State
Private sources (donations or easements)
Federal Funding
Legislative Commission on Natural Resources
Other Options
Each of these funding sources or has a unique set of requirements and
criteria that must be met to receive funding; in some cases this includes
successfully competing for limited funding. There are also rules that
govern how the money can be used. Below is a more detailed description
of the funding sources, how to receive the funds and how the funds can be
used.
County Funding
Ø Park Dedication Ordinance
Park dedication via the development or subdivision process could
be an important tool for implementing Crow Wing County’s Parks,
Trails and Open Space Plan. Park dedication land or funds at the
time that new lots are being subdivided or new homes being built
enables the County to acquire resources to provide for the park
system described in this Plan. Funds received from payments in lieu
of dedication should be used to acquire park sites, trail corridor and
greenway components. A park dedication ordinance would set the
parameters for receiving land, collecting cash payment in lieu of land
and using these resources.
Ø Bonds and Initiatives
Locally applied bond issues or land use control propositions can be
used to further the goals of trails and park land development. These
instruments may take the form of ballot measures that are drafted
by agencies and/or citizenry, or alternatively as bond acts drafted by
state legislators for passage in the Minnesota Legislature.
82
Their purposes include financing acquisition, designating specific
land areas for conservation, or setting basic land use policies. The
success of any local bond measure depends on active local backing.
In addition, if it requires levying additional property taxes, voters
must approve it by a two-thirds majority.
Ø Park or Trail Fees
The County could consider the establishment of fees in order to
finance the acquisition, construction and maintenance of the trail
system. The monies collected from this tax must be placed in a
special fund, and can only be used to defray the reasonable expense
of collecting such tax and for the maintenance, acquisition and
construction of trails for equestrians and bicyclists. These funds
may be used as local matching monies for any federal or state grants
for such purposes or for matching funds in the acquisition and
development of a federal or state trails project.
Ø County Highway Capital Improvement Funds
Trails added along county roads during construction or reconstruction
can be funded through this source. Crow Wing County funding is
provided to maintain and construct the county road system. These
funds are used for roadways not on the CSAH system and some
improvements made to County State Aid Highways.
City Funding
Cities have many of the same funding options available to the County.
A number of Crow Wing County cities have, furthermore, already
implemented park dedication ordinances. These funding sources can
support joint initiatives or portions of trail or park investments that lie
within existing city boundaries or within a city’s expansion area.
State Grants
Grants are available to help defray the costs of building or rejuvenating
parks and open space. The following table identifies examples of grants
and similar funding sources that may be applicable to specific types of
initiatives. The Department of Natural Resources has an entire book on
funding call the DNR Financial Assistance Directory. A copy can be
found at: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/grants/matrix.html
Some examples of the funding provided by the Mn/DNR are listed below:
83
Title
State
Fund Description
General Recreation
Outdoor Recreation Grant
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/grants/recreation/outdoor_rec.html
Makes funds available to increase and enhance outdoor recreation facilities.
Provides matching grants to local governments for up to 50% of the cost of
acquisition or development/redevelopment of local parks and recreation areas.
Eligible projects
Park acquisition and/or development/redevelopment including, internal park
trails, picnic shelters, playgrounds, athletic facilities, boat accesses, fishing
piers, swimming beaches and campgrounds. Contact the Grants Manager with
questions about other eligible facilities.
Regional Parks Grant
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/grants/recreation/parkgrants.html
Makes funds available to increase and enhance regional outdoor recreation
facilities in areas outside the seven county metropolitan area. Provides
matching grants to public regional park organizations outside the seven county
metropolitan area for up to 60% of the acquisition or development costs.
Eligible projects
Park acquisition and/or development/redevelopment of regional park facilities
including, internal park trails, picnic shelters, playgrounds, boat accesses, fishing
piers, swimming beaches and campgrounds. Contact the Grants Manager with
questions about other eligible facilities. Project proposals must have a total
project cost of at least $40,000.
State Park Road Account
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/grants/recreation/parkroads.html
Provides financial assistance to upgrade county, township, and city roads that
provide access to public lakes, rivers, state parks, or state campgrounds.
Eligible Projects
The establishment, construction, reconstruction, repair, and improvement of
county state aid, county, township, and city roads that provide access to a public
lake, river, state park or state campground.
Fishing Pier Grant
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/grants/recreation/fishing_pier.html
To improve fishing opportunities, especially to meet the needs of children, the
elderly, and people with disabilities.
84
Eligible projects
Development, installation, or improvement of fishing piers, shore fishing sites
or shore fishing platforms. Local units of government provide public land,
accessible sidewalk/path, accessible parking space and on-going maintenance.
Federal Recreation Trail Program
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/grants/recreation/trails federal.html
To encourage the maintenance and development of motorized, non-motorized,
and diversified trails by providing funding assistance.
Eligible projects
Motorized and non-motorized trail projects; maintenance/resotration of exidting
recreational trails; development/rehabilitation of recreational trail linkages
including trail side and trail head facilities; environmental awareness and safety
education programs relating to the use of recreational trails; and redesign/
relocation of trails to benefit/minimize the impact to the natural environment.
Private funding
Ø Parks Foundation
Crow Wing County could establish a legally separate foundation
(Crow Wing County Parks Foundation, e.g.) or a “Friends of the
Parks” organization that would be eligible to receive donations as
a trust entity. The foundation could accept general donations on an
ongoing basis, or receive endowments for specific park features that
were designated in the County’s master plan in exchange for naming
privileges. The County could then also apply to the foundation for
money for projects as needs arose.
Ø Private Foundations and Organizations
Crow Wing County can partner with a number of non-government,
non-profit organizations that can provide funding, fund-raising, gapfinancing, technical assistance, and other forms of assistance for
parks, trails, and open space. Each of these organizations has specific
goals and criteria for providing funding or technical assistance, and
most are focused on open space, natural area, and habitat protection.
All of the following entities have participated in Crow Wing County
open space projects or planning efforts:
o Initiative Foundation
o McKnight Foundation
o Bush Foundation
o The Nature Conservancy
o The Minnesota Land Trust
o The Trust of Public Land
o 1000 Friends of Minnesota
o Conservation and Outdoor Recreation Organizations
– Examples include Pheasants Forever, Duck Unlimited,
Trout Unlimited, Izaak Walton League, Audubon,
Minnesota Deer Hunters Association.
85
Federal Funding
A number of federal government agencies have funding for open space,
recreation, or trail projects that meet agency goals and are competitive
with other projects in similar categories and have some form of local or
private matching funds.
Ø Community-Based Programs
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, for instance, lists a wide
variety of funding from many different agencies for community
based efforts to improve the environment, create open space, or
restore habitat: (for a complete list of these EPA programs go to http:
//www.epa.gov.ecocommunity/matrix.htm)
Ø Surface Transportation Program (STP)
STP funding is available for roadway construction and
reconstruction, capacity projects, safety projects, bikeway or
walkway components of projects, transit projects, park and ride
facilities and traffic management projects.
Ø Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
(CMAQ)
CMAQ provides flexible funding to state and local governments for
transportation projects and programs to help meet the requirements
on the Clean Air Act of 1990. In general, eligible projects provide
some type of reduction in toxic emissions. These include alternative
fuel vehicle purchases, traffic flow improvements, transit projects,
rideshare activities, and telecommuting. CMAQ funding can be
used in various fashions to defer the costs of implementation these
strategies.
Ø Transportation Enhancement Program (TE) (-TEA-21
Transportation Enhancement Activities Program (TEA;
SANDAG)
Transportation Enhancements are transportation-related activities
designed to strengthen the cultural, aesthetic and environmental
aspects of the nation’s inter-modal transportation system. The types
of projects that are eligible for funding under this category include
bicycle and pedestrian facilities, scenic beautification, historic
preservation, environmental mitigation and transportation museums.
Transportation enhancement funding is the largest potential funding
source for trail projects throughout the Country.
Ø LGEAN
The Local Government Environmental Assistance Network has a
website that has a section devoted entirely to funding. Go to:
http://www.lgean.org/html/whatsnew.cfm#wn8
86
Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources
The Minnesota Habitat Corridors Partnership is an example of an LCMR
project that has provided funds to acquire or restore wildlife habitat and
protect shoreland areas.
Other
Ø Fund Raising Special Events
The County, with the assistance of park and trail advocacy groups
like the Paul Bunyan Scenic Byways or Cuyuna Lakes Trails
Association or snowmobile or ATV or cross country ski groups,
could sponsor a special event such as a trail ride or walk-a-thon. This
could take place along a portion of trail that has safe passage, but is
in need of improvement or along completed segments adjacent to
segments that need acquisition or development. Local merchants who
derive business from the equestrian community (tack and feed) or
bicycle stores could also help sponsor this event.
Events of this kind help to generate revenues as well as building support
for the further development and continued maintenance of the park and
trail system.
6.5
Strategy Priorities
The following list of strategy priorities was developed based on the
PAC discussions, from suggestions at public meetings and surveys, and
from suggestions by County staff. The PAC provided a relative priority
to specific needs that had come out of the needs assessment within each
focus area. Example strategies that reflected the priorities were assigned
to each need. The result of this prioritization is presented below by focus
area.
87
Park Facilities (other than trails)
Park Facility Need
Develop Regional Park Designate one or more areas
to serve as multi-use regional
parks, invest in appropriate
facilities
Priority
1
Strategies
Public acquisition and management
Ø Identify existing tax-forfeit lands that meet geographic and carrying
capacity policies, conduct master planning process for a regional multiuse park and make public investments.
Ø Consider land exchanges to improve access or geographic location
qualities.
Encouragement - Work with townships and cities to co-fund a regional park.
Develop New Skateboard Park
- Locate a new skateboard park
in a County facility or partner
to create a new facility.
1
Develop Swimming Beaches Invest in currently unimproved
beaches and work to acquire or
partner on acquiring new sites
1
Public acquisition and management - Invest in a new skateboard park at an
existing County park with adequate access and location, or at a new regional
park.
Incentives - Offer to co-fund a new park at an appropriate City or local park,
including development of appropriate access/parking needs.
Ø Invest in existing unimproved beach sites and potential beach
development sites that are on existing County lands that meet access and
geographic distribution criteria.
