HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016 He Mni Can - Barn Bluff Park Master PlanHe mni can
barn bluff
Park master Plan
red wing, minnesota
june 2016
ii HE MNI CAN | BARN BLUFF PARk MAstER PLAN: jUNE 2016
MeMbers of the consultant teaM:
Bruce Blair, Planner
jennifer Cater, PLA
Bruce Chamberlain, PLA
sarah Evenson, PLA
kevin Clarke, Planner
jeff McMenimen, PLA
city of red wing staff:
shawn Blaney, Deputy Public Works Director
Ron seymour, Financial solutions Analyst
jay Owens, City Engineer
steve kohn, Assistant Planning Director
Dean Chamberlain, staff Engineer
this plan was adopted by the red wing city council
on June 27th, 2016.
Master plan project Manager:
Brian Peterson
Planning Director
City of Red Wing
315 West 4th street
Red Wing, MN 55066
Phone: (651) 385-3617
Email: Brian.Peterson@ci.red-wing.mn.us
http://www.red-wing.org/
iii CItY OF RED WING
Contents
01 IntroductIon and park plannIng context 1
02 sIte condItIons & analysIs of needs 7
03 park master plan 17
04 ImplementatIon, management, & steWardsHIp 47
referenced documents 54
appendIx 55
iv HE MNI CAN | BARN BLUFF PARk MAstER PLAN: jUNE 2016
Before European settlement, the land
we now call Red Wing was settled by
generations of Native Americans, most
recently the Mdewakanton Dakota, who
called the place He Mni Can, or “Hill, Water,
Wood,” for the attributes that made it an
ideal camping grounds. Other spellings of
the name include Hemminnicha, Hham-
necha, khemincha, and Rhemincha. He
Mni Can encompassed Barn Bluff, which
is one of the most spiritual places in the
world to the Dakota, a central piece of
their creation story. Native Americans
have a much longer relationship with this
sacred place than its modern inhabitants,
but their reverance for and relationship to
the bluff has not been reflected in recent
history. In an effort to present a more
egalitarian history, this Master Plan uses
the Dakota name interchangeably with
the English name (or rather, its French
name, as Barn Bluff is a translation of Mont
La Grange, the name given to the bluff by
French explorers, who thought it looked
like a large barn from the Mississippi
River.) Check out the Cultural Landscape
Report for more information on its history.
Barn Bluff and Red Wing’s Village by Seth Eastman
hill water wood
He Mni Can
Red Wing’s Dakota Legacy & the naming of the Master Plan
iv
Significance of this Plan
Barn Bluff is a powerful and iconic landscape. To the Dakota people, He Mni
Can (Hill, Water, Wood) is one of the most sacred places in the world. To western
culture, Barn Bluff holds generations of memories and is key to the identity of
Red Wing and those who inhabit it. Humans are drawn to the bluff, and while
its form has been challenged by curiosity and exploits, its essence and its
inspiration remains intact.
The creation of a plan to guide the next generation’s stewardship of He Mni Can
demands as much understanding, creativity, and wisdom as we can muster.
Terms like resilient, restorative, respectful, and engaging come to mind as
foundations for an approach to master planning this remarkable landscape.
This plan has been prepared to unite the many aspirations that people have for
the park and communicate a common vision for its future. To begin, the plan
addresses the bluff with both monikers, He Mni Can and Barn Bluff, to recognize
the multi-cultural history and significance of this place in the local community
and beyond. The plan then guides future investments in capital improvements,
park operations, and programming that will take years to fully achieve.
With a long timeframe for implementation, it can be easy to lose sight of the
ways that small improvements build on each other to achieve a broader goal.
This plan’s vision statement and guiding principles are of particular importance
in combatting the fade of time. These statements embody the values
fundamental to the community’s vision, and if carefully considered, can align
future endeavors with the master plan, preserving the park’s integrity well into
the future.
