This is an update to something a wrote about in February (it seemed long ago enough to warrant a new post instead of an addendum). The Minneapolis City Council recently passed a major funding bill that Mayor Hodges signed to fix and update park and recreation center facilities over a 20 year period. It will be funded by a one-time property tax increases and some smaller levies but will provide a designated stream of maintenance funding for two decades. This is a huge deal. While time will tell if the funding is sufficient (and also if the city will now view its duties as fulfilled), locking in funds for parks and ensuring that it isn't an unfunded mandate to be paid for "somehow" or by cuts in services is rare and noteworthy. An alternative method would have been to take advantage of historically low interest rates and pass a bonding bill, but those are more complex and challenging (and potentially even more controversial than property tax changes). Either way, I'm pleased with this development and hope that it is a sign that Minneapolis will be continuing to make commitments to and investments in its world class parks system.
Additional note, this will be my last post in the series for my real estate course, though for any readers I have picked up, I do hope to keep this going now that I've restarted, on a fairly regular basis. I have a number of places I've visited since I left off writing that I'd like to review and am constantly coming up with other little ideas, so hopefully this won't trail off. I don't know what the frequency will be, but I intend to find or make time to do at least a little bit of posting. I'll also probably return to a more explicitly public lands and parks focus, though, this being my personal blog, I reserve the right to talk about whatever else I want (but mostly property, land and environment, because that's what I like). I'm also going to be starting a fellowship with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service soon working on wetland acquisitions, so I'm excited to start that, combining my legal, geographic, mapping, and real estate knowledge in the service of environmental preservation and biodiversity. Pretty good stuff.
Showing posts with label Minnesota. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Minnesota. Show all posts
Thursday, May 5, 2016
Saturday, April 30, 2016
Riparian Buffer Analysis
A while ago I wrote about buffer zones, water quality, and agriculture. This is a quick update on that. I've been working on a research project that looked at different types of imagery analysis to determine if there is a good way to identify potential violators for inspection or closer monitoring. The short answer is, not the way I did it but there probably is a way, it just isn't likely worth the extra time and cost. Visual inspection of imagery is relatively easy, fast, and accurate enough (and much cheaper than some of the other program-based alternatives). I've written it up formally, available upon request, but thought I'd post an annotated figure that gives the general idea of the methods and findings.
Sunday, April 3, 2016
Polymet and Sulfide Mining
Minnesota has a long history of mining. However, most of that has historically been for iron from the state's large Banded Iron Formation deposits in the northeast portion of the state. That industry has been in general decline for a variety of economic and demographic reasons, and there is far less mining in the state than there used to be. Enter Polymet (and a few other entities like Twin Metals). These companies want to come into the state and engage in hard rock mining for copper, nickel, zinc, cobalt, and other precious and semi-precious metals. This is a very different and far more destructive form of mining that has a history of water pollution (due to the reaction of sulfides in the parent rock with air and water when exposed). Given the incredibly sensitive nature of the wetland heavy, hydrologically complex area, this is an incredibly dangerous and ill-advised plan.
Mining is a legally complex industry that also happens to have a number of privileges. First, mineral rights are what is called a "dominant estate." This means that the owner of the mineral rights (in Minnesota this is often, but not always, the state itself) has the right to explore and develop the deposits with reasonable use of the surface. While the law in Minnesota is less developed than in other states, particularly those with large oil and gas industries, the majority rule (most states have adopted) allow the use of any portion of the surface that is appurtenant to the development. This includes access roads, drilling and development pads, the harvesting of timber, the redirection of surface water, and the "reasonable" appropriation of other surface assets. While it does not allow for the outright destruction or eviction of a surface owner or tenant, development actions can sometimes result in a constructive eviction or total occupation. Whether this is allowed or actionable depends on state law and the exact facts of each situation.
Second, mineral rights are almost impossible to develop, economically, without pooling. Isolated or small parcels are generally uneconomical to develop either due to logistics or due to the efficiencies of scale required to support the large capital investment required to open a mine. This means that a mining company will often work with multiple mineral owners to acquire all of the parcels required. This creates a patchwork of interest holders that have all sold or leased their rights to the same company. It also provides an opportunity to prevent development by withholding or blocking transfer of rights held by a major or critically located rights holder. This is what may be happening with Twin Metals, which hopes to open a sulfide mine three miles from the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, but was recently opposed by Governor Mark Dayton. While this would only affect state mineral rights, it could be enough to render the project uneconomical and kill it.
So where are we with Polymet? The mine has been in the works for years, and has been steadily losing public support as people learn more about the large potential consequences and small economic benefits. What was recently approved was not the mine itself. Rather it was the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the required land swap that would trade state land to be mined for private land outside the mining area. While not entirely unexpected given Gov. Dayton's recent comments, it is disappointing. It has also been a long process, with an initial review by the EPA outright rejected in 2009 as inadequate (and portions of the current review still awaiting Army Corps of Engineers review). This will almost certainly be subject to litigation as the project moves into its permitting phase (which will also be lengthy and have its own litigation fights). It is also possible that the project dies for lack of funding. Lower copper prices, a money-losing parent company, and a risk-heavy, speculative business model all make the project a financially unstable proposition. It is possible that additional regulatory and litigation costs in both time and dollars could be enough to sink the project. And even if that is not enough, there is still the matter of the mine reclamation bonding...
Mine reclamation bonds, in theory, are money that is put up by a company before construction begins to fund the closure, remediation, and perpetual treatment of a site. They are almost always required in modern mining after a history of companies abandoning mines, closing them without cleaning up, or going bankrupt. There are also well-documented examples of bad actors with poor records claiming a need to resume production in order to fund health, safety, and environmental compliance. These problems have resulted in mines becoming toxic, polluted wastelands, many of which ended up on the federal Superfund National Priorities List, including some of the most (in)famous. The problem with reclamation bonds is that they are very difficult to set. The state has hired an environmental consulting firm to determine the required level of funding required for the cleanup insurance fund. I wish them the best of luck, but their task is almost certainly hopeless. While some costs can be estimated based on past results, practices, and known costs from similar projects, there are many others that are unknowable or have huge uncertainty ranges. The first problem is understanding the hydrology itself. Northern Minnesota is an incredibly complex and interconnected area with lots of braided streams, wetlands, overland flow, and mysterious water courses that apparently disappear. I am incredibly skeptical that it is possible to model such an area with enough confidence to arrive at a good cost estimate for perpetual treatment. And even when the hydrology is modeled correctly, estimates of actual water treatment levels required have been notoriously bad. Following all of the analysis and uncertainty, the setting of actual bond values has also been problematic. This is true whether the mining is for coal (regulated differently) or is hard rock mining (like in the case of Polymet). Around the world, mining bonds have proved inadequate and left local, regional, and national governments responsible for massive, perpetual cleanup costs.
So, there are still many opportunities to stop the Polymet mine. They have only had the state approve their EIS for the land swap. The federal EPA and ACE still need to sign off, the EIS then needs to survive litigation. After that, while they would have the right to extract their mineral rights, they would still be subject to (ideally) strict (and expensive) regulations and permitting requirements. Each of which can be another good stage for opposing the project, litigating, or imposing public and environmental conditions on the company's behavior. The surety bond process will also be a good opportunity to impose costs on the project, and history has shown that it is probably not possible to demand enough money up front, so a strong public push for high numbers could be very helpful. Finally, it is possible that the project collapses under its own weight, with uncertain finances and high costs. The longer the process can be drawn out, the more likely this is to happen. So get involved, write to the Governor and legislature, and provide feedback on the bonding and permitting process. Every little piece helps. Together we can stop this grave threat to a unique and vulnerable place that has so far been preserved for the benefit of all Minnesotans. It would be a shame to sell that out for a handful of dollars a few temporary jobs.
Mining is a legally complex industry that also happens to have a number of privileges. First, mineral rights are what is called a "dominant estate." This means that the owner of the mineral rights (in Minnesota this is often, but not always, the state itself) has the right to explore and develop the deposits with reasonable use of the surface. While the law in Minnesota is less developed than in other states, particularly those with large oil and gas industries, the majority rule (most states have adopted) allow the use of any portion of the surface that is appurtenant to the development. This includes access roads, drilling and development pads, the harvesting of timber, the redirection of surface water, and the "reasonable" appropriation of other surface assets. While it does not allow for the outright destruction or eviction of a surface owner or tenant, development actions can sometimes result in a constructive eviction or total occupation. Whether this is allowed or actionable depends on state law and the exact facts of each situation.