Ø Consider land swaps in strategic areas that allow the County to acquire
strategic beach sites that meet locational and access policies.
Regulation - require lakeshore development to provide for public beach
access or contribute to a beach development fund.
Designate Passive Rec Areas
- Identify ‘quiet” recreation
areas and provide supporting
facilities - trails, camping,
parking
1
Ø Working with the Land Department, designate high-quality habitat areas
on County land as passive recreation areas.
Ø Invest in parking and camping facilities consistent with carrying
capacity and access policies.
Encouragement
Ø Work with State agencies to designate passive recreation areas adjacent
to County lands.
Ø Create maps and brochures to promote appropriate use of the sites.
88
Regional Motorized Park Challenge areas with camping,
trails and other facilities
1
Public acquisition and management - Identify appropriate site, consistent
with access and carrying capacity policies, on County land and invest in
facilities (parking, camping, challenge area improvements) and management
programs. Complete a master planning regional park process.
Regulation
Ø Create motorized park area maintenance standards and fund programs
Ø Limit ATV ditch riding on some road to encourage use of the park
facility
Incentive - consider partnering with surrounding counties, ATV/OHV clubs,
on facility and management development and funding.
Encouragement - Promote this type of facility combined with an existing or
proposed OHV trail system
Improve Existing Facilities
- Parking, shelters, restrooms,
picnic areas, fishing piers
1
Ø Inventory use of existing parks and prioritize public investment in
supporting facilities.
Ø Identify geographic locations for fishing piers consistent with access
and carrying capacity policies, consider land swaps and or financial
partnering with local governments, state agencies.
Regulation - consider requiring fishing pier public access or financial
contributions for lakeshore subdivision or development.
Improve Boat Accesses - 1.
Ensure geographic distribution.
2. Invest in supporting facilities
1
Public management - Identify and prioritize geographic gaps in public
accesses, and identify facilities under-served with supporting facilities.
Invest in new facilities.
Incentives - Co-fund new access points with local government and state
agencies.
Regulation - Consider requiring public access points and parking for
shoreland PUDs or major subdivisions.
89
Public Swimming Pool Create, or partner to develop,
an outdoor swimming pool
2
Incentives
Ø Partner with local governments to develop a regional outdoor swimming
facility.
Ø Partner with a private water park development to offer public pool
amenities or discounted rates to residents.
Cultural/Historical Interpretive
Sites - conduct cultural
inventory and prioritize needs
for interpretive facilities and
protection
2
Public management - Conduct a cultural inventory, identify priority sites for
public investment or acquisition, develop interpretive programs.
Incentives - Provide incentives to owners of land with priority historical/
cultural sites to accept historical designation and protection.
Encouragement - Create educational materials on sites to promote their value
and better imbue the sites with community value.
Public management - Identify potential sites for development of camping
facilities on County-managed land.
Develop Campgrounds - Create
public campgrounds for RVs,
tents, campers
2
Neighborhood Parks Create, or partner to create,
neighborhood parks and
playgrounds around the County
3
Encouragement
Ø Work with local governments and service association partners to create
new neighborhood parks in developing areas.
Ø Support local park dedication efforts that allow development of
neighborhood parks and trail systems.
Develop Golf Facilities Target beginning golf facilities
for development
3
Encouragement - work with private recreation providers or local governments
to guide investment or programs to meet a broad range of the golf market,
from beginners to advanced players.
90
Incentives - consider partnering with private recreation developers to build
and manage camping facilities on County land.
Trails and Related Facilities
Trail & Related
Facilities Needs
ATV Trails - Expand ATV
trail system, create links
between existing trails
Priority
1
Strategies
Public Management
Ø Collaborate with the Land Department to identify potential corridors
that may satisfy user needs (e.g. access to users, ability to ride for longer
distances, loop trails) and discuss the feasibility of those areas being
available for OHV /ATV use
Ø Develop clear goals and deadlines for the ATV/ROW committee to
follow in making recommendations on county road and ditch use
Regulation
Ø Coordinate with the State during the DNR’s Road and Trail Designation
and Forest Classification process and formally designate trails
consistent with DNR
Ø Set noise regulation levels when locating OHV trails and proximity to
residential areas
Ø Establish BMPs
Encouragement
Ø Prepare a consistent sign program that makes it clear to users which
trails are open and which trails are closed to motorized traffic.
Ø Develop maps indicating locations of motorized/non-motorized trail
systems.
Ø Cooperate with adjacent counties and rider clubs to create a
comprehensive network of trails.
Ø Partner with the private sector
Hiking/Solitude Areas
- Create set-aside nonmotorized hiking trail systems
with more remote solitude
areas
1
Public Management
Ø Follow up on the recommendations in the CW Forest Management plan
to include non-motorized recreational use opportunities (p. 74-5) and in
the “Management Unit Narratives” (p. 87-98).
Ø Use the BLACC findings to site hiking/solitude systems in Potential
Priority Conservation Areas
Ø Initiate a master planning process for selecting a large acreage site that
will be designated for non-motorized activity that may include amenities
such as a beach, picnic facilities…..
Paved bike extensions - create
new trails or trail extensions
1
Regulation
Ø Consider requiring trail dedication in new subdivisions, particularly in
areas with existing or proposed regional trails
Encouragement
Ø Actively support the DNR in their efforts to extend the Paul Bunyan
State Trail to Crow Wing State Park and beyond
Ø Actively support the DNR in their efforts to develop the Cuyuna Lakes
State Trail between Brainerd and Aitkin (through the Cuyuna Country
State Recreation Area)
91
Snowmobile Trails
- 1. Acquire permanent
ownership. 2. Connect
existing trail systems
1
Encouragement
Ø Continue to support and sponsor local snowmobile clubs in the GIA
process
Ø Support the efforts of local advocate groups such as Friends of the
Cuyuna Lakes Trail in their efforts to secure funding for state trail
development
Ø With other counties and cities, identify problem areas for access and
connectivity, prioritize them for resolution
Public Acquisition and Management - Initiate development of a process to
transform temporary easements into permanent trail easements/ownership or
long-term leases.
Cross Country Skiing - 1.
New dedicated trail systems.
2. Expanded facilities on
existing trail areas
1
Public Management
Ø Identify new sites and existing roads and trails on County land meeting
geographic distribution objectives. Develop a process for prioritizing
these sites and determining total mileage (kilometers) necessary
Encouragement - Promote partnerships between the County and adjacent land
owners (public and private) to expand opportunities
Road Bicycle Routes –
1. Resolve shared facility
liabilities. 2. Designate
bicycle routes on roads
1.5
Encouragement
Ø Actively support the Paul Bunyan Scenic Byway in their efforts to
expand the Byway shoulder area for bike traffic
Ø Form collaborations with cities to become aware of their efforts and how
the agencies can work together to create bikeway networks
Regulation- Review State Statute 169.01 Subd. 72. Bikeway. “Bikeway”
means a bicycle land, bicycle path, or bicycle route, regardless of whether
it is designed for the exclusive use of bicycles or is to be shared with other
transportation modes.”
Public Management
Ø Identify roadways that are favorable to bicycle riding (considerations:
AADT (Annual Average Daily Traffic), motor vehicle speed, traffic mix,
and existing shoulder design).
Ø Develop a program of bikeway improvements planned in conjunction
with other programmed roadway improvements. These improvements
should be identified in the County highway system plan
92
Motorcycles - Create trails or
challenge areas
1.5
Public Acquisition and Management - Evaluate up to two sites on public or
private land for use by motorcycles
Mountain Bike Trails - Create
dedicated off-road bike area/
trails
2
Public Management
Ø Review existing non-motorized trail facilities for use as mountain bike
trail
Ø Evaluate level of mountain biking demand/use and determine if a trail
with a combination of mountain biking/ horse-back-riding / hiking
would be appropriate.
Ø Coordinate multiple use trail system with Cuyuna Range cities and
Cuyuna Country State Recreation Area.
Enhance Water Trails Improve parking, access, and
camping facilities
2
Encouragement
Ø Work with DNR and other partners to identify rivers in addition to the
Mississippi and the Pine that may be feasible for recreational water
‘trails’.
Ø Promote existing facilities and determine what additional features would
enhance the user’s experience and accommodate additional users.
Ø
New Equestrian Trails Create new trail areas with
supporting facilities (parking,
trail head)
2
Motorized Challenge Areas
- ATV, OHV, 4x4 parks or
challenge areas
2
Public Acquisition and Management - Create designated river-access
only camping and day use areas along the Mississippi River in the area
north of Cuyuna Country State Recreation Area.
Encouragement - Consider geographic distribution of future horse back riding
trails
Public Acquisition and Management
Ø Identify county lands that have the accessibility and area required by
users (for parking, etc.)
Ø Consider additional amenities for County ‘visitors’ who need camping or
overnight amenities for themselves and their horses
Ø Coordinate multiple use trail system with Cuyuna Range cities and
Cuyuna Country State Recreation Area.
Ø Consider expanding the Wolf Lake Trail system to the north to provide
additional recreational opportunities and create an access from Highway
210.
See regional motorized park need under Park Facilities (other than trails).
93
Dog Sledding - Designate
trails
3
Encouragement- Study specific needs and user demand, and compatibility
with other types of recreation
Public Management- Identify existing trails which could be designated by
signs, notices, and maps as available to dog sleds
Inline Skating – Create trails
similar to paved surface
biking 8 -12’
3
Encouragement- Actively support the DNR in their efforts to develop the
Cuyuna Lakes State Trail between Brainerd and Aitkin (through the Cuyuna
Country State Recreation Area)
Regulation – Consider requiring trail dedication in new subdivisions,
particularly in areas with existing or proposed regional trails
94
Open Space Needs
Open Space Needs
Priority
Strategies
Protect sensitive natural
systems in areas undergoing
housing or commercial
development.
1
Encouragement
Ø Educate private landowners on their role in managing water quality,
limiting nutrients, fostering native planting.
Ø Promote use of conservation easements, deed restrictions, management
agreements, cluster development, and other tools for protecting natural
systems on private land
Incentives
Ø Purchase conservation easements (TDR program) from willing sellers to
protect sensitive areas or watersheds
Ø Create TDR programs with sending areas based on natural resource
value.