Construction of Webster’s Way, a winding
staircase from downtown Red Wing to the
western peak of Barn Bluff
Miners on Barn Bluff
01. PARK PLANNING CONTEXT
INTROduCTION ANd
1 01: InTRoDuCTIon anD paRk plannIng ConTexT
500,000,000 Years Ago -
T he C ambrian Sandstone that makes up the base of the bluff begins to form while covered by prehistoric seas.
12,000-10,000 Years Ago -
Glacial River Warren carves the Mississippi River channel, occasionally changing course, including to the south of Barn Bluff. The harder Dolomite stone at the top of the bluff kept the bluff intact as the land around it was eroded away, making Barn Bluff into an island in the river valley.
1,000 Years Ago -
The area around Red Wing was used by Native American people, creating villages and earthworks, including mounds on top of Barn Bluff.
Early 1800s -
A Mdewakanton Dakota village known as He Mni Can or “hill, water, wood” sits at the bottom of the bluff. The leader is called Khupahu (wing) Sha (red).
The bluff is used as a lookout, place of safety during war, and a spot where warriors went to offer sacrifices before battle.
The village grew to a population of 300 with approximately 22 lodges near what is now Main Street.
1853 -
The Dakota were removed from Red Wing to a reservation in the Minnesota River Valley after the Treaty with the Sioux of 1851
1853 -
The City of Red Wing is platted and becomes the Goodhue County seat.The area becomes renowned for its wheat and milling.
1766 -
Jonathan Carver reaches Lake Pepin and describes climbing a hill and looking out over the river from what sounds like Barn Bluff, but cannot be confirmed.
1600s -
French explorers and traders establish posts along the Mississippi River, including at Prairie Island and at Lake Pepin. The French name for the Bluff “Mont La Grange” translates to Barn Bluff, named for the shape of the bluff and its resemblance to a barn.
NOT TO SCALE
PREhISTORY 1000 YEARS AGO
1600s 1700s 1800s
Other Early Visitors:1817 & 1823 Stephen Long1819 Colonel Leavenworth1820 Stephen Kearny1820 Henry Schoolcraft
1806 -
After visiting the Red Wing band of Native Americans, Zebulon Pike climbs Barn Bluff, providing the earliest confirmed recorded description of the bluff.
Timeline of he Mni Can / Barn Bluff’s history
2 He MnI Can | BaRn BluFF paRk MasTeR plan: june 2016
1817 NATIONAL hISTORIC REGISTER
1870s-1908 -
Advances in the Lime kilning process lead to major expansion of the quarrying of Barn Bluff
Late 1850s to 1860s -
Visitors, including Henry David Thoreau visit Barn Bluff through steamboat tours.
Late 1850s -
Phineas Fish operates the first Lime kiln at Barn Bluff
Late 1870s -
Railroads come to Red Wing, including one that runs between the Missisippi River and Barn Bluff, requiring the cutting back of the bluff
1906 - The Milwaukee Railroad signs a lease to blast stone from the bluff to build more railroad. Destruction of the bluff, disruption from the blasting, and accidents spur a public outcry to stop blasting at the bluff by 1908.
1910 -
Barn Bluff is turned into a City Park, with help from philanthropic members of the community donating money to purchase the land.
1929 -
The Citizen’s Memorial Stairway is completed by the local Kiwanis Club. The stairway started at the end of Main Street and rose 472 steps to the top of the bluff.
1950s-1960 -
Highway 61 and the Hwy 63 bridge across the Mississippi are built, necessitating the removal of the Citizens Memorial Stairway. The west end of the bluff is blasted to accomodate the new bridge and highway.
1975-76 -
Citizens Memorial Stairs are salvaged and relocated to the new park entrance on the east side of the bluff.
1975 -
Formal rock climbing at Barn Bluff begins (see link below for story):
http://www.mountainproject.com/v/barn-bluff-
red-wing/105812663
1982 -
The Kiwanis
raise funds and construct the
Central Kiwanis Stairway.
1990 -
Barn Bluff
is listed on the National
Register of Historic
Places.
2014 -
Friends of the Bluff construct a new west overlook.
TO dAY !