Second, mineral rights are almost impossible to develop, economically, without pooling. Isolated or small parcels are generally uneconomical to develop either due to logistics or due to the efficiencies of scale required to support the large capital investment required to open a mine. This means that a mining company will often work with multiple mineral owners to acquire all of the parcels required. This creates a patchwork of interest holders that have all sold or leased their rights to the same company. It also provides an opportunity to prevent development by withholding or blocking transfer of rights held by a major or critically located rights holder. This is what may be happening with Twin Metals, which hopes to open a sulfide mine three miles from the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, but was recently opposed by Governor Mark Dayton. While this would only affect state mineral rights, it could be enough to render the project uneconomical and kill it.
So where are we with Polymet? The mine has been in the works for years, and has been steadily losing public support as people learn more about the large potential consequences and small economic benefits. What was recently approved was not the mine itself. Rather it was the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the required land swap that would trade state land to be mined for private land outside the mining area. While not entirely unexpected given Gov. Dayton's recent comments, it is disappointing. It has also been a long process, with an initial review by the EPA outright rejected in 2009 as inadequate (and portions of the current review still awaiting Army Corps of Engineers review). This will almost certainly be subject to litigation as the project moves into its permitting phase (which will also be lengthy and have its own litigation fights). It is also possible that the project dies for lack of funding. Lower copper prices, a money-losing parent company, and a risk-heavy, speculative business model all make the project a financially unstable proposition. It is possible that additional regulatory and litigation costs in both time and dollars could be enough to sink the project. And even if that is not enough, there is still the matter of the mine reclamation bonding...
Mine reclamation bonds, in theory, are money that is put up by a company before construction begins to fund the closure, remediation, and perpetual treatment of a site. They are almost always required in modern mining after a history of companies abandoning mines, closing them without cleaning up, or going bankrupt. There are also well-documented examples of bad actors with poor records claiming a need to resume production in order to fund health, safety, and environmental compliance. These problems have resulted in mines becoming toxic, polluted wastelands, many of which ended up on the federal Superfund National Priorities List, including some of the most (in)famous. The problem with reclamation bonds is that they are very difficult to set. The state has hired an environmental consulting firm to determine the required level of funding required for the cleanup insurance fund. I wish them the best of luck, but their task is almost certainly hopeless. While some costs can be estimated based on past results, practices, and known costs from similar projects, there are many others that are unknowable or have huge uncertainty ranges. The first problem is understanding the hydrology itself. Northern Minnesota is an incredibly complex and interconnected area with lots of braided streams, wetlands, overland flow, and mysterious water courses that apparently disappear. I am incredibly skeptical that it is possible to model such an area with enough confidence to arrive at a good cost estimate for perpetual treatment. And even when the hydrology is modeled correctly, estimates of actual water treatment levels required have been notoriously bad. Following all of the analysis and uncertainty, the setting of actual bond values has also been problematic. This is true whether the mining is for coal (regulated differently) or is hard rock mining (like in the case of Polymet). Around the world, mining bonds have proved inadequate and left local, regional, and national governments responsible for massive, perpetual cleanup costs.
So, there are still many opportunities to stop the Polymet mine. They have only had the state approve their EIS for the land swap. The federal EPA and ACE still need to sign off, the EIS then needs to survive litigation. After that, while they would have the right to extract their mineral rights, they would still be subject to (ideally) strict (and expensive) regulations and permitting requirements. Each of which can be another good stage for opposing the project, litigating, or imposing public and environmental conditions on the company's behavior. The surety bond process will also be a good opportunity to impose costs on the project, and history has shown that it is probably not possible to demand enough money up front, so a strong public push for high numbers could be very helpful. Finally, it is possible that the project collapses under its own weight, with uncertain finances and high costs. The longer the process can be drawn out, the more likely this is to happen. So get involved, write to the Governor and legislature, and provide feedback on the bonding and permitting process. Every little piece helps. Together we can stop this grave threat to a unique and vulnerable place that has so far been preserved for the benefit of all Minnesotans. It would be a shame to sell that out for a handful of dollars a few temporary jobs.
Thursday, March 3, 2016
Sandpiper Pipeline Delayed
A lot of oil moves around this country, and much of it moves through pipelines. Due to the fracking boom in North Dakota and the expansion of tar sands bitumen mining in Alberta, a lot more has been moving around lately, much of it by rail or truck. All of these transport methods are problematic, but for different reasons (I'm not going to go into the horrible environmental effects of tar sands or fracking or the climate and other impacts of oil and natural gas right now, but the links above should provide a good taste, or the documentary Gasland). Trucks are inherently inefficient ways of moving that quantity of oil (or of anything), with greater risk of accidents per mile traveled and greatest carbon output per ton/mile. Rail is better on some but has other problems, including backlogs and delays as well as a history of spills and explosions. Many have said that these problems both support the expansion of pipeline infrastructure for moving an increased volume of oil.
Pipelines, however, are complicated things. They generally run in segments from a wellhead in an oil field to some kind of collection station. There oil (or bitumen, in the case of tar sands), is often blended with solvents and/or heated and sent into a larger pipeline system for transport to major distribution centers. They might cross private lands, public lands, and lands owned by the pipeline company. They also cross rivers, wetlands, roads, and anything else that happens to be in their path. As long as we have an economy driven by fossil fuels, we will have a pipeline problem. We might not need as many as we have, but all the ones we legitimately need do have to go somewhere (both need and location are important fights). Pipelines also are intrusive, requiring a substantial right-of-way, have a propensity to leak, and are not always well monitored.
So pipelines are a necessary evil, but we certainly don't need to build more of them than is economically justified and we definitely should avoid routing them in places that are environmentally sensitive. Which brings me to Sandpiper. It is a pipeline that would run roughly 300 miles across northern Minnesota from the Bakken oil fields of North Dakota to Superior, Wisconsin. It would run relatively directly through the Lakes Country, a wetland heavy and fragile area, but would be most economical for Enbridge Energy, the oil company that wants to build it. It would also follow an existing pipeline right-of-way for about 75% of its length and the company has easement agreements for access/permission to cross private land with about 95% of the affected properties. There have been some supporters of the direct route, with its risks to the environment and cultural resources, but there have also been critics who sued the Public Utilities Commission over the process demanding that an Environmental Impact Assessment be conducted before issuing a certificate of need.
Last summer, the pipeline opponents won in the Court of Appeals, and the PUC was ordered to conduct an assessment before granting a certificate of need. This is an important development because once a certificate of need is granted it becomes much harder to stop a pipeline. It might be possible to change the route a small amount, but the builder would have a large amount of leverage. This is particularly true here, where Enbridge already had 75% of the route in right-of-way and 95% acquisition of needed easements. Acquiring the remaining 5% would have been a simple matter of exercising eminent domain to claim the right-of-way or easement (and unfortunately for the landowners, Minnesota's "Buy the Farm" law doesn't apply to pipelines, only transmission lines, so the residents and farmers would be forced to live with the pipeline and the company's right of access and perpetual maintenance). The newest PUC action has required final submission of the environmental review, which could take years (especially if it ends up in litigation). This has meant a push back in the estimated completion date for the project. It has also provided a number of new opportunities to kill the pipeline outright, kill it by atrophy of support, or re-route it into less sensitive pathways (which might also kill it). The pipeline could be deemed to great a risk to the State's environment and natural resources. It could be forced to move to a less economically favorable route. It might even lose its economic justification if the price of crude oil continues to stay low and North Dakota's oil fields go into what may be a slowdown or a prolonged slump. All of these would be ways that could stop the pipeline in its tracks, and that is a much easier thing to do before it gets its certificate of need. It does take time, effort, and energy, but it can be done if enough people put in the work. It might also buy enough time to build the political pressure to end the threat entirely.
Pipelines, however, are complicated things. They generally run in segments from a wellhead in an oil field to some kind of collection station. There oil (or bitumen, in the case of tar sands), is often blended with solvents and/or heated and sent into a larger pipeline system for transport to major distribution centers. They might cross private lands, public lands, and lands owned by the pipeline company. They also cross rivers, wetlands, roads, and anything else that happens to be in their path. As long as we have an economy driven by fossil fuels, we will have a pipeline problem. We might not need as many as we have, but all the ones we legitimately need do have to go somewhere (both need and location are important fights). Pipelines also are intrusive, requiring a substantial right-of-way, have a propensity to leak, and are not always well monitored.