Ø Density bonus for preservation of open space
Regulation - Require buffers to natural areas or creation of linear greenway
connections in subdivision ordinance.
Protect/Enhance Views Target open space viewsheds
on highways and trails for
protection
1
Encouragement - Identify priority viewsheds and the public and private lands
encompassed by the viewshed, and promote the importance of retaining the
character of these areas.
Regulation - Create viewshed overlay districts that limit heights and
appearance of buildings and set standards for clearing of land.
Public acquisition and management - Set viewshed protection standards on
County lands, acquire viewshed easements to limit clearing and building
construction on private lands.
Protect/Enhance Natural
Infrastructure. (Watersheds
for lakes, unusual natural
features, rare species
habitat)
1
Encouragement - Work with local governments, state agencies, and private
landowners to identify and manage natural infrastructure.
Incentives - Offer co-funding or tax benefits for restoration of buffering
vegetation or natural features on private land.
Regulation - Create overlay districts that set performance standards for
priority natural infrastructure on private land.
Ø Identify critical natural infrastructure on public and private land.
Ø Set appropriate management standards for public lands, and conduct
land swaps for critical private land or swap land for conservation
easements.
95
Create Corridors - Connect
open spaces with corridors
1
Encouragement - Work with local governments, state agencies, and nonprofit organizations to identify priority corridors and protection strategies.
Incentives - Create TDR programs targeted at corridor priorities.
Regulation - Create overlay districts along priority corridors.
Public acquisition and management - Protect corridors that run through
County land, and acquire or use land swaps to extend corridors through
adjacent private lands.
Recognize forest as a
resource and it’s influence
on open space objectives
1
Encouragement - Promote the value of forested land as community character
to private landowners, and for adoption of specific forest management
standards or third party management certification.
Incentive - offer tax incentives for getting third party certification of private
forest land.
Regulation - Create working forest zoning classification that sets
management standards consistent with County Land Department or other
standards.
Public management - Promote the County’s forest management priorities as
promoting open space and historic community character.
County-Managed Lands
- Implement Open Space
objectives of Forest Plan
96
1
Public management
Ø Review open space objectives and identify progress against objectives.
Ø Create indicators to measure successful implementation.
7.0
IMPLEMENTATION
7.1 Introduction
The Crow Wing County Board approved the Crow Wing County Parks,
Trails, and Open Space Plan on November 8, 2005. The Plan provides
specific policy and priority guidance for the County in:
Ø planning, managing, and investing in park and trail systems,
Ø coordinating with other entities that own or manage parks or trails,
and
Ø enhancing or protecting the County’s open space network.
While the Plan identifies priority needs and preferred strategies, it does not
identify specific implementation tasks. In order to address implementation
questions, the County commissioned a separate implementation
document to supplement the Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan. The
implementation plan includes the following elements:
1. A conceptual implementation plan map showing the generalized
locations of park, trail, and open space search areas and
opportunities for cooperative projects with state agencies and local
units of government.
2. A project evaluation process, in the form of a decision tree model,
that assists the Parks Advisory Committee (PAC) and County staff
in matching park, trail, and open space priorities with appropriate
locations and meaningful investment opportunities within the
County.
3. A time line containing park, trail, and open space project targets.
The time line shows how some priority projects should proceed a)
within three years, b) within five years, and c) within ten years.
4. Examples of pro forma facility or project costs for specific types
of park or trail facilities or open space initiatives.
5. Case study models for how park, trail, and open space projects are
assembled and managed in the frequently complex process of land
acquisition, acquiring funding, developing stakeholder buy-in,
and arranging for sustainable management of facilities and open
space areas. Each case study includes a project description and
a flow chart that identifies the inter-relationship of stakeholders,
decision-makers, and funders.
The Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan includes a number of goal and
objective statements, in addition to priority types of projects that respond
to the Plan’s needs analysis. The Plan’s language and priorities are
frequently not specific in regard to potential locations or applications.
97
7.2 Implementation Map
Where the Plan is specific regarding potential locations of projects the
locations are not identified in the priorities section. The implementation
map on the following page thus portrays examples of the geographic
implementation priorities of the Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan
goals, objectives, and priorities. The implementation map is conceptual
rather than directive; the geographic locations identified on the map are
representative of how the goals and objectives are likely to affect the
County’s landscape, but do not represent commitments to particular
locations or projects.
For example, the Plan identifies, in section 6.5 (Strategy Priorities),
both high priority needs and suggested strategies. One such need is to
Develop Regional Park - Designate one or more areas to serve as multiuse regional parks. The Plan identifies several preferred strategies for
meeting this need, including:
Ø Identify existing tax-forfeit lands that meet geographic and
carrying capacity policies, conduct master planning process for a
regional multi-use park and make public investments, and;
Ø Work with other units of government and private funders to cofund a regional park.
The implementation map shows some potential locations or search areas
for a regional park that demonstrate the preferred strategies for meeting
this need. The search areas identified on the implementation map include
areas with tax forfeit lands and areas where co-funding or co-management
with local governments might be feasible. The identified areas are
illustrative only, intended to identify how the Plan recommendation could
be implemented rather than specific recommendations for parks on those
sites.
98
CROW WING COUNTY PARKS, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE
PLAN
Figure
13
99
7.3 Project Evaluation Model
The Crow Wing County Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan sets out six general
goals for investing in and managing the County’s recreational and open space
systems.
1. Meet Resident and Visitor Demand for Parks, Trails, and Open Space
Facilities and Areas
2. Respect Natural Systems and Carrying Capacity of the County’s
Resources
3. Recognize Community Diversity and Practice Community-oriented
Planning
4. Ensure Park Program and Facility Efficiency
5. Respect Public Process and Decision-making Procedures
6. Practice Responsible Financial management
The Plan describes these goals and identifies a number of policies through which
the goals should be met. Applying the policies to the decision-making process
is, however, still an uncertain process requiring both fact-based and value-based
decisions. In particular, the process by which the County prioritizes investment
in new or existing facilities or land should be consistent with the Plan’s goals and
policies.
Purpose and Use
To enable the decision-making process to incorporate the Plan’s goals and
policies, the County has created a decision-tree model. The model will help
decision-makers, advisory bodies, and County staff more clearly identify which
projects meet the Plan’s goals and policies, which projects have potential
drawbacks or informational gaps that hinder the decision-making process, and
which projects have serious inconsistencies with the County’s Parks, Trails, and
Open Space Plan.
The decision-tree model is a planning tool, not a substitute for analysis or debate.
The model is instead intended to compartmentalize the debates so that decisions
can be made in a structured manner. Users must also understand that the model
is not comprehensive; a number of issues and decisions will need to be resolved
outside the model’s organization.
100
Decision Tree Structure
The model has three components that reflect different elements of the six
Parks, Trails, and Open Space goals:
1. Responding to Identified Need
2. Location Suitability
3. Financial Management
Each of these components encompass a separate flow chart. The flow
chart focuses on questions that ask whether the proposed project meets
specific Plan policies. Beneath each question are color coded examples of
answers to the question that indicate whether the project:
Ø Passes on to the next question,
Ø Passes on to the next question with cautions attached
Ø Does not pass on to the next question
Within each component, projects that pass through to the end of the flow
chart are then moved to the next component, with a high priority project
moving from Responding to Identified Need, through Location Suitability,
and then through Financial Management. The final step is for projects
to become part of a public process to create support for the park, trail, or
open space priority.
101
102
103
104
7.4 Implementation Time Line
Section 6.5 of the Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan includes a list of
priority projects and recommended strategies, as of March, 2006. In order
to provide guidance for a more specific project work plan, and to provide a
tool for evaluating progress on achieving the Plan’s identified priorities, the
County identified a tentative timeline associated with several high priority
facilities or projects. The time line describes the type of priority project
and milestones associated with the project are identified as short, medium,
and long term intervals. The milestones thus become indicators as to the
County’s progress toward meeting project priorities in the Plan.
The time line includes projects from the parks, trails, and open space
categories (distinguished by the color of the bar). Each project line provides
progress indicators at the three, five, and ten year intervals. The indicators
were chosen to be easily identified and set simple, understandable progress
goals. The indicators use a range of milestones, including threshold levels
of investment, management goals, and planning goals. For instance, the
Regional Park project line includes planning milestones (complete Master
Plan), investment milestones (first stage opened, add amenities), and
management milestones (establish/identify partners).
The projects were selected based on being the highest priority projects as
measured by current needs and opportunities. Other projects, not listed on
the time line, will eventually rise to the forefront as conditions, needs, and
opportunities evolve over time. The timeline emphasizes the importance of
setting goals and milestones so that the County can measure progress.
105
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
�
�
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
106
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
7.5 Cost Examples
Trail Facilities
Trail costs are enormously variable, not only across user types (hiking,
biking, snowmobile, ATV, etc.), but even within user types, depending on
topography, natural features, land or right-of-way acquisition issues, and
mitigation costs. Typical trail cost and trail examples are provided below to
demonstrate the range of costs.
Unpaved Trails (non-motorized)
Unpaved trails are generally the lowest cost and lowest maintenance type
of trail. Such trails include volunteer-maintained hiking trails in solitude
areas, interpretive nature trails with extensive signage and related amenities,
winter trails that may require grooming, and heavily-used bicycle trails
and challenge areas that can need regular rebuilding or maintenance.
Some examples of unpaved trail projects, at a Dakota County regional
park (Lebanon Hills Regional Park Master Plan) are provided below for
reference. All costs are in 2001 dollars and thus need to be adjusted upward
to reflect current prices.
Equestrian Trails - 9.7 miles (new and existing)
$200,000
1) Removals required for building new trails.
2) Grading, and trailbed preparation, including some soils
corrections.
3) 6’ to 8’ wide trail development, with allowances for
stabilized aggregate on high use trails
4) Storm sewer systems (culverts, diversions).
5) Landscaping and re-vegetation
Mountain Bike Trails – 4.5 miles (new and existing)
$60,000
corrections.
3) 2’ to 6’ wide trail development, with an allowance for
stabilized aggregate on high use trails.
5) Landscaping and re-vegetation.
Nature Trails – 14.8 miles (new and existing) $640,000
corrections.