1889 - C.C. Webster develops a trail up the west side of the bluff, which is later improved by the Red Wing Civic League.
1900s 2000s
3 01: InTRoDuCTIon anD paRk plannIng ConTexT
1938hISTORICAL PERIOd Of SIGNIfICANCE
Purpose of the Park Master Plan
studying the history of He Mni Can (Barn Bluff) reveals the many ways it has
provided for generations of local inhabitants. The purpose of the He Mni Can/
Barn Bluff park Master plan is to preserve the significance of the landscape
through good stewardship. This master plan provides a long-term vision for
improvements to the park’s amenities, habitats, and trails, and to guide the
addition of desired facilities. The document also includes a foundation for
the vision, demonstrating study of the park’s existing conditions, assessment
of community needs in relation to park use, and proposals for specific
improvement projects. This plan is envisioned as a 20+ year plan, with
implementation in three general timeframes: short-term (up to 3 years), Mid-
term (3-8 years), and long-term (8 or more years). study of conditions and
development of a new park master plan will be needed again in 20 years to
evaluate and respond to the needs of the park at that time.
The Master Plan for He Mni Can /
Barn Bluff Park:
»offers strategic guidance for future park development.
» Identifies design direction, necessary amenities, and facility
improvements.
» Develops implementation strategies, phasing, operations, and
maintenance.
» Meets eligibility requirements for legacy parks and Trails funding,
and opens up additional opportunities for future funding sources
and partnerships.
The Prairie Trail leads to beautiful vistas over the
Mississippi River Valley.
Steep rock faces remain from past
quarrying operations.
4 He MnI Can | BaRn BluFF paRk MasTeR plan: june 2016
Greater Minnesota Regional Parks &
Trails Commission
The greater Minnesota Regional parks and Trails Commission (gMRpTC)
was established in 2013 to carry out system planning and provide
recommendations to the legislature for grants funded by the legacy parks and
Trails Fund. applications for legacy funding are provided only to parks and
trails outside of the seven-county metropolitan area that are designated by
the gMRpTC as “regionally significant.” There are two steps to the designation
process: 1) ranking of the park for potential as a “regionally significant park,”
and 2) completion of a park master plan that guides improvement and
management for the park.
In august 2015, He Mni Can / Barn Bluff park received a “High” ranking in
relation to regional park designation in the “special Feature” category by
the gMRpTC. The ranking received completed the first step in the process
to designate the park as a regionally significant park in greater Minnesota.
Completion of this park master plan is intended to fulfill the second step, and
the application for designation will be made by the city.
a special Feature park is defined by the gMRpTC as a park that focuses on
one or two unique natural, cultural, or historic features and supports outdoor
recreation. The criteria for designation in this class of regional park are as
follows:
Criteria #1
Provides a special high-quality outdoor recreation experience
Criteria #2
Provides a natural and scenic setting offering a compelling
sense of place
Criteria #3
Well-located to serve a regional need and/or tourist destination
Criteria #4
Fills a gap in recreational opportunity within the region
This master plan seeks to demonstrate how He Mni Can / Barn Bluff park meets
these four criteria as a special Feature Regional park in greater Minnesota
and fulfills the requirements for designation in order to establish eligibility for
legacy funding.
5 01: InTRoDuCTIon anD paRk plannIng ConTexT
Other City Plans and Initiatives for the Park
The Barn Bluff park Master plan is intended to work in conjunction with other
documents influencing stewardship and management of the park. other
governing agencies and non-profit groups work in partnership with the city
to facilitate improvements to and programming at Barn Bluff. The city also has
other planning initiatives that relate to future park development or provide
connections to and from the park. The following documents have been used
in the process of developing this master plan and will continue to influence
the future of Barn Bluff park. These documents can be referenced at the city
planning department, or their website.