So pipelines are a necessary evil, but we certainly don't need to build more of them than is economically justified and we definitely should avoid routing them in places that are environmentally sensitive. Which brings me to Sandpiper. It is a pipeline that would run roughly 300 miles across northern Minnesota from the Bakken oil fields of North Dakota to Superior, Wisconsin. It would run relatively directly through the Lakes Country, a wetland heavy and fragile area, but would be most economical for Enbridge Energy, the oil company that wants to build it. It would also follow an existing pipeline right-of-way for about 75% of its length and the company has easement agreements for access/permission to cross private land with about 95% of the affected properties. There have been some supporters of the direct route, with its risks to the environment and cultural resources, but there have also been critics who sued the Public Utilities Commission over the process demanding that an Environmental Impact Assessment be conducted before issuing a certificate of need.
Last summer, the pipeline opponents won in the Court of Appeals, and the PUC was ordered to conduct an assessment before granting a certificate of need. This is an important development because once a certificate of need is granted it becomes much harder to stop a pipeline. It might be possible to change the route a small amount, but the builder would have a large amount of leverage. This is particularly true here, where Enbridge already had 75% of the route in right-of-way and 95% acquisition of needed easements. Acquiring the remaining 5% would have been a simple matter of exercising eminent domain to claim the right-of-way or easement (and unfortunately for the landowners, Minnesota's "Buy the Farm" law doesn't apply to pipelines, only transmission lines, so the residents and farmers would be forced to live with the pipeline and the company's right of access and perpetual maintenance). The newest PUC action has required final submission of the environmental review, which could take years (especially if it ends up in litigation). This has meant a push back in the estimated completion date for the project. It has also provided a number of new opportunities to kill the pipeline outright, kill it by atrophy of support, or re-route it into less sensitive pathways (which might also kill it). The pipeline could be deemed to great a risk to the State's environment and natural resources. It could be forced to move to a less economically favorable route. It might even lose its economic justification if the price of crude oil continues to stay low and North Dakota's oil fields go into what may be a slowdown or a prolonged slump. All of these would be ways that could stop the pipeline in its tracks, and that is a much easier thing to do before it gets its certificate of need. It does take time, effort, and energy, but it can be done if enough people put in the work. It might also buy enough time to build the political pressure to end the threat entirely.
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
Minneapolis Park Expansions
I'm fortunate to live in the Twin Cities, which by some evaluations have the best public park systems in the country. I certainly appreciate being able to walk across the street to a large dog park surrounded by bike and ski trails. What makes this most impressive is that they not only have a large percentage of city land dedicated to public parks, including waterfront, recreation centers, and playgrounds, but have generally good access to park resources across age and income. There are some limitations to this methodology, it didn't include access to park programming and services, the study defined access as being within a ten minute walk of any designated park property, regardless of condition, amenities, or safety. Things are improving, however, as the Park Board has adopted an explicit racial equity component in some of its planning. It is also true that having designated park land is better than not, and that once it is in the system it can be improved and serve as a gathering point or anchor for the neighborhood. An important piece of this is the ability to add important parcels to the system and obtain enough funding to support effective programming and ongoing maintenance.
In Minneapolis, unlike in many other cities with large or famous park systems, the idea of public parkland was present at the very beginning and an independent park board charged with overseeing and acquiring land for the system was created before the city was even 30 years old. This has led to a much more organized and thoughtful system, much of it planned or engineered (including the lakes and parkways), that is much more evenly distributed throughout the city. Compare it to Boston Common, a green space with roots in colonial custom, or Philadelphia's Fairmount Park, founded to protect the city's drinking water (lots of foresight, but also concentrated along the river, leaving large portions of the city without good access). In Minneapolis, the system was growing from the beginning with, as one writer put it a "get the land and adapt as you go" attitude. After all, as the same writer put it, when tastes and desires and trends change and new uses come into fashion, "people use the land as they want to. There have always been contentions about how parks should be used, but it's nice to fight over land we own."
That it is better to own the land already than need to acquire and repurpose it can be seen in Minneapolis' own history as well as the experience of other cities. Minneapolis has had a steady, planned growth of the system, adding units by purchase, eminent domain, and donation, in a regular and systematic way, including traditional parks, public squares, greenways, community centers, playgrounds, and miles of river and lakefront. This process is continuing to this day with the city set to acquire one of the last remaining parcels of riverfront that is not already part of the system. This would provide an almost uninterrupted stretch of river from one end of the city to the other all under public ownership. It is true that the land will need to be cleared and remediated, it is currently an industrial site, but there should be no problem clearing it eventually and converting it to some kind of appropriate public use. It helps that the Mississippi River is not a working river in Minneapolis. The mills are gone and almost all shipping is done by rail or truck. Barge traffic is present but not necessary (most stops in St. Paul). This allows riverfront property to be given over to desirable public parks (and often closely associated expensive condos), unlike, say Providence, Rhode Island, where the working harbor with alluring waterfront views have created headaches for would-be developers. They have learned that its hard to build a development on land that has current industrial value that supports established industry and a large workforce (this is part of why many parks were initially formed, they were viewed as "wasteland" or had unusuable grades or were otherwise viewed as unsuitable for other uses, but that's a very big digression).
Not all system acquisitions are smooth, or official. While Minneapolis doesn't have a large number of privately owned public spaces (the SkyWay and some indoor plazas might qualify, but I would need to do more research), there is the plaza/park at the new Downtown East development near the new Vikings stadium. Basically, it is a small area that would add some green space to the area, but would also be largely given over to use by the Vikings, NFL, and Stadium Authority. While funded by private funds, those funds are ultimately driven by tax incentives from the city and state as part of the larger redevelopment plan. Time will tell what the ultimate park looks like, with only a few months left before completion it is hard to tell what the final state will be. It does look safe to say that it won't be as good a deal for the city as it could have been though (as is true for almost every aspect of the stadium mess).
Finally, running parks is expensive. They require maintenance and upkeep, land must be acquired, programs must be run, buildings and equipment repaired. They also don't directly generate revenue for the city as they are public, non-taxable, and generate minimal revenues (even program fees often only partially offset the costs). However, they are an amenity that draw people to a city, particularly young professionals and other potential drivers of the tax base and they can also increase property values, another important factor in determining total city revenue. But periodically they must raise additional money, either from a general fund appropriation or from a levy (special or general). This could be related to an acquisition, the need to pay off bonds, or the desire to eliminate a backlog of work. In Minneapolis, the Park Board has sought to place a levy on the ballot for voter approval to raise $300 million dollars. While it seems like a large number, when spread out over the entire population and scaled to property values, it is a relatively small number, less than $28 on a $100,000 house. All to support maintaining the quality of the system. Why not just impose the levy unilaterally? Because the Park Board lacks that authority. Despite being an independent body, it does not control city property taxes and only has one vote on the committee that does. So it is forced to ask the city council for permission to ask the voters for permission. The city council could act without the voters, but it appears that even when it comes to supporting things as popular as parks (the last levy passed easily), the council would prefer to punt the issue to the ballot, unless it can get it to go away completely. I hope it passes. It would be a shame to see the system slip further behind in maintenance and upkeep and potentially endanger the continued expansion and improvement of the system.
In Minneapolis, unlike in many other cities with large or famous park systems, the idea of public parkland was present at the very beginning and an independent park board charged with overseeing and acquiring land for the system was created before the city was even 30 years old. This has led to a much more organized and thoughtful system, much of it planned or engineered (including the lakes and parkways), that is much more evenly distributed throughout the city. Compare it to Boston Common, a green space with roots in colonial custom, or Philadelphia's Fairmount Park, founded to protect the city's drinking water (lots of foresight, but also concentrated along the river, leaving large portions of the city without good access). In Minneapolis, the system was growing from the beginning with, as one writer put it a "get the land and adapt as you go" attitude. After all, as the same writer put it, when tastes and desires and trends change and new uses come into fashion, "people use the land as they want to. There have always been contentions about how parks should be used, but it's nice to fight over land we own."
That it is better to own the land already than need to acquire and repurpose it can be seen in Minneapolis' own history as well as the experience of other cities. Minneapolis has had a steady, planned growth of the system, adding units by purchase, eminent domain, and donation, in a regular and systematic way, including traditional parks, public squares, greenways, community centers, playgrounds, and miles of river and lakefront. This process is continuing to this day with the city set to acquire one of the last remaining parcels of riverfront that is not already part of the system. This would provide an almost uninterrupted stretch of river from one end of the city to the other all under public ownership. It is true that the land will need to be cleared and remediated, it is currently an industrial site, but there should be no problem clearing it eventually and converting it to some kind of appropriate public use. It helps that the Mississippi River is not a working river in Minneapolis. The mills are gone and almost all shipping is done by rail or truck. Barge traffic is present but not necessary (most stops in St. Paul). This allows riverfront property to be given over to desirable public parks (and often closely associated expensive condos), unlike, say Providence, Rhode Island, where the working harbor with alluring waterfront views have created headaches for would-be developers. They have learned that its hard to build a development on land that has current industrial value that supports established industry and a large workforce (this is part of why many parks were initially formed, they were viewed as "wasteland" or had unusuable grades or were otherwise viewed as unsuitable for other uses, but that's a very big digression).