3) 2’ to 6’ wide trail development, with an allowance for
stabilized aggregate on high use trails. (Assumes 50% of
trails will require upgrading/realignment)
4) Boardwalk systems across wetlands and waterways.
6) Misc. improvements (retaining walls, etc.)
Connector Trails – 5.1 miles
$1,300,000
corrections.
3) 8’ and 10’ wide stabilized aggregate trail.
4) Boardwalk systems across wetlands and ponds.
5) Tunnel under street (Johnny Cake Ridge Road)
6) Misc. improvements (retaining walls, etc.)
8) Pedestrian lighting at road crossings and in use areas.
Source: Lebenon Hills Regional Park Master Plan
www.co.dakota.mn.us/parks/masterplans
107
Hard surface Trails
Hard surface (blacktop) trails are expensive to develop. The base, ditching
needs, crossings and blacktop is similar in cost to road development.
Hard surface trails that do not need any or very limited excavation to cut
and/or fill material (i.e.: former railroad beds) were estimated, in 2001, to
cost $30,000-$40,000 per mile. Including excavation, culverts, material
removal, etc., costs between $150,000-$300,000 per mile could be
expected. These trails are between 8’-12’ in width. The life expectancy
of a limestone surface is 8-10 years, while blacktop is twice that at 16-20
years.
ATV/OHV Facilities
The costs for creating and maintaining ATV/OHV trails and facilities are
highly variable. Factors that can affect both development and maintenance
costs include intensity of use, terrain, topography, soils and the trail’s
physical construction standards. The trails are generally much less
expensive than blacktop trails. The trails tend to be similar in width to hard
surface trails (6’-12’). In conversations with DNR and ATV/OHV club
representatives the trail development cost estimates given were as low as
$300 per mile to almost $800 per mile (2004 costs). DNR’s Study of OffHighway Vehicle Trails report to the Legislature identified significantly
higher benchmark costs for both construction and maintenance.
Expenditures on trail development of two different trails ranged from $420
per mile to $3,742 per mile (2002-3). The trail with higher costs per mile
had several wetland impacts, which had to be mitigated. Associated ATV
facilities, such as parking lots, are extra. Parking lots can be gravel, but it
should be an area large enough for about 20 vehicles and provide a loading
ramp. Signage and limited development of facilities on OHV trails were
estimated to cost approximately $250 per mile.
Several ATV/OHV trail managers estimated annual maintenance costs
for ATV trails to range from a low of $150 per mile to over $600 per
mile. The Study of Off-Highway Vehicle Trails, based on five existing
trails, estimated maintenance costs to be between $234 to $674 per mile
(including trail operation, maintenance and monitoring), while off-highway
motorcycles (OHM) had an estimated cost of $225 per mile (2002-3).
Study of Off-Highway Vehicle Trails also identified trail rehabilitation costs
that ranged from $310 per mile to $2,240 per mile (2002-3). Again, the
higher costs were contributed to replacement of a culvert and reshaping of
the trail.
Sources for trail information: Tom Danger, Trails Program Manager at the
Department of Natural Resources; Central MN Wheelers; Pine Center OHV trail;
Study of Off-Highway Vehicle Trails (http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/reports/
trails/ohvstudy.pdf).
108
Park facilities
As with most projects, each park development effort and consequential costs
for park maintenance is unique. Costs vary depending on the type of facilities,
extent of planned programs, and variability of site conditions. As an example of
regional park costs, the estimated costs from the implementation and management
section of the Lake Byllesby Regional Park Master Plan is shown below.
Facility Type
Picnic Area
Sun Shelters (3)
Dock
Play field
Landscaping
Existing Boat Launch Area
Improvements
Parking Expansion
Landscaping
BMX Track Development (old
quarry)
Mill Towns trailhead
Restrooms w/ pit septic
Hydrant/foundation
Driveway/parking (15 stalls)
Picnic Shelter
Observation decks
Emergency Phone
Security features
Orientation kiosk
Frisbee Golf Circuit
Pedestrian Bridge – Cannon
River (250’@$2,400/ft)
Canoe Launch with access,
parking, trail to river
Shoreline Naturalization
4,400’ at 60/ft
4,400’ at $4/ft
Interpretive markers
Implementation
Cost (000s)
$ 235
120
15
50
50
70
Source: Lake Byllesby Master
Plan, www.co.dakota.mn.us/parks/
threeparksmasterplans. All costs are in 2005
dollars.
50
20
75
320
60
10
25
60
100
20
30
15
50
600
120
265
17.6
120
109
APPENDIX A
APPROVED BY THE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ON JULY 23, 2002
AMENDED SEPTEMBER 16, 2002
AMENDED NOVEMBER 12, 2002
AMENDED SEPTEMBER 23, 2003
BY-LAWS OF THE CROW WING COUNTY PARKS ADVISORY COMMISSION
Article I:
Name of the Commission
The name of the organization shall be the Crow Wing County Parks
Advisory Commission.
Article II:
Purpose
The purpose for which this commission is organized shall be:
1. To serve as an advisory body providing recommendations to the
County Commissioners on matters pertaining to the planning,
programming, evaluating and funding of park and recreation facilities
and programs in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 398.31 to 398.36.
2. To recommend priorities, with the advice and assistance of technical
advisors, for the development, operation and maintenance of recreation
areas, facilities and programs.
3. To work together with public land managers to ensure appropriate
measures are taken in resource management plans to provide
recreational opportunities.
Article III:
Authorization
The authorization for the establishment of this commission is set forth
under Minnesota Statutes, Section 398.36. Duties are delegated to the
Parks Advisory Commission by the County Board of Commissioners of
Crow Wing County by a motion dated July 23, 2002 and power pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes, Section 398.31. to 398.36.
Article IV:
Membership
Nominated by the chair, and approved by the Crow Wing County Board of
Commissioners, the County Parks Advisory Commission shall consist of
thirteen (13) members:
1. Two (2) Crow Wing County Commissioners
2. Five (5) members, including one from each County Commissioner’s
District
3. One (1) Parks & Recreation Professional
4. One (1) Planning Professional
5. One (1) member of the Lands & Forestry Advisory Committee
6. One (1) Trail Advocate
7. One (1) Conservation Advocate
8. One (1) Representative of Local Resorts
Article V:
Term of Office
The term of the five (5) members representing their commissioner’s
district shall be for two (2) years. All other members’ terms shall be for
three (3) years. All regular terms shall expire January 31st.
Article VI:
Vacancy
Any vacancy in the regular membership shall be filled by the County
Board of Commissioners and such appointee shall serve for the unexpired
term so filled.
Article VII:
Officers
Section 1. Elections:
The County Parks Advisory Commission at its February
meeting shall elect from its membership a chair, vice-chair, and
a secretary who shall serve for a term of one year and shall
have such powers as may be prescribed in the rules of said
commission.
Section 2. Duties of Chair:
The chair shall preside at all meetings of the Park Advisory
Commission and shall have the duties normally conferred by
parliamentary usage of such officers.
Section 3. Duties of Vice-Chair:
The vice-chair shall act for the chair in his/her absence.
Section 4. Duties of Secretary:
The secretary shall keep the minutes and records of the
Commission; and with the assistance of staff, as is available,
shall prepare the agenda of the regular and special meetings for
the Commission members, arrange proper and legal notice of
hearings when necessary, attend to the correspondence of the
Commission and other duties as are normally carried out by a
secretary.
Article VIII: Compensation
Committee members shall receive per diem for their monthly meeting at
the request of the Chair. Per diem shall be based upon current rates as
established by the County Board.
Article IX:
Changing & Amending
These by-laws may be amended as deemed necessary by the Advisory
Commission. Such amendments shall be in writing and may not be acted
upon with less than thirty (30) days prior written notice and must have
two-thirds (2/3) majority vote to be recommended to the county board for
their action.
Article X:
Meetings/Quorums
1. Regular meetings will be held at least once a month. The meeting
night shall be set by resolution of the Commission. In the event of a
conflict with holidays or other events, the Chairperson may change the
date with proper notice.
2. Special meetings may be called by a majority of duly appointed
members.
3. All meetings shall be open to the general public and shall follow
Roberts Rules of Order, Revised, unless otherwise specified and/or
applicable.
4. A quorum consisting of a majority of duly appointed members shall be
present at any meeting in which official action is taken.
MDK
F: Parks/Bylaws/Parks Advisory Commission 9-23-03.doc
APPENDIX B
The Crow Wing County Parks Department would like your input to help determine parks and
recreation priorities for our county. This survey will take 10 -15 minutes to complete. We greatly
appreciate your time.
1)
Counting yourself, how many people live in your household? _______
2)
How many persons in your household (counting yourself) are:
Under 5 years ____
15 – 19 years ____
35 – 44 years ____
5 – 9 years
____
20 – 24 years ____
45 – 54 years ____
10 – 14 years ____
25 – 34 years ____
55 – 64 years ____
65+ years ____
RECREATION PROGRAMS
3) Have you or other members of your household participated in any parks and recreational programs offered anywhere
in Crow Wing County?
______ Yes
_____ No
4) If yes, where was the program and who sponsored it?____________________________________________
5) How have you learned about Parks and Recreation programs and activities?
_____ (1) Brochures
_____ (5) Word of Mouth
_____ (2) Newspaper ______________
_____ (6) Informational Flyers
(Please indicate name of paper)
_____ (3) Internet Website Location
_____ (7) Visited/called a park & recreation facility
_____ (4) School
_____ (8) Other
6) In which recreational activities do you participate in regularly? (Check ALL THAT APPLY)
___ (1) Baseball
___ (16) Golf
___ (2) Basketball
___ (17) Gymnastics
___ (30) Tennis
___ (31) Weight Training
___ (3) BMX Racing
___ (18) In-line Skating
___ (32) Citywide festivals & events
___ (4) Crafts/hobbies
___ (19) Racquetball
___ (33) Museums/galleries
___ (5) Cultural Events
___ (20) Soccer
___ (34) Dance
___ (6) Dance
___ (21) Softball
___ (35) Fishing
___ (7) Equestrian
___ (22) Swimming
___ (36) Snowmobiling
___ (8) Fitness/aerobics
___ (23) Hiking
___ (37) X-Country Skiing
___ (9) Cycling
___ (24) OHV/ATV Riding
___ (38) Hockey
___ (10) Mountain Biking
___ (25) Bird/Wildlife Watching
___ (11) Hunting
___ (12) Football
Photography
___ (39) Ice Skating
___ (40) Paint Ball
___ (26) Walking/Jogging/Running
___ (41) Sledding
___ (13) Boating/Sailing
___ (27) Canoeing/Kayaking
___ (42) Skateboard
___ (14) Wind Surfing
___ (28) Downhill Skiing/Snowboarding
___ (43) Wake Board/Water Skiing
___ (15) Disk (Frisbee) Golf
___ (29) Climbing
___ (44) Other__________
___ (45) None of the Above
7) In which FOUR of the programs listed in Question #5 would you be most interested in participating? (Please write in
the letters below for your 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th choices using the letters from the list in question #6 above.)