» Habitat Management plan for Red Wing City parks: Barn Bluff
» Barn Bluff Cultural landscape Report
»g.a. Carlson lime kiln Restoration plan
» Red Wing Riverfront Redevelopment plan
» Red Wing Bicycle and pedestrian Master plan
» Barn Bluff landscape guidelines
In addition to the city initiatives, other groups utilize the park for existing
programming or may have interest in future use of the park, including:
»prairie Island Indian Community
» The Red Wing environmental learning Center
»audubon Minnesota
» Friends of the Bluff
» Minnesota Climbing association
»goodhue County Historical society
» Red Wing Heritage preservation Commission
»live Healthy Red Wing
» Red Wing kiwanis Club Chapters
»Red Wing YMCa
» Red Wing Community Recreation
Hikers in the park’s west quarry
6 He MnI Can | BaRn BluFF paRk MasTeR plan: june 2016
02. analysis of needs
site location and Context
In northeast Red Wing, He Mni Can | Barn Bluff Park comprises 58 acres
adjacent to the Mississippi River. The park is surrounded by urban uses and
natural features that restrict expansion and limit accessibility to the park.
The bluff’s west and south sides are bounded by highways. Highway 61 runs
along its southern border, and the only public access by road to the park is
via an underpass of this highway. Highway 63’s Eisenhower Bridge crosses
the Mississippi River on Barn Bluff’s west side, and will be rebuilt between
2017-2020 in a new alignment slightly west of the existing bridge. The land
separating the future bridge from the bluff will remain MnDOT right-of-way.
See page 9 for a visual history of this bridge crossing.
Xcel Energy owns the property immediately east of the park for operation of a
power-generating incineration plant. An agreement with the City allows Xcel to
utilize the water reservoir and part of the pump house within the park for plant
operations.
The north side of the park is bounded by an existing active rail line, an adjacent
service road, and the main channel of the Mississippi River. A waste water
treatment plant abuts the river east of the Highway 63 bridge and is the
terminus for the service road on the park’s northern border. The Izaak Walton
League’s club house and property is also located along this northern boundary.
Because of its height and position within Red Wing, He Mni Can can be seen
from many locations throughout the area. The view from the Mississippi River
proves to be one of the most striking perspectives. It is also highly visible from
nearby Sorin’s Bluff, on top of which, Memorial Park offers great views across
the city, to the bluff and Mississippi River Valley beyond.
He Mni Can / Barn Bluff Park is also part of a series of riverfront city parks in
Red Wing, including Levee Park and Bay Point Park to the west and Colvill Park
to the east. Each of these parks contribute different offerings to park users
and relationship to the river. The Red Wing Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan (2011) and Riverfront Redevelopment Plan (2005) both identify a future
recreation trail linking these four riverside parks, part of which is implemented.
site Conditions and
View of the Mississippi River valley to the north
7 02: SITE COnDITIOnS AnD AnALySIS Of nEEDS
Figure 2.2 barn bluFF site map and existing conditions
Figure 2.1 barn bluFF regional location
8 HE MnI CAn | BARn BLUff PARk MASTER PLAn: jUnE 2016
5th Stre
e
t
(
t
o
e
n
t
r
y
)
pumphouSe
downtown
red wing
red wing
red wing
wisconsin
levee park
Baypoint park
colvillpark
memorialpark
Barn Bluff
Shortcut trail
existing Conditions
He Mni Can / Barn Bluff Park is not only an icon for the community and a
landmark of significant natural and cultural history, it is a popular destination
for modern day recreation, environmental education, and retreat. Visitors’ love
of Barn Bluff is evident in its heavily-used trails and overlooks, and revealed
by the many dozens of haphazardly parked cars at its base on good-weather
days. People’s dedicated use of the park has started to degrade the quality of
Barn Bluff’s trails and habitats. This master plan addresses how best to improve
the park to accommodate the volume of visitors it sees and maximize their
experience, while minimizing negative impacts.
The City of Red Wing acquired He Mni Can / Barn Bluff for a city park in 1910
and has since managed and maintained it. The park also benefits from long
time partnerships with other government agencies and non-profit groups
that provide support with maintenance needs, such as trail clearing, habitat
management, and facilitation of recreational programming.