Not all system acquisitions are smooth, or official. While Minneapolis doesn't have a large number of privately owned public spaces (the SkyWay and some indoor plazas might qualify, but I would need to do more research), there is the plaza/park at the new Downtown East development near the new Vikings stadium. Basically, it is a small area that would add some green space to the area, but would also be largely given over to use by the Vikings, NFL, and Stadium Authority. While funded by private funds, those funds are ultimately driven by tax incentives from the city and state as part of the larger redevelopment plan. Time will tell what the ultimate park looks like, with only a few months left before completion it is hard to tell what the final state will be. It does look safe to say that it won't be as good a deal for the city as it could have been though (as is true for almost every aspect of the stadium mess).
Finally, running parks is expensive. They require maintenance and upkeep, land must be acquired, programs must be run, buildings and equipment repaired. They also don't directly generate revenue for the city as they are public, non-taxable, and generate minimal revenues (even program fees often only partially offset the costs). However, they are an amenity that draw people to a city, particularly young professionals and other potential drivers of the tax base and they can also increase property values, another important factor in determining total city revenue. But periodically they must raise additional money, either from a general fund appropriation or from a levy (special or general). This could be related to an acquisition, the need to pay off bonds, or the desire to eliminate a backlog of work. In Minneapolis, the Park Board has sought to place a levy on the ballot for voter approval to raise $300 million dollars. While it seems like a large number, when spread out over the entire population and scaled to property values, it is a relatively small number, less than $28 on a $100,000 house. All to support maintaining the quality of the system. Why not just impose the levy unilaterally? Because the Park Board lacks that authority. Despite being an independent body, it does not control city property taxes and only has one vote on the committee that does. So it is forced to ask the city council for permission to ask the voters for permission. The city council could act without the voters, but it appears that even when it comes to supporting things as popular as parks (the last levy passed easily), the council would prefer to punt the issue to the ballot, unless it can get it to go away completely. I hope it passes. It would be a shame to see the system slip further behind in maintenance and upkeep and potentially endanger the continued expansion and improvement of the system.
Monday, February 1, 2016
Farmland and Conservation
In much of the country, including here in Minnesota, farming is a major economic activity. It is also a major source of water pollution in the form of nutrient and sediment runoff as well as pesticide contamination. While farming is necessary to feed a nation, and large scale farming is generally more efficient at producing food than small scale production (as is the case with most industrial enterprises), the way it is often undertaken in this country, and in particular the way that it is practiced in the Midwest, South, and California, is highly problematic from environmental, nutritional, and economic perspectives.
The way one usually thinks about farming might go something like this: a farmer owns (or rents) some land, looks at what it can support and what crops or products (meat, eggs, milk, etc.) are in demand in the local or regional market, and then decides what to plant or grow. However, in this country we, with a few exceptions (see New England dairy farmers for example), have a very different system that is much more similar to industrial factories than to small family farms. Many are owned or operated by large land holders or corporations, and instead of producing a variety of crops, tend to produce one or two cash crops, often the big five (corn, soy, wheat, rice, cotton). Not surprisingly, there are subsidies involved, and they often provide the biggest benefit to the "farmers" that are already the largest and most profitable. It really creates a system of perverse incentives where marginal land is put into "production" just so that it can be counted as acreage for subsidy calculation, even if it is inappropriate for planting for ecological, hydrological, soil quality, or nutrient resources reasons. Needless to say, this is often disastrous for the environment, contributes to overproduction of empty calories in our food system, and reduces biological diversity from both habitat loss and the over-use of pesticides.
There is hope, however, at least at the margins. Some organizations are working to change farming practices voluntarily. The US Department of Agriculture works with land grant universities to develop research on agricultural practices, agrinomics, and other best practices that can be shared with farmers to help them learn better, scientifically backed ways of maintaining or improving farm production. Other organizations work to provide economic support or incentives for farmers to switch from traditional "because that's the way my grandfather did it" agricultural practices, some of which are counterproductive and many of which, such as fall application of fertilizer with no cover crop, are both counterproductive (and expensive/wasteful) and environmentally harmful. Falling crop prices have also caused some farmers to take marginal land that they had pulled from the program out of production and re-enroll it in the Conservation Reserve Program, a federally funded system of payments that compensates farmers on a sliding scale for not planting on land. The more productive the land, the higher the payments from the government. This provides an incentive for farmers to set aside areas for wildlife, grasses, trees, and flowers which improves habitat (including pollinator habitat) and provides the valuable ecosystem service of runoff filtration and sediment capture before it reaches waterways. While it is not a large program, it is very successful and has a long history of inducing farmers to set aside at least some lands for non-agricultural purposes. However, unlike a conservation easement, which becomes permanent once created, the program is voluntary and lands can be removed as grain prices change and farmers see more profit to be gained from planting again.
What else can be done besides imposing conservation easements, permanently buying land, making it harder to opt out of the CRP, or providing education on best practices and hoping farmers follow it? In Minnesota, one answer has been to use the state's police power and duty to regulate/provide clean water to create a statewide standard for agricultural buffer zones around bodies of water. The idea is that within a certain distance (50 feet) of public waterways, it will be illegal to plant crops or have other agricultural surface use that is not perennial cover (hay is acceptable). This program builds on existing state restrictions on agricultural property use, but creates a more uniform and enforceable standard and program that can be administered at either the local or state level (if the county is not doing what it is required to do). While this is a more direct control of private land than the education and incentive based methods discussed above, it is also far more wide-reaching and will likely have a substantial impact on the state's water quality and riparian habitat. Many farmers were already complying with these requirements, either by enforcement or because it was not worthwhile to produce on marginal, often wet (if not wetlands) land. This program will provide a way to ensure that the rest will come up to speed as well. While the actual buffer map has not yet been produced, the theoretical area to be covered will be quite extensive and might result in substantial improvements, especially in the heavily agricultural southwest portion of the state.
There has been one hitch, so far, in the implementation process for the standardized buffer requirement: while the 16 foot requirement for land bordering public ditches is currently under development, the process of assessing equivalent buffers for private ditches has been put on hold after some legislative hostage taking by the GOP in the state legislature. It had supported the initial creation of the program as part of a deal last spring, but is now claiming that this is beyond what was conceived and has threatened various public works projects if it is not stopped. While this is unfortunate, it might be resolved in the future with some deal making or, more likely, with the seating of a new legislature that does not include an obstructionist majority after the next election. At least the argument here is over whether the statute authorizes private ditch buffers and is not focused on the frivolous claim that the state can't regulate behavior on private land that affects public water ways. Under the federal Clean Water Act, Minnesota has a duty to ensure that its waters meet various usability, health, and safety requirements, and under its plenary police power, it has the ability to regulate conduct, including private conduct on private land, to see that its policies are followed and its interests furthered in support of the common good.
I don't know how well, the buffer zone project will work or what the ultimate effect will be (it's possible that it will be minimal if much land was already in compliance, or substantial if not). I suspect that there will be significant regional differences in impact, with heavily agricultural areas seeing the most improvement in water quality, but with some improvements seen throughout the state. I also hope, and am hopeful, that taking some areas out of production will lead to a rebound in birds and pollinator species that are currently struggling. That, however, is a bigger problem that this is only a small piece of. Increased riparian habitat will help, but food access and pesticide use will continue to present challenges. One step at a time, however. And this is a good one.
The way one usually thinks about farming might go something like this: a farmer owns (or rents) some land, looks at what it can support and what crops or products (meat, eggs, milk, etc.) are in demand in the local or regional market, and then decides what to plant or grow. However, in this country we, with a few exceptions (see New England dairy farmers for example), have a very different system that is much more similar to industrial factories than to small family farms. Many are owned or operated by large land holders or corporations, and instead of producing a variety of crops, tend to produce one or two cash crops, often the big five (corn, soy, wheat, rice, cotton). Not surprisingly, there are subsidies involved, and they often provide the biggest benefit to the "farmers" that are already the largest and most profitable. It really creates a system of perverse incentives where marginal land is put into "production" just so that it can be counted as acreage for subsidy calculation, even if it is inappropriate for planting for ecological, hydrological, soil quality, or nutrient resources reasons. Needless to say, this is often disastrous for the environment, contributes to overproduction of empty calories in our food system, and reduces biological diversity from both habitat loss and the over-use of pesticides.