___________
st
1
__________
___________
nd
___________
rd
2
4th
3
8) Using a five-point scale where “1” means “Very SATISFIED” and ‘5’ “Very DISSATISFIED” please indicate your
overall satisfaction with the availability of the following types of recreational programs throughout Crow Wing
County.
Satisfaction with Availability of Programs in Crow Wing County
Very
Satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very
Dissatisfied
Don’t
Know
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Cultural Arts programs (Concerts/plays, etc) ................ 1..................2 ................. 3..................4 ................. 5................ 6
Senior programs (trips, fitness, & hobbies) ................... 1..................2 ................. 3..................4 ................. 5................ 6
Before & after school youth/teen programs................... 1..................2 ................. 3..................4 ................. 5................ 6
Festivals/Special Events (Art Fest/4th of July)............... 1..................2 ................. 3..................4 ................. 5................ 6
Adult Sports leagues ...................................................... 1..................2 ................. 3..................4 ................. 5................ 6
F.
G.
H
I.
J.
Youth Sports leagues ..................................................... 1..................2 ................. 3..................4 ................. 5................ 6
Wellness events (bike races/5k walks) .......................... 1..................2 ................. 3..................4 ................. 5................ 6
Summer youth/teen camp .............................................. 1..................2 ................. 3..................4 ................. 5................ 6
Arts & crafts (painting, pottery) .................................... 1..................2 ................. 3..................4 ................. 5................ 6
Swim lessons ................................................................. 1..................2 ................. 3..................4 ................. 5................ 6
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
P.
Fitness classes (water/land aerobics) ............................. 1..................2 ................. 3..................4 ................. 5................ 6
Dance/gymnastics .......................................................... 1..................2 ................. 3..................4 ................. 5................ 6
Teen programs (trips/dances/etc)................................... 1..................2 ................. 3..................4 ................. 5................ 6
Adaptive/special recreation programs ........................... 1..................2 ................. 3..................4 ................. 5................ 6
Safety programs (general/aquatic) ................................. 1..................2 ................. 3..................4 ................. 5................ 6
Neighborhood park reservation services
(reserve picnic areas) ..................................................... 1..................2 ................. 3..................4 ................. 5................ 6
Q. Neighborhood special events......................................... 1..................2 ................. 3..................4 ................. 5................ 6
R. Recreational swimming ................................................. 1..................2 ................. 3..................4 ................. 5................ 6
S. Outdoor recreation (fishing/camping/hiking ................. 1..................2 ................. 3..................4 ................. 5................ 6
9. In which FOUR of the programs listed in Question #8 would members of your household be most interested in
participating? (Please write in the letters below for your 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th choices using the letters from the list in
question #8 above.)
___________
st
1
__________
nd
2
___________
3rd
10. Overall, how well do you think that the programs and activities sponsored throughout Crow Wing County are
meeting the needs of the community? (MARK ONE ONLY)
_____ (1) Completely meeting the needs
_____ (2) Mostly meeting the needs
_____ (3) Somewhat meeting the needs
_____ (4) Not at all meeting the needs
USE & SATISFACTION WITH PARKS &
11)
RECREATION FACILITIES
Have you or members of your household visited any of the parks within Crow Wing County during the past
year?
______ (1) Yes (Please answer a & b)
_____ (2) No (Please continue to #12)
A. (if yes) where?__________________________________________________
B. (if yes) How would you rate the physical condition of the parks you visited?
_____ (1) Excellent
_____ (4) Poor
_____ (2) Good
_____ (5) Don’t know; have not visited a park recently
_____ (3) Fair (needs some improvement)
12)
How frequently do you use park & recreation facilities in Crow Wing County?
_____ (1) Less than once a month
_____ (3) 1 to 2 times per week
_____ (2) 1 to 3 times per month
13)
_____ (4) 3 or more times per week
Where do you and other members of your household recreate most often? (CHECK ONLY ONE)
_____ (1) Crow Wing County trails
_____ (2) Crow Wing County public water access
_____ (3) Recreation facilities provided by public agencies other than Crow Wing County
_____ (4) Non-profit organizations: Scouting, YMCA, etc.
_____ (5) Private clubs
_____ (6) Local schools
_____ (7) Churches
_____ (8) Other ______________________________
_____ (9) Seldom participate in recreational activities
14)
Where is the park or facility your household uses most often located? __________________________
15)
Please check all reasons that prevent you or members of your household from using park facilities or programs
more often?
_____ (1) The location of facilities & programs
are not close to my home
_____ (5) Use of facilities/programs provided
by other organizations/clubs
_____ (2) Facilities are not well maintained
_____ (6) We are too busy or just not interested
_____ (3) Don’t offer programs/services I’m
interested in
_____ (7) I do not know where facilities are
_____ (4) Cost/fee are too expensive
_____ (00) Other:_____________________
16) Using a five-point scale where ‘1’ means “Very SATISFIED” & ‘5’ means “Very DISSATISFIED” please indicate
your overall satisfaction with the condition of the following types of recreational facilities in Crow Wing County by
circling the corresponding number.
Then, please indicate if you or others members of your household have visited or used
facilities during the past two years.
Satisfaction with Parks/Facilities in Crow Wing County
Very
Satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very
Dissatisfied
Don’t
Know
Have you visited
this type of
facility in the
County during
the past 2 years
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Youth baseball fields ......1 ................. 2..................3 ................. 4 ..................5.................. 6 ........... ............ Yes.......No
Adult softball fields ........1 ................. 2..................3 ................. 4 ..................5.................. 6 ........... ............ Yes.......No
Soccer/football fields ......1 ................. 2..................3 ................. 4 ..................5.................. 6 ........... ............ Yes.......No
Lighted Sports fields.......1 ................. 2..................3 ................. 4 ..................5.................. 6 ........... ............ Yes.......No
Basketball courts.............1 ................. 2..................3 ................. 4 ..................5.................. 6 ........... ............ Yes.......No
F.
G.
H.
I
J.
K.
Tennis courts...................1 ................. 2..................3 ................. 4 ..................5.................. 6 ........... ............ Yes.......No
Volleyball courts.............1 ................. 2..................3 ................. 4 ..................5.................. 6 ........... ............ Yes.......No
Playgrounds for children.1 ................. 2..................3 ................. 4 ..................5.................. 6 ........... ............ Yes.......No
Picnic facilities................1 ................. 2..................3 ................. 4 ..................5.................. 6 ........... ............ Yes.......No
Walking & biking trails ..1 ................. 2..................3 ................. 4 ..................5.................. 6 ........... ............ Yes.......No
Neighborhood parks........1 ................. 2..................3 ................. 4 ..................5.................. 6 ........... ............ Yes.......No
L. Large multi use parks for
both active & passive
recreation ........................1 ................. 2..................3 ................. 4 ..................5.................. 6 ........... ............ Yes.......No
M. Indoor gyms & fitness
space ...............................1 ................. 2..................3 ................. 4 ..................5.................. 6 ........... ............ Yes.......No
N. Community Rec. Ctrs .....1 ................. 2..................3 ................. 4 ..................5.................. 6 ........... ............ Yes.......No
O. Indoor aquatic facilities ..1 ................. 2..................3 ................. 4 ..................5.................. 6 ........... ............ Yes.......No
P. Outdoor aquatic facilities .1 ................. 2..................3 ................. 4 ..................5.................. 6 ........... ............ Yes.......No
Q. Senior Centers.................1 ................. 2..................3 ................. 4 ..................5.................. 6 ........... ............ Yes.......No
R.
S.
T.
U.
ATV/OHV Trails ............1 ................. 2..................3 ................. 4 ..................5.................. 6 ........... ............ Yes.......No
Public Accesses ..............1 ................. 2..................3 ................. 4 ..................5.................. 6 ........... ............ Yes.......No
Snowmobile Trails..........1 ................. 2..................3 ................. 4 ..................5.................. 6 ........... ............ Yes.......No
Ski Trails.........................1 ................. 2..................3 ................. 4 ..................5.................. 6 ........... ............ Yes.......No
17) Which FOUR of the facilities listed above are most important to the members of your household? (Pease write in the
letters below for your 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th choices using the letters from the list in question #16 above.)
________
________
_________
________
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
18) Do you think there are enough neighborhood parks, trails & open space areas within walking distance of your
household? (CHECK ONE)
___ (1) YES
___ (2) NO
___ (3) DON’T KNOW
19) Which THREE of the improvements listed below would you like to have made to the park closest to your home?
_____ (1) Improved lighting
_____ (7) Additional restrooms
_____ (2) Shade Trees
_____ (8) Upgrading playground equipment
_____ (3) Drinking fountains
_____ (9) Water playground amenities
_____ (4) Landscaping Improvements
_____ (10) Better maintenance
_____ (5) Picnic shelters
_____ (11) Off-leash dog park
_____ (6) Improved parking
_____
(99) Other:_________________________
NEW PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES
20) Crow Wing County could consider developing new parks and recreation facilities for the community. For each of
the items listed below, please indicate whether you think it is very important, somewhat important, or not important
for the County to develop the park or facility.
Very
Important
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
n.
o.
p.
q.
r.
s.
t.
u.
v.
w.
x.
y.
z.
aa.
bb.
cc.