There are currently six official park trails that allow visitors passage through the
park: the north, South, Midland, Quarry, kiln, and Prairie Trails. Most of these
trails traverse steep inclines in several locations, and some trail routes impact
known cultural resources. Others pose danger from falls and other hazards,
including the north Trail which was closed to visitors in 2014. Despite (or
perhaps, in some cases, because of) these circumstances, the trail system invites
adventure, allowing visitors to walk the routes of early explorers, tread pre-
historic footpaths, and discover old quarry roads that weave their way through
changing native landscapes, offering views that stretch across the Mississippi
River Valley. The trail system is really the only way visitors are provided access
throughout the park and directly influences how the park is experienced.
Currently, there is only one way to get to He Mni Can / Barn Bluff Park, which
is by road (E 5th Street), and visitors usually reach the park by car. Parking is
accommodated along unmarked gravel shoulders on E 5th Street. On busy
days visitors park along E 5th Street to the north, along an adjacent and in the
residential neighborhood to the south. Access to the park’s trail system requires
climbing a long set of stairs to a landing that has a kiosk with park maps and
information. Two trails lead out from the landing—The South Trail takes off
to the west, and the Quarry Trail leads up to the north and to additional trail
junctions.
Due to the nature of the steep landscape at He Mni Can / Barn Bluff Park,
recreation is generally limited to trail-oriented activities, including walking/
hiking, trail running, and birding. It is also a very popular destination for rock
climbers. Limestone quarrying at the turn of the 20th century left steep rock
faces on the east side of the park that offer some of the best rock climbing
in Minnesota. Today, there are over 100 rock climbing routes traversed by
climbers during the spring, summer, and fall seasons. Another popular activity
is photography. The west and east overlooks offer unsurpassed vistas of the
City of Red Wing and across the Mississippi River. Amateur and professional
photographers alike enjoy capturing the outstanding scenery.
Historic quarrying activity (top) created rock
faces perfect for sport climbing (bottom).
Trails provide passage through scenic and
pristine blufftop prairie.
Bridging the Mississippi in Red Wing
9 02: SITE COnDITIOnS AnD AnALySIS Of nEEDS
unfold to See the
Site analySiS for
he mni can | Barn
Bluff park
VIEW Of BARn BLUff AnD HISTORICAL BRIDGE
COnSTRUCTED In 1895
CURREnT EISEnHOWER (HWy 63) BRIDGE
BETWEEn RED WInG AnD WISCOnSIn
REnDERInG Of fUTURE HWy 63 BRIDGE
BETWEEn RED WInG AnD WISCOnSIn
2017-2020 COnSTRUCTIOn
Figure 2.3 site analysis map
Existing
Flag
Ha BItat
North f orest West Prairie s outh Prairie o ak Grove o ak s avanna e ast Prairie s outh f orest
exP osure to PoG raPHy D raINaGe
Ha BItat
North f orest West Prairie s outh Prairie o ak Grove o ak s avanna e ast Prairie s outh f orest
exP osure to PoG raPHy D raINaGe
Ha BItat
North forest West Prairie s outh Prairie oak Grove o ak s avanna east Prairie s outh forest
exP osure toPoG raPHy D raINaGe
to Levee Park
to Colvill Park
to Memorial Park
dRainagesolaR exposuRe
site analysis
10 HE MnI CAn | BARn BLUff PARk MASTER PLAn: jUnE 2016
only entry
point
overflow parking on vacant street
r ailr oad
r
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
site analysis
The context of He Mni Can / Barn Bluff poses access restrictions as well as
visual, audible, and even odorous impacts. Park improvements will seek to limit
these issues as much as possible, while maintaining safety from road and rail
conflicts. Routing trails up and away from noisy highways, screening gathering
areas from industrial views, and locating use areas away from the rail line are a
few examples of how this master plan mitigates impacts to enhance the park
experience. Physical features, issues, barriers, and constraints are illustrated in
figure 2.3. Site Analysis Map.