There is hope, however, at least at the margins. Some organizations are working to change farming practices voluntarily. The US Department of Agriculture works with land grant universities to develop research on agricultural practices, agrinomics, and other best practices that can be shared with farmers to help them learn better, scientifically backed ways of maintaining or improving farm production. Other organizations work to provide economic support or incentives for farmers to switch from traditional "because that's the way my grandfather did it" agricultural practices, some of which are counterproductive and many of which, such as fall application of fertilizer with no cover crop, are both counterproductive (and expensive/wasteful) and environmentally harmful. Falling crop prices have also caused some farmers to take marginal land that they had pulled from the program out of production and re-enroll it in the Conservation Reserve Program, a federally funded system of payments that compensates farmers on a sliding scale for not planting on land. The more productive the land, the higher the payments from the government. This provides an incentive for farmers to set aside areas for wildlife, grasses, trees, and flowers which improves habitat (including pollinator habitat) and provides the valuable ecosystem service of runoff filtration and sediment capture before it reaches waterways. While it is not a large program, it is very successful and has a long history of inducing farmers to set aside at least some lands for non-agricultural purposes. However, unlike a conservation easement, which becomes permanent once created, the program is voluntary and lands can be removed as grain prices change and farmers see more profit to be gained from planting again.
What else can be done besides imposing conservation easements, permanently buying land, making it harder to opt out of the CRP, or providing education on best practices and hoping farmers follow it? In Minnesota, one answer has been to use the state's police power and duty to regulate/provide clean water to create a statewide standard for agricultural buffer zones around bodies of water. The idea is that within a certain distance (50 feet) of public waterways, it will be illegal to plant crops or have other agricultural surface use that is not perennial cover (hay is acceptable). This program builds on existing state restrictions on agricultural property use, but creates a more uniform and enforceable standard and program that can be administered at either the local or state level (if the county is not doing what it is required to do). While this is a more direct control of private land than the education and incentive based methods discussed above, it is also far more wide-reaching and will likely have a substantial impact on the state's water quality and riparian habitat. Many farmers were already complying with these requirements, either by enforcement or because it was not worthwhile to produce on marginal, often wet (if not wetlands) land. This program will provide a way to ensure that the rest will come up to speed as well. While the actual buffer map has not yet been produced, the theoretical area to be covered will be quite extensive and might result in substantial improvements, especially in the heavily agricultural southwest portion of the state.
There has been one hitch, so far, in the implementation process for the standardized buffer requirement: while the 16 foot requirement for land bordering public ditches is currently under development, the process of assessing equivalent buffers for private ditches has been put on hold after some legislative hostage taking by the GOP in the state legislature. It had supported the initial creation of the program as part of a deal last spring, but is now claiming that this is beyond what was conceived and has threatened various public works projects if it is not stopped. While this is unfortunate, it might be resolved in the future with some deal making or, more likely, with the seating of a new legislature that does not include an obstructionist majority after the next election. At least the argument here is over whether the statute authorizes private ditch buffers and is not focused on the frivolous claim that the state can't regulate behavior on private land that affects public water ways. Under the federal Clean Water Act, Minnesota has a duty to ensure that its waters meet various usability, health, and safety requirements, and under its plenary police power, it has the ability to regulate conduct, including private conduct on private land, to see that its policies are followed and its interests furthered in support of the common good.
I don't know how well, the buffer zone project will work or what the ultimate effect will be (it's possible that it will be minimal if much land was already in compliance, or substantial if not). I suspect that there will be significant regional differences in impact, with heavily agricultural areas seeing the most improvement in water quality, but with some improvements seen throughout the state. I also hope, and am hopeful, that taking some areas out of production will lead to a rebound in birds and pollinator species that are currently struggling. That, however, is a bigger problem that this is only a small piece of. Increased riparian habitat will help, but food access and pesticide use will continue to present challenges. One step at a time, however. And this is a good one.
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
Solar Works. Even in the North.
One of my primary interests in renewable energy. I'm particularly interested in solar photovoltaic energy (the kind with the panels), at both the residential and commercial scales. Here in Minnesota, we don't really have the kind of sun exposure required for some of the other forms (like those in the California and Arizona deserts that use mirrors to superheat molten salt), so solar panels are what we have.
There are some challenges that the solar industry faces here. We are very far north. The Twin Cities are at 45 degrees north and has a fairly cloudy outlook for much of the winter. It also gets a fair amount of snow. But that is not as big an obstacle as one might think. Germany has a similar cloud problem and is situated even farther north, yet it has used a combination of feed-in tariffs, incentives, and changes in the way energy is regulated and billed. This has led to a substantial growth in the solar sector. While it still relies on lignite coal (a very dirty fuel), it has shown that the proper economic, regulatory, and social conditions can lead to great success with solar in seemingly unlikely places. If they can do it there, we can do it here too. Panels can be cleared, and much snow melts or slips off due to the mounting angle. Increased panel efficiency has also allowed for more generation even on cloudy days. Besides, we have too good of a resource to pass up.
Fortunately, Minnesota's government has been proactive in pushing solar and other renewable energy development, including a strong statutory requirement for energy utilities with generation benchmarks for renewables and a separate solar-specific generation requirement. That, combined with the extension of the federal renewable energy investment tax credit (and the credit's revision to apply to projects begun, not online, by certain dates) mean Minnesota is on track for a big push into the solar photovoltaic realm. In fact, there are already a number of major projects that are getting quite far along in the development process including plans to partially power/offset electric use by Twin Cities Light Rail system and build a large solar farm to supply Xcel Energy.
The Chisago County solar development project is an exciting project in my opinion because it demonstrates several things: that solar can be produced even in the northeastern part of the state, that it is economically viable for the utility, and that it is economically valuable to the community (property taxes and lease income for solar are much higher than the going rates for agriculture in that marginal growing part of the state). Still, not everyone is happy. Some residents that were surrounded by solar leases had their homes bought out by the developers, but others who merely bordered it, or were boxed in on the sides by different developments, have been complaining. They weren't offered buyouts and are concerned about views. I tend to agree that they won't be much affected, especially with the planting and maintenance of a tree buffer, and the arrays are not noisy, polluting, or disruptive, so physical impairment of the use and enjoyment of their land should be minimal to none. It seems to me that this is another case of NIMBY-ism, though slightly more justified than the irrational windmill haters opposed to the Cape Wind project in Massachusetts. Still, they do have some marginal affect on their property interest (in their community's nature and their potential views, they seem to discount how panels can be interesting to watch, especially tracking ones, and the potential for increased birds and insects in the soon to be non-agriculture plant growth surrounding the panels). It is also not even clear that being near a solar project will harm property values because none of the area houses have yet been offered for sale, let alone sold on open market. This would bear watching in the future as a test, but there are lots of other factors that would need to be examined as well to tease out the possible effects of the solar site.
Other anti-solar movements, posing as neighborhood concern, have appeared in Sherburne County, where residents are trying to push a setback for solar arrays to hundreds of feet, essentially rendering the project uneconomical and killing it. While it is reasonable to have larger zoning setbacks when residential and commercial/industrial uses meet, it is not rational to push it to such an extent that a non-invasive, non-harmful, non-polluting use becomes impossible (i.e. it's not like they are building a loud, noisy, dusty, polluting cement factory). I don't know what direction the county zoning board will go, but I do hope that they opt for a number that still enables development of solar projects of sufficient size to be economical for the developer and meaningful for the state's energy needs.
Finally, there is the issue of residential solar development. Some people can't put panels on their home because they rent, have an apartment, or have an unsuitable roof type or orientation. For them, the solution is to buy a share in a community solar garden. This is a Minnesota specific (so far as I can tell) solution whereby a person or entity buys a share of the power from a third party solar development that can then be applied toward his/her/its energy bill. This expands access to solar greatly, helps create a market for solar energy, and provides financing for additional development. For those who do have the financing, site suitability, and space for hosting their own solar, there are many programs and incentives for financing them including tax rebates, exemptions from property tax for the value of solar panels, and other possible incentives that vary by municipality. Financing can also often be achieved using PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) programs, where the cost of the array is added to the property tax assessment and paid off in installments at low interest over a number of years. And, to ensure that changes in the neighborhood don't impede established solar, Minnesota has created a statutory solar easement (there might be a common law one as well, but I'm not sure about Minnesota, other states definitely do) that guarantees a right to the sun for properly described panels, including the right to restrict the use of neighboring land that might impair that right.