Somewhat
Important
Not
Important
Don’t
Know
Open space areas................................................................................1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
Recreational trails (biking/skating/jogging/walking...........................1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
Naturalized parks (undeveloped) ......................................................1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
Public access .......................................................................................1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
Large park dedicated to organized field sports ...................................1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
Small parks in neighborhoods for general park use ...........................1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
Swimming beaches .............................................................................1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
Equestrian facilities.............................................................................1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
Shooting range ....................................................................................1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
An 18-hole golf course........................................................................1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
Ice-skating rink ...................................................................................1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
An off-leash dog park .........................................................................1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
Model Airplane Park...........................................................................1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
Disk (Frisbee) golf course...................................................................1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
BMX bicycle course ...........................................................................1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
A skateboard/in-line skating park .......................................................1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
Outdoor climbing wall ........................................................................1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
Motorized trails...................................................................................1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
Outdoor amphitheater for concerts/plays............................................1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
Community vegetable & lakescape demonstration gardens ...............1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
Environmental education centers (i.e. heritage museum,
farm park, etc).....................................................................................1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
Performing Arts Center.......................................................................1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
Art galleries.........................................................................................1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
Community meeting rooms.................................................................1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
Before/after school child care facilities ..............................................1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
Increase the number of basketball courts .........................................1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
Develop programs and services for individuals with disabilities .......1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
Expand services and facilities for seniors ...........................................1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
Other: ________________________________________ .................1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
21) Which THREE parks/facilities listed above do you think are the most important for Crow Wing County to develop?
Write in the letters below for your 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice using the letters from the list in question #20 above.)
___________
1st
__________
2nd
___________
3rd
22) For each goal below, please indicate whether you think the goal is very important, somewhat
important, or not important to members of your household by circling the corresponding number.
Very
Important
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H
I.
J.
K.
Somewhat
Important
Not
Important
Don’t
Know
Providing activities to keep adolescents and teens out of trouble ......1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
Providing trails, both motorized and non-motorized ..........................1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
Providing before/after school programs & summer day camps for
youth/teens ..........................................................................................1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
Promoting participation in sports and the development of athletic
skills ....................................................................................................1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
Preserving the environment and providing open space ......................1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
Providing programs and services for individuals with disabilities .....1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
Providing outdoor open space for passive activities, such as
picnicking and other non-structured leisure activities ........................1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
Providing activities and places to hold cultural enrichment activities1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
Promoting personal fitness and health ................................................1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
Providing events that celebrate the diversity/heritage of community
residents ..............................................................................................1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
Providing public access ......................................................................1 ................2 ................3 ............. 4
23) Which THREE of the goals listed in Question #3 do you think should be MOST important for the County Parks
Department? (Write in the letters below for your 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice using the letters from the list in question #22
above.)
___________
1st
__________
2nd
___________
3rd
DEMOGRAPHICS
24) How many years have you lived in Crow Wing County? ________________ years.
25) Your gender:
_____ Male
_____ Female
26) What City or Township do you live in? _________________________
THIS CONCLUDES THE SURVEY. WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
PLEASE RETURN YOUR COMPLETED SURVEY, IN THE ENCLOSED SELF –
ADDRESSED, STAMPED ENVELOPE.
APPENDIX C: REGIONAL TABLES
CONTENTS
Page
Regional tables
Annual outdoor recreation participation by Minnesotans in Minnesota
and elsewhere, 2004
73
Annual outdoor recreation use by Minnesotans in Minnesota and
elsewhere, 2004
74
Near-home annual outdoor recreation use by Minnesotans, 2004
75
Away-from-home annual outdoor recreation use by Minnesotans, 2004
76
New activities taken up in last five years
77
Survey Regions
Northwest
Northeast
Central
Metro
(7 county)
South
2004 Minnesota Outdoor Recreation Participation Survey
Annual outdoor recreation participation by Minnesotans in Minnesota and elsewhere, 2004
(population 20 years old and older)
Northeast Region
Southern Region
Central Region
Metro Region
Walking/hiking (walking of hiking outdoors for exercise or pleasure)
Boating of all types, including fishing from a boat
Northwest Region
Activity
Statewide
-------------- Percent of population participating --------------
54%
43%
48%
43%
49%
42%
51%
40%
56%
45%
58%
44%
Boating of all types, excluding fishing from a boat
36%
36%
34%
32%
35%
37%
Motor boating of all types, including fishing from a boat
39%
41%
39%
35%
43%
40%
Motor boating of all types, excluding fishing from a boat
30%
31%
30%
26%
31%
31%
Non-motorized boating of all types, excluding fishing
15%
12%
12%
14%
12%
17%
14%
11%
12%
13%
11%
16%
43%
Canoeing/kayaking, excluding fishing
Swimming or wading (all places)
41%
37%
38%
38%
41%
Swimming or wading in a lake or stream
37%
37%
37%
33%
38%
38%
Swimming or wading in an outdoor pool or water park
22%
12%
12%
20%
21%
25%
Driving for pleasure on scenic roads or in a park
Picnicking
37%
36%
40%
34%
37%
36%
35%
35%
38%
33%
38%
37%
Fishing of all types
30%
35%
34%
30%
36%
28%
Fishing from a boat
27%
30%
31%
25%
33%
25%
Fishing from shore or dock
20%
25%
25%
21%
24%
18%
29%
19%
20%
26%
28%
33%
Biking (bicycling outdoors of all types, including mountain biking)
12%
6%
10%
9%
11%
15%
Visiting outdoor zoos
Biking on dirt trails
27%
14%
19%
25%
25%
33%
Camping of all types
26%
30%
32%
22%
28%
25%