The trails are the only way park visitors can access and experience the
park. Therefore, a thorough inventory of the trail system was necessary
to understand the level and cost of improvements needed to establish
durable and safe trails throughout the park. User input about trails is found
in figure 2.5. More detail about the inventory and related trail improvement
recommendations is found in Chapters 3 and 4.
Historical and Cultural analysis
Prior to the start of the master plan, the City of Red Wing and with Two Pines
Resource Group completed a Cultural Landscape Report that reviews the
history of Barn Bluff. The full 270-page document can be obtained from the
city planning department. The Cultural Landscape Report (2015) includes a
detailed description of the historic features and character of the park, and
outlines strategies for protecting and maintaining its resources of historic and
cultural significance. The master plan process relied heavily on the historic
information included within this document. Proposed park improvements and
recommendations within this master plan support the goals of the Cultural
Landscape Report.
An important aspect to acknowledge from the cultural analysis is the lack of
Dakota information or presence currently existing at the park. The Cultural
Landscape Report highlights the historic and present day significance
of Dakota culture at He Mni Can. Recommendations to enhance visitors’
awareness of the park’s cultural signficance is included throughout the
proposed park improvements.
View of the waste water treatment plant on the
Mississippi River from the North Trail
11 02: SITE COnDITIOnS AnD AnALySIS Of nEEDS
public par ticipation and Community Values
Understanding the needs of park users from both the local area and the
broader region is an essential part of the master planning process. Public input
provided through online surveys, stakeholder meetings, and two public open
houses offered vital insights into the park’s needs. Graphics on the following
pages summarize feedback from the engagement efforts.
Survey results revealed the types of visitors using Barn Bluff. Half of the park’s
typical visitors are from the local area, within 12 miles of the park, but a quarter
of visitors travel more than 50 miles to come to the park. This information
reinforces Barn Bluff’s importance to regional recreation. The park is visited
year-round, with winter being the only season that does not see “high” demand.
Most people visit with two or three other people.
Community input confirmed that the most popular recreational trends and
activities for the park include walking, hiking, and rock climbing. Desires
for additional programming, including interest in rock climbing instruction,
outdoor education, trail runs, and fitness classes complement the existing trail
and climbing uses. Additional programming suggestions included interpretive
walks, storytelling, photography, and art courses.
A prevailing theme among the public input received was to keep Barn Bluff
Park as natural as possible; feedback emphasized that park improvements use a
light touch and preserve the wild feel of the landscape. Visitors value the park’s
native plant communities, wildlife habitat, and geological features. Promoting
stewardship, restoration, and maintainance of the park’s natural resources is
therefore an overarching goal of this master plan.
Public participation also highlighted existing amenities that need the most
attention. These include steep and eroded segments of trail, wayfinding within
the park, and visitor information. Survey respondents also suggested that
availability of parking and trash receptacles should be improved. In addition,
visitors want access to amenities that are not currently available at the park;
restrooms and drinking water top the list of desired new amenities.
The two open houses attracted many
participants who offered feedback on desired
amenities, programming, park concepts, and
project goals/recommendations.
“Keep the bluff
natural!”