As a fun thought experiment, I also pondered whether such a solar easement (express or implied) would be a property right subject to eminent domain. I believe it is because under a line of Supreme Court cases, while there is no longer a right to the sky infinitely, there is a right to as much of the sky as can reasonably be used by the occupant on the ground. This prevents airplanes (except low flying ones) from being trespassers, but it does create a right to build tall buildings, windmills, geothermal plants, gas flares, and other structures and developments that might require large amounts of overhead clearance. It also almost certainly would include a right to unimpeded access to the sun for an existing solar array (of any form) or solar heating element. If a neighbor built in a way that harmed it, that neighbor would be damaging your interest and you could likely enforce your easement (especially if recorded). If the government built in a similar way, it would have to compensate you, though what that compensation would ultimately consist of I couldn't begin to guess. There are so many things that could be considered (value of panels, value of the energy, value of future production, etc.) that it would be quite an interesting fight, one that would surely make it into textbooks, lecture circuits, and conferences around the country. I don't think it's happened yet, but with the amount of growth we are seeing in the solar industry, it's only a matter of time.
So, solar is a growth industry, and it's even growing here, in the seemingly unlikely northern state of Minnesota. We may not have the non-stop desert sun of Arizona and Southern California, but we do have an excellent resource and are only beginning to tap into its potential.
There are some challenges that the solar industry faces here. We are very far north. The Twin Cities are at 45 degrees north and has a fairly cloudy outlook for much of the winter. It also gets a fair amount of snow. But that is not as big an obstacle as one might think. Germany has a similar cloud problem and is situated even farther north, yet it has used a combination of feed-in tariffs, incentives, and changes in the way energy is regulated and billed. This has led to a substantial growth in the solar sector. While it still relies on lignite coal (a very dirty fuel), it has shown that the proper economic, regulatory, and social conditions can lead to great success with solar in seemingly unlikely places. If they can do it there, we can do it here too. Panels can be cleared, and much snow melts or slips off due to the mounting angle. Increased panel efficiency has also allowed for more generation even on cloudy days. Besides, we have too good of a resource to pass up.
Fortunately, Minnesota's government has been proactive in pushing solar and other renewable energy development, including a strong statutory requirement for energy utilities with generation benchmarks for renewables and a separate solar-specific generation requirement. That, combined with the extension of the federal renewable energy investment tax credit (and the credit's revision to apply to projects begun, not online, by certain dates) mean Minnesota is on track for a big push into the solar photovoltaic realm. In fact, there are already a number of major projects that are getting quite far along in the development process including plans to partially power/offset electric use by Twin Cities Light Rail system and build a large solar farm to supply Xcel Energy.
The Chisago County solar development project is an exciting project in my opinion because it demonstrates several things: that solar can be produced even in the northeastern part of the state, that it is economically viable for the utility, and that it is economically valuable to the community (property taxes and lease income for solar are much higher than the going rates for agriculture in that marginal growing part of the state). Still, not everyone is happy. Some residents that were surrounded by solar leases had their homes bought out by the developers, but others who merely bordered it, or were boxed in on the sides by different developments, have been complaining. They weren't offered buyouts and are concerned about views. I tend to agree that they won't be much affected, especially with the planting and maintenance of a tree buffer, and the arrays are not noisy, polluting, or disruptive, so physical impairment of the use and enjoyment of their land should be minimal to none. It seems to me that this is another case of NIMBY-ism, though slightly more justified than the irrational windmill haters opposed to the Cape Wind project in Massachusetts. Still, they do have some marginal affect on their property interest (in their community's nature and their potential views, they seem to discount how panels can be interesting to watch, especially tracking ones, and the potential for increased birds and insects in the soon to be non-agriculture plant growth surrounding the panels). It is also not even clear that being near a solar project will harm property values because none of the area houses have yet been offered for sale, let alone sold on open market. This would bear watching in the future as a test, but there are lots of other factors that would need to be examined as well to tease out the possible effects of the solar site.
Other anti-solar movements, posing as neighborhood concern, have appeared in Sherburne County, where residents are trying to push a setback for solar arrays to hundreds of feet, essentially rendering the project uneconomical and killing it. While it is reasonable to have larger zoning setbacks when residential and commercial/industrial uses meet, it is not rational to push it to such an extent that a non-invasive, non-harmful, non-polluting use becomes impossible (i.e. it's not like they are building a loud, noisy, dusty, polluting cement factory). I don't know what direction the county zoning board will go, but I do hope that they opt for a number that still enables development of solar projects of sufficient size to be economical for the developer and meaningful for the state's energy needs.
Finally, there is the issue of residential solar development. Some people can't put panels on their home because they rent, have an apartment, or have an unsuitable roof type or orientation. For them, the solution is to buy a share in a community solar garden. This is a Minnesota specific (so far as I can tell) solution whereby a person or entity buys a share of the power from a third party solar development that can then be applied toward his/her/its energy bill. This expands access to solar greatly, helps create a market for solar energy, and provides financing for additional development. For those who do have the financing, site suitability, and space for hosting their own solar, there are many programs and incentives for financing them including tax rebates, exemptions from property tax for the value of solar panels, and other possible incentives that vary by municipality. Financing can also often be achieved using PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) programs, where the cost of the array is added to the property tax assessment and paid off in installments at low interest over a number of years. And, to ensure that changes in the neighborhood don't impede established solar, Minnesota has created a statutory solar easement (there might be a common law one as well, but I'm not sure about Minnesota, other states definitely do) that guarantees a right to the sun for properly described panels, including the right to restrict the use of neighboring land that might impair that right.
As a fun thought experiment, I also pondered whether such a solar easement (express or implied) would be a property right subject to eminent domain. I believe it is because under a line of Supreme Court cases, while there is no longer a right to the sky infinitely, there is a right to as much of the sky as can reasonably be used by the occupant on the ground. This prevents airplanes (except low flying ones) from being trespassers, but it does create a right to build tall buildings, windmills, geothermal plants, gas flares, and other structures and developments that might require large amounts of overhead clearance. It also almost certainly would include a right to unimpeded access to the sun for an existing solar array (of any form) or solar heating element. If a neighbor built in a way that harmed it, that neighbor would be damaging your interest and you could likely enforce your easement (especially if recorded). If the government built in a similar way, it would have to compensate you, though what that compensation would ultimately consist of I couldn't begin to guess. There are so many things that could be considered (value of panels, value of the energy, value of future production, etc.) that it would be quite an interesting fight, one that would surely make it into textbooks, lecture circuits, and conferences around the country. I don't think it's happened yet, but with the amount of growth we are seeing in the solar industry, it's only a matter of time.
So, solar is a growth industry, and it's even growing here, in the seemingly unlikely northern state of Minnesota. We may not have the non-stop desert sun of Arizona and Southern California, but we do have an excellent resource and are only beginning to tap into its potential.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Mille Lacs Kathio
Two weeks ago my boyfriend and I went camping in Minnesota's Mille Lacs Kathio State Park with our dog, Izzy. Located two hours north of the Twin Cities and about thirty minutes outside of Brainerd, Kathio is conveniently located for a weekend excursion. We were there for a Thursday and Friday night in early May, when it can still be cold and rainy, so there weren't as many people as there might normally be in the full summer camping season, but the park has sizable campgrounds with numerous group and individual sites and has a large network of trails, so it can absorb a lot of people for its comparatively small size. However, if you, like us, want a more secluded experience, you definitely need to make reservations. There are only four hike-in "primitive" sites (pit toilet, fire grate, picnic table, and sand tent pad provided, so not the most primitive by the standards of other MN parks) and reservations are necessary to get the one you want. We wanted the Black Bass Lake site, which can be reached by trail or canoe, but it was not available both nights so we opted for the Glacial Ridge site, very pretty and on its own side loop trail unconnected to any other, so there was little chance of people wandering by.
The entire park stretches from the shore of Mille Lacs Lake, along a chain of smaller lakes, toward Onamie Lake, and is largely made up of marsh, bog, and other wetlands. it has upland trails, as well as paved trails for biking. Horses are also allowed in some areas and there is a designated lot for horse trailers. In the winter there is skiing and snowshoeing. We learned the hard way that trails marked for skiers but not labeled on the "summer" trail map are impassable when not covered with snow. We did see some beautiful wetland plants but were unable to get through to our destination and had to turn around. Fortunately the entire trail system in the park consists of interconnected loops and rings so it isn't hard to find a new path. Numbered intersection markers make it easy to navigate for those with less experience handling a map.