Camping using a camping vehicle (e.g., pop-up/hard-sided trailer)
13%
19%
18%
13%
18%
10%
Camping using a tent
18%
17%
20%
13%
16%
19%
10%
10%
11%
7%
6%
11%
Visiting nature centers
25%
19%
21%
25%
19%
28%
Nature observation of all types (viewing, identifying, photographing)
25%
Camping using a tent for backpacking or canoe-in/boat-in camping
24%
20%
24%
23%
26%
Viewing, identifying or photographing birds and other wildlife
20%
17%
20%
20%
21%
21%
Viewing, identifying or photographing wildflowers, trees, natural vegetation
18%
13%
17%
15%
21%
20%
Golfing
Outdoor field sports (e.g., soccer, softball/baseball, football)
Visiting historic or archaeological sites
24%
21%
21%
19%
21%
17%
17%
20%
19%
21%
19%
18%
26%
22%
19%
26%
22%
23%
Sledding and snow tubing
Outdoor court sports (e.g., volleyball, basketball, tennis, horseshoes)
Hunting of all types
18%
18%
16%
15%
15%
23%
16%
13%
23%
16%
16%
14%
19%
20%
26%
20%
19%
13%
Hunting big game (e.g., deer, bear, moose)
13%
21%
20%
12%
23%
10%
Hunting waterfowl, upland game birds, and other small game
11%
14%
17%
9%
14%
9%
Running or jogging
Ice skating/hockey outdoors
Inline skating, rollerblading, roller skating, roller skiing
Offroad ATV driving
Snowmobiling
14%
12%
11%
10%
10%
6%
5%
6%
17%
16%
9%
8%
5%
19%
18%
13%
4%
6%
9%
10%
8%
8%
8%
18%
16%
18%
17%
16%
7%
6%
Downhill skiing/snowboarding
Gather mushrooms, berries, or other wild foods
Horseback riding
Snowshoeing
9%
9%
7%
5%
4%
3%
11%
4%
3%
2%
5%
19%
6%
4%
8%
9%
7%
4%
5%
3%
8%
7%
4%
6%
3%
11%
7%
9%
4%
5%
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Annual outdoor recreation use by Minnesotans in Minnesota and elsewhere, 2004
(population 20 years old and older)
Activity
Statewide (total hours
=760, 743)
Northwest Region
(total hours=71,958)
Northeast Region
Southern Region
Central Region (total
hours=77,187)
Metro Region (total
hours=386,954)
---------- Percent of annual recreation hours (000's) ----------
17.0%
14.2%
14.8%
16.2%
14.2%
15.1%
17.8%
11.2%
16.4%
15.0%
17.8%
14.6%
7.6%
7.9%
7.4%
6.2%
7.5%
8.2%
13.0%
14.9%
13.9%
10.4%
13.8%
13.3%
6.5%
6.6%
6.2%
5.4%
6.4%
6.9%
1.2%
1.3%
1.2%
0.8%
1.1%
1.3%
1.0%
1.2%
1.0%
0.8%
1.0%
1.1%
7.8%
7.0%
6.5%
5.0%
6.2%
7.0%
4.8%
5.6%
4.4%
3.7%
4.4%
5.3%
2.2%
1.0%
0.6%
2.4%
2.6%
2.6%
Picnicking
4.4%
4.7%
5.1%
4.7%
4.4%
5.4%
4.6%
5.1%
3.9%
4.6%
4.3%
4.5%
9.3%
10.0%
14.3%
11.7%
8.3%
11.4%
Fishing from a boat
6.5%
8.2%
7.7%
5.0%
7.4%
6.4%
3.5%
6.0%
4.0%
3.3%
4.0%
2.9%
4.2%
2.4%
3.0%
4.1%
4.0%
4.8%
0.5%
0.3%
0.5%
0.3%
0.4%
0.7%
0.8%
0.3%
0.4%
0.6%
0.4%
1.1%
4.5%
5.6%
5.0%
4.4%
5.0%
4.1%
2.9%
4.1%
3.5%
3.4%
3.9%
2.1%
1.6%
1.5%
1.6%
0.9%
1.1%
2.0%
0.5%
0.6%
0.6%
0.4%
0.2%
0.7%
1.1%
0.7%
0.6%
0.9%
0.5%
1.5%
8.6%
10.2%
7.8%
13.8%
14.1%
9.3%
5.4%
4.3%
7.8%
7.7%
5.2%
4.3%
4.7%
3.5%
6.0%
6.3%
4.0%
4.2%
Golfing
4.9%
2.8%
0.8%
4.6%
2.3%
0.6%
3.5%
2.0%
1.1%
4.3%
2.7%
0.8%
4.3%
2.7%
0.6%
5.5%
3.1%
0.9%
0.7%
1.5%
6.3%
0.5%
1.3%
9.2%
0.5%
1.1%
9.4%
0.5%
1.6%
6.3%
0.9%
1.9%
8.5%
0.7%
1.6%
4.8%
3.6%
5.5%
5.2%
2.9%
5.3%
2.8%
2.8%
3.7%
4.3%
3.4%
3.1%
2.0%
Running or jogging
Offroad ATV driving
Snowmobiling
3.2%
0.6%
1.5%
2.0%
1.3%
0.9%
0.5%
0.5%
4.5%
2.8%
1.6%
0.5%
0.4%
3.2%
3.2%
3.4%
0.1%
0.7%
2.6%
1.4%
1.3%
0.6%
0.9%
3.9%
1.5%
4.2%
0.9%
2.3%
0.7%
0.7%
Horseback riding
Snowshoeing
1.1%
0.7%
0.5%
0.3%
0.1%
0.6%
0.9%
0.3%
0.3%
0.0%
0.6%
1.0%
0.5%
0.2%
0.2%
1.7%
0.9%
0.2%
0.4%
0.1%
0.9%
0.4%
0.2%
1.3%
0.1%
1.2%
0.5%
0.7%
0.2%
0.1%
Near-home annual outdoor recreation use by Minnesotans, 2004
("near home" is within a half-hour drive of home; population 20 years old and older)
Activity
=511,117)
Northwest Region
Northeast Region
Southern Region
hours=50,208)
Metro Region (total
hours=248,057)
-------- Percent of near-home recreation hours (000's) --------
20.7%
10.5%
16.4%
16.4%
15.3%
14.0%
21.3%
8.1%
20.0%
11.7%
22.6%
9.1%
5.5%
8.0%
6.9%
4.5%
6.4%
5.0%
9.8%
15.3%
12.9%
7.7%
10.7%
8.5%
4.8%
6.8%
5.8%
4.2%
5.5%
4.3%
0.7%
1.1%
1.2%
0.4%
1.0%
0.6%
0.6%
1.1%
0.9%
0.4%
0.9%
0.4%
7.5%
6.7%
6.7%
4.9%
5.5%
7.1%
4.0%
5.6%
4.4%
2.9%
3.9%
4.2%
2.7%
1.1%
0.5%
2.6%
3.2%
3.4%
Picnicking
3.5%
4.9%
4.3%
4.4%
3.3%
5.7%
3.4%
5.5%
3.2%
4.8%
3.4%
4.6%
6.0%
7.6%
14.7%
10.8%
5.9%
8.1%
Fishing from a boat
4.9%
8.4%
7.1%
3.6%
5.2%
4.1%
2.6%
6.2%
3.7%
2.3%
2.8%
1.9%
5.4%
2.8%
3.8%
5.2%
5.5%
6.3%
0.7%
0.3%
0.6%
0.4%
0.5%
0.9%
0.8%
0.2%
0.3%
0.4%
0.3%
1.3%
1.6%
3.1%
2.1%
1.6%
2.1%
1.1%
1.1%
2.2%
1.4%
1.2%
1.8%
0.6%
0.5%
0.9%
0.6%
0.4%
0.3%
0.5%
0.2%
0.4%
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%
0.2%
1.1%
0.5%
0.4%
0.7%
0.3%
1.8%
10.3%
12.1%
8.6%
16.4%
16.2%
11.0%
6.6%
4.7%
9.5%
9.2%
6.4%
5.3%
5.5%
3.9%
6.9%
7.0%
4.6%
5.0%
Golfing
5.4%
3.4%
0.4%
4.8%
2.6%
0.3%
3.7%
2.3%
0.8%
5.1%
2.6%
0.3%
5.0%
3.2%
0.2%
6.1%
4.2%
0.5%
0.9%
2.0%
5.0%
0.5%
1.6%
9.2%
0.7%
1.2%
9.2%
0.6%
2.1%
6.0%
1.2%
2.3%
6.9%
1.1%
2.1%
2.3%
2.8%
5.4%
5.2%
2.8%
4.4%
1.5%
2.1%
3.8%
4.0%
3.2%
2.5%
0.9%
Running or jogging
Offroad ATV driving
Snowmobiling
4.4%
0.9%
2.0%
1.9%
1.3%
1.1%
0.6%
0.6%
4.3%
2.9%
1.9%
0.7%
0.5%
3.3%
3.3%
4.5%
0.2%
0.8%
2.7%
1.4%
1.8%
0.7%
1.2%
4.3%
1.4%
6.2%
1.4%
3.3%
0.3%
0.5%
Horseback riding
Snowshoeing
0.7%
0.7%
0.5%
0.4%
0.1%
0.2%
1.0%
0.4%
0.4%
0.0%
0.4%
1.0%
0.6%
0.2%
0.3%
1.4%
1.1%
0.2%
0.6%
0.1%
0.5%
0.4%
0.2%
1.8%
0.1%
0.7%
0.5%
0.8%
0.2%
0.1%
Away-from-home annual outdoor recreation use by Minnesotans, 2004
("away from home" is over a half-hour drive from home; population 20 years old and older)
Activity
=249,626)
Northwest Region
Northeast Region
Southern Region
hours=26,979)
Metro Region (total
hours=138,897)
---- Percent of away-from-home recreation hours (000's) ----
9.5%
21.8%
10.5%
15.5%
11.4%
18.0%
9.0%
18.8%
9.6%
21.1%
9.3%
24.5%
11.9%
7.9%
8.8%
10.4%
9.5%
13.9%
19.6%
13.7%
16.7%
16.8%
19.7%
22.0%
9.8%
6.1%
7.4%
8.4%
8.1%
11.4%
2.2%
1.8%
1.3%
2.0%
1.4%
2.5%
2.0%
1.7%
1.2%
1.8%
1.3%
2.3%
8.4%
7.7%
6.1%
5.1%
7.7%
6.9%
6.4%
5.5%
4.3%
5.7%
5.5%
7.2%
1.3%
0.6%
0.8%
2.1%
1.4%
1.1%
Picnicking
6.3%
4.4%
7.1%
5.5%
7.1%
4.7%
7.6%
4.2%
5.2%
4.4%
5.8%
4.3%
15.1%
13.2%
14.0%
14.0%
17.7%
15.3%
Fishing from a boat
9.8%
7.6%
9.2%
8.4%
11.5%
10.6%
5.2%
5.6%
4.8%
5.6%
6.2%
4.7%
1.8%
1.3%
0.9%
1.3%
1.2%
2.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.3%
0.7%
0.6%
0.6%
1.0%
0.8%
0.7%
10.4%
12.7%
12.6%
11.1%
10.5%
9.5%
6.6%
9.5%
8.7%
8.9%
7.8%
4.9%
3.8%
3.2%
3.9%
2.2%
2.7%
4.6%
1.3%
1.3%
1.6%
0.8%
0.6%
1.5%
1.1%
1.1%
0.9%
1.4%
0.9%
1.0%
5.4%
6.3%
5.7%
7.0%
8.8%
6.1%
3.1%
3.1%
3.5%
4.2%
3.2%
2.6%
3.2%
2.5%
3.5%
4.6%
3.0%
2.8%
Golfing
3.8%
1.6%
1.6%
4.0%
1.5%
1.3%
3.0%
1.3%
1.7%
2.6%
3.1%
1.9%
2.9%
1.8%
1.3%
4.5%
1.1%
1.6%
0.1%
0.6%
9.2%
0.4%
0.5%
9.0%
0.2%
0.6%
10.1%
0.1%
0.4%
7.0%
0.2%
1.1%
11.5%
0.1%
0.5%
9.3%
5.1%
5.6%
5.0%
3.1%
7.2%
5.3%
4.1%
3.3%
5.0%
3.9%
4.3%
4.0%
Running or jogging
Offroad ATV driving
Snowmobiling
0.6%
0.1%
0.4%
2.2%
1.5%
0.3%
0.2%
0.3%
5.3%
2.8%
0.6%
0.1%
0.2%
3.1%
3.1%
0.7%
0.1%
0.3%
2.4%
1.5%
0.2%
0.4%
0.5%
3.2%
1.7%
0.8%
0.1%
0.5%
1.4%
1.0%
Horseback riding
Snowshoeing
2.0%
0.6%
0.3%
0.1%
0.2%
1.9%
0.8%
0.2%
0.1%
0.0%
1.0%
1.1%
0.4%
0.2%
0.2%
2.5%
0.4%
0.2%
0.1%
0.2%
1.6%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
2.0%
0.5%
0.5%
0.1%
0.2%
New activities taken up in last 5 years
(table ordered from high to low on statewide percent)
---------------------------- Percent of all new activities ---------------------------Northwest Northeast Southern
Central
Metro
Statewide
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
New activity
●
Boating (other than fishing)
Biking (bicycling outdoors of all types, including
mountain biking)
● Camping
● Offroad driving (mainly ATV)
● Fishing
9.9%
12.7%
15.8%
5.5%
5.9%
10.7%
8.1%
2.2%
2.5%
8.5%
9.1%
9.2%
7.5%
7.4%
7.3%
8.1%
8.3%
9.4%
6.7%
13.3%
5.6%
4.6%
11.1%
3.9%
5.9%
13.1%
6.4%
8.7%
4.6%
8.3%
6.3%
3.7%
5.6%
4.8%
3.9%
7.4%
6.0%
5.7%
5.0%
4.8%
12.3%
7.5%
0.0%
1.2%
4.4%
2.4%
5.0%
2.2%
8.3%
0.9%
4.5%
6.8%
8.1%
3.9%
2.1%
2.8%
4.7%
7.6%
6.0%
5.3%
4.5%
4.4%
4.0%
2.5%
1.2%
1.7%
10.0%
0.6%
6.0%
2.1%
10.7%
2.1%
5.5%
3.8%
7.8%
0.0%
3.7%
6.5%
5.6%
3.6%
4.4%
4.9%
1.3%
3.3%
2.4%
4.7%
2.1%
3.8%
3.5%
1.6%
2.2%
0.6%
0.5%
0.0%
1.5%
3.3%
1.7%
0.4%
0.0%
3.3%
1.1%
1.7%
1.6%
1.9%
1.6%
3.8%
3.3%
0.8%
1.4%
1.5%
2.6%
2.5%
0.0%
1.2%
1.3%
2.2%
0.3%
2.1%
0.9%
1.2%
1.3%
0.8%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0.0%
1.2%
1.2%
1.2%
1.7%
0.0%
0.0%
3.0%
1.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
2.7%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
2.8%
1.4%
2.1%
2.1%
1.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
0.6%
0.0%
0.3%
2.5%
1.5%
0.0%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.0%
0.9%
1.7%
1.4%
2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
0.5%
0.9%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Rock climbing
Racing motorized vehicles
● Archery
● Orienteering/geo-caching
● Outdoor meditation
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
0.0%
0.3%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
●
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
●
●
●
●
●
●
Walking/Hiking (walking or hiking outdoors for exercise
or pleasure)
Hunting
Golfing
●
Snowshoeing
● Snowmobiling
● Ice skating/hockey outdoors
● Outdoor field sports (e.g., soccer, softball/baseball,
football)
●
●
●
●
●
●
Outdoor court sports (e.g., volleyball, basketball, tennis,
horseshoes)
Running or jogging
Viewing, identifying, or photographing wildlife,
vegetation and landscapes
Gathering/collecting wild products (wild foods, antler
shed, rocks)
●
SCUBA diving/snorkeling
● Shooting sports (trap, skeet etc.)