what we heard
12 HE MnI CAn | BARn BLUff PARk MASTER PLAn: jUnE 2016
Figure 2.4 survey summaryBARN BLUFF MASTER PLANPARK USE | AMENITIES | PROGRAMSSURVEY SUMMARYPARK USEEXISTING AMENITIESFREQUENTLY HEARD:DESIRED AMENITIES PROGRAMMING INTERESTSHigh use Spring-Fall1/3 of all visits include a dog and/or a child2/3 of visitors come in a group of 3+ peopleHalf of visitors travel less than 12 miles25% of visitors travel more than 50 milesOver 1/2 of visitors stay more than 2 hoursTrail Wayfinding + SignageMapping + Visitor InformationTrash ReceptaclesInterpretive SignageParking1) Restrooms2) Water3) More Parking4) Pet Waste Disposal5) Bike Parking6) More Trails7) More Seating8) Event Space9) Public ArtWrite-ins:CampingSignage/Interpretation1) Climbing Classes2) Outdoor Rec Programs3) Environmental Stewardship Programs4) Educational Programs5) App-based Interpretive Programs (all topics)6) Storytelling Gatherings7) Trail Runs8) Fitness Classes9) After School Programs10) Art ProgramsTÍÆ50Miles12MilesF50&!6!¯!±\_ÕÓGÀ²<SatisfactoryNeeds Improvement!!dKEEP BARN BLUFF FREE AND OPENPRESERVE THE WILD AND NATURAL FEELUSE A LIGHT TOUCH3«t13 02: SITE COnDITIOnS AnD AnALySIS Of nEEDS
Figure 2.5 open house FeedbacK summaryBarn Bluff Master Planwhat we heard at the oPen housepark entrance• “Insignificant and unattractive”• should feel welcoming• Parking inadequate (car and bike)• restrooms/water desired• need better signage at entrance• educational opportunity about history/sacred landscape and the type of respect the bluff deserveseast overlook• Popular location, but unsafe perception makes some people wary• Proximity to steep dropoffs make safety an issue• don’t want to see railings or too much added structure• needs “Climbers Below” sign warning people not to throw rocksriver access• unavailable• a missed opportunityrestoration• Continue restoration/maintenance of habitat, especially prairie and oak savanna• remove invasives• educate people on what’s being done and how they can helppark access• signage is too small, sporadic• hard to find the first time• should feel as if you are entering somewhere special/sacred. leaving the profane behind.trailhead • needs updated maps• should include information on work being done (restoration/trail statuses), programming/events, park rules, educational Psas, and interpretive opportunities• add shoe cleanersFlag pole• Concerns raised about the location of the flag pole in relationship to sensitive cultural sites• light pollution at night• options for reducing impact of remnant flag pole base in burial mound should be exploredbluFF painting• need to establish a clear policy• some cultural significance, but also historical precedent• some support to keep the bluff naturalPuBlIC InPut suMMary4th street5th street7th streete 3rd streetMain streethwy 61Bluff streetnorth trail• should be re-opened• loop experience missed• Minor safety improvements desired (unobtrusive cable railing)• signage should caution against use in certain situations and stress the trail’s difficulty, but leave use to visitor’s discretion• Visitors assume responsibility for their own safety, but City should protect itself from liabilityPoorunsafeokayCondition Safety SignageWest overlook• a popular destination for views• easy to find and access• want to avoid major structural features like the west overlook in the future (especially visible railings)Condition Safety SignageGoodModerateGoodprairie trail• Very steep on way to west overlook• Gravel should be removed to improve traction• Volunteer trails should be removed in order to preserve habitat• add signage detailing why it’s important to stay on the trailssouth trail• Grade can be somewhat challenging in spots• erosion and panning present, sometimes severe• Proximity to dropoffs can feel unsafe in places• direct and obvious route with adequate signage at connecting trailsCondition Safety SignageModerateGoodModerateQuarry trail• eroding in places. wooden treads breaking down• Many volunteer trails cut through forest nearby (should be controlled)• rocks thrown from east overlook pose threat to safety of climbers and people on trailCondition Safety SignageModerateokayokaycarlson kiln trail• lack of signage and position adjacent to railroad tracks make it less attractive to visitors• Could be made ada with minor improvementsCondition Safety SignageGoodsafePoorMidland trail• narrow with some tripping hazards• encroaching vegetation- much buckthorn• not obvious from mapping/signageCondition Safety SignageModeratePoorPoorprairie trailQuarry trailQuarry tr
a
i
l
kiln trail
Midland trailsouth trailsouth trailprairie trailnorth trailsouth trail shortcut trail14 HE MnI CAn | BARn BLUff PARk MASTER PLAn: jUnE 2016
issues & opportunities
The analysis and engagement process resulted in identification of primary
issues to address and opportunities for improvements at the park. figure 2.5
summarizes many of the issues and opportunities that directly influenced the
vision for the park, and are reflected in the recommendations of this master
plan.
primary iSSueS
1. respect for the bluff as a sacred place and sensitive habitat
Since the first people settled the area, He Mni Can has served as an important
cultural and historical landmark. Drawing visitors to it for centuries, Barn Bluff
has offered both prospect and refuge, a retreat for spiritual exploration, a
source of raw materials, the promise of jobs and industry, and even a place to
live. Today, its status as a park also provides recreational opportunities, wildlife
habitat, and exposure to high quality natural and cultural resources. However,
over-use and a lack of respect for the landscape has taken a toll on the quality
of Barn Bluff’s trails, the health of its natural communities, and the integrity of
its historic features.