There are also a handful of historical and natural interpretive sites in the park. The historical ones trace human occupation from the first recorded inhabitants all the way through squatters in the 1920s. It is common to see Native American artifacts and sites (the area was an important source of wild rice) treated as important archeological data, including trash piles. It takes some mental adjustment to view evidence of more recent occupation such as foundations (some with concrete), evidence of gardens (lilacs), and modern trash (discarded steel and car parts), with the same amount of historical importance. As a former history major I a bit embarrassed to admit this, but I still found it odd at first. I completely understand, after all, we want to understand an area's entire history and all people's relationship with it (a relationship that is constant and ongoing and continues to be shaped even by the visitors and parks department that manages the sites), but even for someone trained in historical thought it takes a bit of prodding to recall that we are all still participants in, as well as observers of, both the historical and natural record. So, while it is odd being asked not to disturb old mufflers and cans you may encounter (please do disturb and dispose of modern ones), it serves as a reminder of our place and continuing role in the construction, meaning, and value of these places.
The park also has an observation tower that can be climbed in good weather. This is definitely worthwhile, but is not for those who have a fear of heights. It is about a hundred feet high and leads to an enclosed (with windows) observation platform big enough for a handful of people at a time. It allows for a survey of the entire park landscape, enabling the viewer to see the drainage of Mille Lacs Lake through the Rum River and the chain of lakes. In fall or early spring I imagine it is particularly stunning. Unfortunately it is possible to see the nearby casino, but that is only in one direction.
While there aren't any stunning vistas in the park, there is lots of natural beauty as well as a large number of wild flowers and wetland species.
The entire park stretches from the shore of Mille Lacs Lake, along a chain of smaller lakes, toward Onamie Lake, and is largely made up of marsh, bog, and other wetlands. it has upland trails, as well as paved trails for biking. Horses are also allowed in some areas and there is a designated lot for horse trailers. In the winter there is skiing and snowshoeing. We learned the hard way that trails marked for skiers but not labeled on the "summer" trail map are impassable when not covered with snow. We did see some beautiful wetland plants but were unable to get through to our destination and had to turn around. Fortunately the entire trail system in the park consists of interconnected loops and rings so it isn't hard to find a new path. Numbered intersection markers make it easy to navigate for those with less experience handling a map.
There are also a handful of historical and natural interpretive sites in the park. The historical ones trace human occupation from the first recorded inhabitants all the way through squatters in the 1920s. It is common to see Native American artifacts and sites (the area was an important source of wild rice) treated as important archeological data, including trash piles. It takes some mental adjustment to view evidence of more recent occupation such as foundations (some with concrete), evidence of gardens (lilacs), and modern trash (discarded steel and car parts), with the same amount of historical importance. As a former history major I a bit embarrassed to admit this, but I still found it odd at first. I completely understand, after all, we want to understand an area's entire history and all people's relationship with it (a relationship that is constant and ongoing and continues to be shaped even by the visitors and parks department that manages the sites), but even for someone trained in historical thought it takes a bit of prodding to recall that we are all still participants in, as well as observers of, both the historical and natural record. So, while it is odd being asked not to disturb old mufflers and cans you may encounter (please do disturb and dispose of modern ones), it serves as a reminder of our place and continuing role in the construction, meaning, and value of these places.
The park also has an observation tower that can be climbed in good weather. This is definitely worthwhile, but is not for those who have a fear of heights. It is about a hundred feet high and leads to an enclosed (with windows) observation platform big enough for a handful of people at a time. It allows for a survey of the entire park landscape, enabling the viewer to see the drainage of Mille Lacs Lake through the Rum River and the chain of lakes. In fall or early spring I imagine it is particularly stunning. Unfortunately it is possible to see the nearby casino, but that is only in one direction.
While there aren't any stunning vistas in the park, there is lots of natural beauty as well as a large number of wild flowers and wetland species.
 |
 |
| Jack-in-the-Pulpit |
 |
| Marsh Marigold |
 |
| Yellow Trillium |
 |
| Horsetail |
 |
| A beaver lodge (didn't see the beaver) |
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Yet another news roundup
More substantive posts are coming, I promise, now that work is back to a normal level.
This is an interesting development, and one I think is very promising. The federal government is the largest landowner in the nation, and the biggest consumer of energy. Within that, the Department of Defense is by far the biggest, representing 80 percent of all federal energy use and 1 percent of the entire nation's. It has also made clear its desire to move in a more sustainable direction for both economic and security reasons. So it is very promising that they are seriously discussing developing large scale solar installations on DoD lands, many of which are already "disturbed" and therefor unlikely to harbor endangered or threatened wildlife. Whether used to satisfy base needs or sold to the grid (which would require very little new infrastructure as bases already well connected), it would be an excellent way to scale up the idea of the parking lot "solar grove" that has been proposed by other would-be renewables developers. Also, as a massive landowner and supplier/purchaser and research funder, the DoD would be able to leverage a huge gain in solar efficiency and productivity with comparatively small (when looking at private R&D) investment.
Farms (and logging/silviculture) have long been a source of water pollution that is difficult to regulate under the Clean Water Act. CAFOs (feedlots) are generally considered point sources, but the the others generally are not subject to the same permitting and data requirements and so relatively little is known about specific contributions and even less is often done to reduce agricultural runoff, a serious problem that causes huge dead zones at the mouths of major rivers worldwide. While it is only a tentative first step, and doesn't go very far, it is good to see that Minnesota is making a small effort to induce farmers to clean up and reduce their runoff voluntarily. Count me as a skeptic. I hope that it works, I really do, and that it proves to be a wildly successful program that can be a model for other states, but I strongly believe that it will generally be a disappointment for a few reasons. First, the funding is far too low to have any major impact. Second, the funding is uncertain going forward; there really isn't any long-term commitment to keeping this program running. Third, enforcement will be difficult without either more staff to do compliance testing or much better data collection with stiff penalties on those trying to game the system. Good for Minnesota for making a small effort, but it has the ability to do so much more given its position as a 100% headwaters state.
Are you sick of motherfucking snakes in the motherfucking Everglades? (I apologize for that.) If so, you will be happy to learn that the Fish and Wildlife Service is officially listing four species of constrictors as "injurious" and prohibiting their import, export, or transport and/or sale across state lines. While it won't result in the pythons in the Everglades magically dying (though recent cold weather in Florida is certainly a helpful occurrence) it will create a ban with some serious enforcement teeth. From the moment the regulations become active, it will be a crime under the Lacey Act to buy, sell, bring into the US, or transport across a state boundary, any of the four species listed (Burmese python, northern and southern African python, and yellow anaconda). That in and of itself is a positive development. We haven't gotten rid of the invaders yet but we are have now taken real, enforceable steps to stop making the problem worse.
This is an interesting development, and one I think is very promising. The federal government is the largest landowner in the nation, and the biggest consumer of energy. Within that, the Department of Defense is by far the biggest, representing 80 percent of all federal energy use and 1 percent of the entire nation's. It has also made clear its desire to move in a more sustainable direction for both economic and security reasons. So it is very promising that they are seriously discussing developing large scale solar installations on DoD lands, many of which are already "disturbed" and therefor unlikely to harbor endangered or threatened wildlife. Whether used to satisfy base needs or sold to the grid (which would require very little new infrastructure as bases already well connected), it would be an excellent way to scale up the idea of the parking lot "solar grove" that has been proposed by other would-be renewables developers. Also, as a massive landowner and supplier/purchaser and research funder, the DoD would be able to leverage a huge gain in solar efficiency and productivity with comparatively small (when looking at private R&D) investment.
Farms (and logging/silviculture) have long been a source of water pollution that is difficult to regulate under the Clean Water Act. CAFOs (feedlots) are generally considered point sources, but the the others generally are not subject to the same permitting and data requirements and so relatively little is known about specific contributions and even less is often done to reduce agricultural runoff, a serious problem that causes huge dead zones at the mouths of major rivers worldwide. While it is only a tentative first step, and doesn't go very far, it is good to see that Minnesota is making a small effort to induce farmers to clean up and reduce their runoff voluntarily. Count me as a skeptic. I hope that it works, I really do, and that it proves to be a wildly successful program that can be a model for other states, but I strongly believe that it will generally be a disappointment for a few reasons. First, the funding is far too low to have any major impact. Second, the funding is uncertain going forward; there really isn't any long-term commitment to keeping this program running. Third, enforcement will be difficult without either more staff to do compliance testing or much better data collection with stiff penalties on those trying to game the system. Good for Minnesota for making a small effort, but it has the ability to do so much more given its position as a 100% headwaters state.