● Gardening
● Horseback riding
●
●
●
●
●
●
Visiting outdoor attractions (nature centers, zoos, historic
or archaeological sites)
Trapping wildlife
Swimming
Dog training (e.g., hunting dog)
Metal detector use
●
●
●
Airplane flying
Picnicking
Total percent
APPENDIX D
IMPLEMENTATION CASE STUDIES
In order to assist Crow Wing County planners and decision-makers to
understand the mechanics of implementation, the implementation plan
includes some examples of how previous projects were assembled and
executed. The complexities of getting buy-in from multiple stakeholders,
acquiring funding, and organizing action steps by discrete organizations
and government agencies remains an implementation dilemma. The
following case studies provide examples of how successful projects have
addressed the complex mechanics of implementing park, trail, and, open
space goals.
Open Space Case Study
The Forest Legacy Program
(FLP)
A federal program that partners
with the state to preserve privately
owned environmentally sensitive
forest land from conversion to
non-forest uses. In the Forest
Legacy Program helped preserve
4,790 acres of forest land owned by
Potlatch Corporation (almost 3,000
in Crow Wing County) for public
use while allowing the land to
continue its historic use as private
timber land.
An open space protection process is intended to keep existing open
space from being developed or significantly altered such that the value is
diminished. The open space can be protected for general conservation,
habitat protection, view shed protection, or other open space purposes.
The following example preserved land for the benefit of the general public
in Crow Wing and Cass County. The lead entity, the Trust for Public Land
(TPL), is a national non-profit organization that helps preserve land for
public use.
Forest Legacy Project - A Brainerd Lakes Area Open Space
Conservation Easement Project
Overview
A landowner or public agency contacts a conservation or open space
organization with in interest in preserving land (in this case, TPL). TPL
evaluates the project to see if it meets their open space criteria, and if so
contacts potential public stewards of the land depending on the location
of the property, the land’s attributes, and the known potential sources of
funding. Potential land stewards include the DNR, the Forest Service,
and county, city or township governments, among others. TPL then
works with interested stewards and other parties to reach a funding and
management agreement. In this project TPL helped complete appraisals,
environmental assessments and other due diligence to the funding source’s
standard. TPL also helped assemble funding for the easement purchase.
Project Initiator
Citizen input in a variety of forums let the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), County staff, and elected officials know of their desire
for adequate hunting areas, natural areas, clean water, forests, etc. Large
D-1
timber land owners had historically allowed land in Crow Wing County
to be used as a recreation and open space resource. The practice has been
scaled back. The DNR contacted TPL for assistance in preserving large
tracts of privately owned undeveloped land primarily used for timber
production.
Actors
Together, TPL and the corporate landowner submitted an application to
the State to participate in the federal Forest Legacy Program. Under the
Program, the DNR purchased, and will hold and enforce a conservation
easement to ensure long term open space uses on the land. The project
was submitted to the Forest Service, the President, and then Congress
for consideration. TPL, concerned citizens, and conservation groups
contacted city, county, and township officials, state representatives, and
senators for their support for using local funding for the project. They
also requested support from their congressional representatives on the
Forest Legacy Program application.
Bargain sale
A transaction in which property is
sold at less than appraised market
value to a charitable organization,
or government entity which can
allow the seller to claim a tax
deduction.
Funding Sources
Congressional delegates helped secure funding for the project through
the USDA’s Forest Legacy Program, which provided 75% of the funding
for the purchase. Approximately 20% matching funding was specially
approved by the state legislature and the landowner donated the remaining
5% through a bargain sale.
Approvals
The DNR and the US Forest Service were responsible for approving the
acquisition and making sure it complied with the guidelines set by the
Forest Legacy Program. Formal local government approval was required
from the County to complete the FLP application.
Project Completion
The land remains in private ownership and will continue to be utilized for
timber production. Because of the new stewardship, the public will now
have the ability to enjoy the land for recreation such as hiking, hunting,
and other non-motorized activities and the terms of the easement are
perpetual. This means that the landowner will be forever bound by the
terms of the easement and in this case the land will never be developed.
D-2
Easement
A legal tool that allows land to
remain in private ownership yet
sets certain restrictions. In the
case of a conservation easement,
the land will stay private yet
development will be forbidden and
the owner will be forever bound
by the easement terms. TPL
contracted to purchase an easement
over these lands owned by the
Potlatch Corporations.
Case Study
Brainerd Lakes Area 2002
Forest Legacy Program
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
�
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
� ��
��
��
��
��
��
D-3
Trail Case Study
Trails can take a variety of forms and serve a variety of user groups, from a
short simple hiking trail in a nature preserve, to hard surface multi-purpose
trails extending across public and private lands for hundreds of miles.
Major trails will cross lands with multiple property owners, require long
regular maintenance by volunteers or public entities, and frequently follow
scenic routes with sensitive features. Crossing other transportation rightsof-way and stretches of developed lands also present substantial challenges
to the goal of connecting specific destinations.
Superior Hiking Trail – Duluth Segment
Overview
The Duluth segment of the Superior Hiking Trail will be approximately
40 miles in length upon completion and will expand from Jay Cooke State
Park near the southwestern city limits to Martin Road at the northeastern
city limits. Eventually, it is planned to also become part of the North
Country National Scenic Trail, however, the Superior Hiking Trail
Association will manage and maintain the trail. Approximately 95% of
the land used to build the trail is publicly owned with the remaining small
percentage owned by private land owners. The planning for this project
began in 2002, with construction starting in 2004. The Duluth segment will
be completed in 2007.
Project Initiator
The Superior Hiking Trail Association (SHTA), working with other passive
recreation organizations and individuals, initiated the Duluth segment trail
planning effort as part of the long-range plan for the completed Superior
Hiking Trail.
Actors
Before building the trail, the SHTA had to contact and work with the
landowners to gain appropriate approvals to use the land for this purpose.
Since segments of the land are owned by the City of Duluth, St. Louis
County, Midway Township, the State of Minnesota, and a couple of private
landowners, all of these entities were approached. The Superior Hiking
Trail Association sent letters asking the property owners to agree to allow
the trail to be built through their land. Once the landowners agreed, an
agreement was written and signed by both parties. These agreements vary
somewhat between the various land owners, but essentially comprise a
legally binding agreement permitting the use of a portion of land for the
construction, maintenance, and public use of the Superior Hiking Trail.
The SHTA does not own or lease the land; they just have permission to
construct, maintain, and manage the trail on the land. Agreements were
obtained from the City of Duluth, Midway Township, St. Louis County, the
State of Minnesota, and private landowners.
D-4
Superior Hiking Trail Association
The Superior Hiking Trail
Association (SHTA) is a non-profit
volunteer based corporation with 3-4
employees, a large (150) volunteer
base, and a $250,000 annual budget.
Founded in 1986, their mission is
to build and promote the Superior
Hiking Trail and extend it from the
Canadian border to the Wisconsin
border. The trail is complete
from Canada to Two Harbors and
eventually will connect with the
North Country National Scenic Trail
that extends 4,500 miles from New
York to North Dakota.
Obstacles
In cases where private landowners denied the request, alternate trail routes
were planned. Because the agreements are not easements, if a landowner
decides to sell the land, new agreements will have to be signed between
SHTA and the new landowner.
Approvals
Because a majority of the trail is being built through the City of Duluth,
the project had to be presented to planning staff, city attorneys, and the
City Council for processing, agreements, and permits. Some of the land
used is tax forfeited land owned by the State of Minnesota and managed
by St. Louis County. Therefore, county staff was involved for permitting
and other approvals needed. Part of the trail also crosses portions of the
west end of Midway Township, from which permits and agreements were
acquired. Additionally, approvals and agreements were needed from an
energy utility for crossing a power line easement and an agreement (still
in process after two years of negotiation) with the Minnesota Department
of Transportation to cross a bridge right-of-way.
Funding
The Minnesota DNR trail grant program supports some of the
construction costs as well as the SHTA membership base. DNR was
involved because part of the trail connects with state trails. In order to
receive the grants, the SHTA needed to make sure that the use of the
trail would not infringe on any areas where endangered, threatened, or
sensitive species reside. Because much of the actual construction of the
trail is being done by volunteers and the trail does not require a finished
surface, costs are significantly reduced.
Project Completion
The Superior National Hiking Trail Duluth Segment is planned to
eventually extend to Two Harbors which will connect it to miles of
additional trails making it possible for hikers and campers alike to use the
trail from Duluth to Canada.
D-5
Case Study
Superior Hiking Trail Extention
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
D-6

Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan

Transcription

Similar documents

Community Prosperity Appendix 3 - Donner Summit Area Association

dickinson county recreational trails dickinson county recreational

Dual Sport Motorcycle Trail Map

Join a Club Make a Difference

Pooh Trail Brochure - Barrington Conservation Commission

Ribbon Cutting Ceremony - Great Rivers United Way

View a PDF of Chaz Southard`s Keynote

Slotomania Big Win - Bingo Card Game For Ipad

SSTF - TUHAYE.mxd - South Summit Trails Foundation

Curt Gowdy Trail Map