Are you sick of motherfucking snakes in the motherfucking Everglades? (I apologize for that.) If so, you will be happy to learn that the Fish and Wildlife Service is officially listing four species of constrictors as "injurious" and prohibiting their import, export, or transport and/or sale across state lines. While it won't result in the pythons in the Everglades magically dying (though recent cold weather in Florida is certainly a helpful occurrence) it will create a ban with some serious enforcement teeth. From the moment the regulations become active, it will be a crime under the Lacey Act to buy, sell, bring into the US, or transport across a state boundary, any of the four species listed (Burmese python, northern and southern African python, and yellow anaconda). That in and of itself is a positive development. We haven't gotten rid of the invaders yet but we are have now taken real, enforceable steps to stop making the problem worse.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Lake Maria
This post is very late but I'm finally getting around to it. Back in mid-October I went camping with my boyfriend and his dog up in Lake Maria State Park. It's only about an hour on I-94 from the Twin Cities and has a surprisingly large number of trails and campsites for a park its size (though most of the trails do pass by at least a few campsites so if it's busy expect to hear/see lots of people). It also has a number of interpretive programs and trails including geocaching (a GPS based program present in many MN parks). We went up at the height of fall colors but because of the high winds almost all the leaves had been stripped off the trees. Still, it is a very pretty park and a stop on one of the migratory flyways so it is a good location to see migratory birds in spring and fall. The campsites were well maintained and spacious (available by reservation or first-come basis). It also has cabins and group sites. While it has year-round programs, if you aren't a fan of winter camping it might not be the park for you because it is a decent drive out of the Cities for just a few hours, though definitely worth it.
A view of the wetlands.
A view of the wetlands.
 |
| There is a swan in the center of the frame |
 | |
| Not one of the rare turtles that live there, but it was sitting right in the middle of the trail (and was very fast in getting away). |
 |
| Izzy the Dog at our campsite. |
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Winter Camping
So, it's been a while, but I'm finally getting around to posting about some actual parks. Minnesota has a fantastic state park system and this past winter I visited three of them.
In November I went camping at Tettegouche state park on the North Shore of Lake Superior. Since it was hunting season, all parts of the park inland of Highway 61 were closed. The campsites, however, were open. We took a group site that was easily accessible from a parking lot. There were even carts available to load and transport gear in on well maintained and wide paths. In short, it was only a step more "rustic" than car camping. The site itself was gorgeous. Situated on a 20 foot cliff right on the lake there was a great view of the shoreline, which would have been better had it not been the weekend of the first winter storm of the year (being right on the lake we only got rain). It was nice being able to hear the waves breaking on the cliffs in the night, though as the storm grew in strength the wind became more of a problem, at one point almost taking down one of the tents. At times the waves were large enough to break and send spray up the cliff and well into the site. Still, quite a nice site. Proximity to the highway and other campsites might make for noise problems, especially in summer months when both are more heavily used, but we were the only people there that weekend. It would have been nice if the people in my group had been a bit more serious/less ridiculous/more prepared, but it was still an enjoyable time.
Due to the restrictions from hunting all of the hiking we did was actually in Gooseberry Falls which is located several miles south of Tettegouche. Again, large portions of it were off limits due to hunting, but a much larger area is on the lake side of the highway, providing more opportunity for activity. The day we were there it was raining sporadically, though not enough to keep us inside. The trails are fairly easy but still provide some nice views even in inclement weather. They also have a number of shelters and cabins that make it a good park for the elderly and parents with children to use. We tried to do the free geocaching exercise the visitor center had but it didn't seem to be working properly. Either the people I was with couldn't use the GPS properly or the coordinates were incorrect (or just entered improperly which would go back to improper use). Still, another activity that is good for families. Not even the weather and the waves could keep me from flying my kite though.
In February I went true winter camping with my boyfriend, Andrew, at Afton state park. The sites at Afton are about a mile in from the parking lot and reasonably well spaced from each other. In summer when all are occupied there is probably some crowding, but in winter it is easy to select one that is isolated from other groups (if any) that are present. We entered on snowshoes, not necessary on the walking trails but definitely required to get to and around the camping area. There are also many cross-country ski trails of varied difficulty levels that are heavily used. It is not the quietest park, and certainly not that dark either. It sits on the edge of the Twin Cities metro area and is right next to Afton Alps ski area. Lights from night skiing there as well as the sounds of lift operations cover most of the park, especially areas near the visitors center. At night (at least on winter weekends) there is a candlelight snowshoe/walking trail (most of the path is both, they do divide at one point) as well as free cider and hot chocolate at the center and a fire with marshmallows at the far point of the loop, donations are accepted but not required (and support for the parks is certainly a worthwhile cause).
Our site was nice, we picked one of the farthest ones that was shielded from the sights and sounds of the ski area. Unfortunately my stove pump was broken so we had to cook our dinner over a fire (starting it with dried grass and leaves) but there is firewood available. For a small fee you can have a wood permit and then cut your own at the central area of the campground. Andrew's tent was a little large for winter camping with only two people, but it got the job done. His new snow stakes also worked quite well though the snow might have been a bit too light for optimal performance. Afton is located about 40 minutes from the Twin Cities so it is easily accessible for day/evening trips as well as overnight excursions.
In November I went camping at Tettegouche state park on the North Shore of Lake Superior. Since it was hunting season, all parts of the park inland of Highway 61 were closed. The campsites, however, were open. We took a group site that was easily accessible from a parking lot. There were even carts available to load and transport gear in on well maintained and wide paths. In short, it was only a step more "rustic" than car camping. The site itself was gorgeous. Situated on a 20 foot cliff right on the lake there was a great view of the shoreline, which would have been better had it not been the weekend of the first winter storm of the year (being right on the lake we only got rain). It was nice being able to hear the waves breaking on the cliffs in the night, though as the storm grew in strength the wind became more of a problem, at one point almost taking down one of the tents. At times the waves were large enough to break and send spray up the cliff and well into the site. Still, quite a nice site. Proximity to the highway and other campsites might make for noise problems, especially in summer months when both are more heavily used, but we were the only people there that weekend. It would have been nice if the people in my group had been a bit more serious/less ridiculous/more prepared, but it was still an enjoyable time.
Due to the restrictions from hunting all of the hiking we did was actually in Gooseberry Falls which is located several miles south of Tettegouche. Again, large portions of it were off limits due to hunting, but a much larger area is on the lake side of the highway, providing more opportunity for activity. The day we were there it was raining sporadically, though not enough to keep us inside. The trails are fairly easy but still provide some nice views even in inclement weather. They also have a number of shelters and cabins that make it a good park for the elderly and parents with children to use. We tried to do the free geocaching exercise the visitor center had but it didn't seem to be working properly. Either the people I was with couldn't use the GPS properly or the coordinates were incorrect (or just entered improperly which would go back to improper use). Still, another activity that is good for families. Not even the weather and the waves could keep me from flying my kite though.
In February I went true winter camping with my boyfriend, Andrew, at Afton state park. The sites at Afton are about a mile in from the parking lot and reasonably well spaced from each other. In summer when all are occupied there is probably some crowding, but in winter it is easy to select one that is isolated from other groups (if any) that are present. We entered on snowshoes, not necessary on the walking trails but definitely required to get to and around the camping area. There are also many cross-country ski trails of varied difficulty levels that are heavily used. It is not the quietest park, and certainly not that dark either. It sits on the edge of the Twin Cities metro area and is right next to Afton Alps ski area. Lights from night skiing there as well as the sounds of lift operations cover most of the park, especially areas near the visitors center. At night (at least on winter weekends) there is a candlelight snowshoe/walking trail (most of the path is both, they do divide at one point) as well as free cider and hot chocolate at the center and a fire with marshmallows at the far point of the loop, donations are accepted but not required (and support for the parks is certainly a worthwhile cause).
Our site was nice, we picked one of the farthest ones that was shielded from the sights and sounds of the ski area. Unfortunately my stove pump was broken so we had to cook our dinner over a fire (starting it with dried grass and leaves) but there is firewood available. For a small fee you can have a wood permit and then cut your own at the central area of the campground. Andrew's tent was a little large for winter camping with only two people, but it got the job done. His new snow stakes also worked quite well though the snow might have been a bit too light for optimal performance. Afton is located about 40 minutes from the Twin Cities so it is easily accessible for day/evening trips as well as overnight excursions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)