2. eroding and difficult trail system
Walking trails are the only way to access destinations within the park. Due to
the extreme slopes present on the bluff, trails erode easily from water drainage
and heavy foot traffic. Severe erosion is present in multiple locations along
most of the trails within the park, making trails more difficult to traverse and
damaging the surrounding native habitats.
3. Safety and navigation in the park
Safety within the park is of vital concern. Two fatalities in the last two years have
necessitated closure of the park’s north Trail, and the addition of new warning
and danger signs throughout the park. The bluff geology poses natural fall
hazards due to steep inclines and extreme drop-offs. An organized trail system
with clear wayfinding and mapping that identifies the risks associated with
access to certain locations will promote better safety within the park.
4. lack of parking and park amenities
Across from the existing entry stairs, E 5th Street’s gravel shoulder
currently serves as Barn Bluff’s parking area. The area is not large enough
to accommodate the demand for parking on a typical weekend day. The
congestion from the many vehicles and disorganized parking creates a hazard
for pedestrians and bicyclists, posing potential conflicts.
Park visitors also complain about the lack of bathrooms, trail signage, trash
receptacles, and drinking water. Other desired programming and amenities can
be seen in figure 2.4.
Safety on the bluff is a main priority, especially
on the North Trail (currently closed)
15 02: SITE COnDITIOnS AnD AnALySIS Of nEEDS
primary opportunitieS
1. cultural and historical interpretation
Collaboration with the Prairie Island Indian Community and the Goodhue
County Historic Society can help to improve awareness of He Mni Can’s
significance. Interpretive panels along the reservoir paired with park
information and interpretation at an entry plaza visitor center will help to
educate park visitors. Improvements to the kiln will highlight the bluff’s
quarrying history. Most interpretation will be done off of the bluff at its base in
order to minimize impacts on the bluff itself and to respect the bluff as sacred.
2. Sustainable trail system improvements
Due to Barn Bluff’s rugged terrain, the trail system is the primary way visitors
experience the park. Trail repair combined with improvements to the base
course, alignment, and drainage patterns of certain trails will address many of
the issues existing now at the park and make the trail network more resilient.
3. park safety improvements
Improvements to the series of overlooks on the east side of the bluff will focus
on preventing falls and reckless behavior, including rock throwing. Restoration
of the Carlson Lime kiln will remove the dangers associated with its degrading
structure. The addition of a hand hold and additional signage along the north
Trail will help visitors to safely navigate the trail.
4. park entry improvements
Potential park entry improvements include reorganizing access into the park,
improving Barn Bluff’s connection to its surroundings, and providing much
needed park amenities, such as restrooms, bike parking, interpretation, and
drinking water.
Improvements to the base of the bluff will create a coherent entry experience,
where now there is none. Coordination with MnDOT will facilitate better use of
the Hwy 61 overpass as a gateway and arrival feature, and partnership with Xcel
will allow land surrounding the park entry to be used for occasional overflow
visitor parking.
Visitors navigate the steep north trail
16 HE MnI CAn | BARn BLUff PARk MASTER PLAn: jUnE 2016
03. park master plan
“He Mni Can (Barn Bluff) will stand as an honored landscape
sacred to the Dakota, respected by all, where our wise stewardship
will perpetuate its natural and cultural integrity.”
Vision and Guiding principles
Public and stakeholder input influenced development of the vision for the master
plan and for the future of He Mni Can/ Barn Bluff Park:
The vision is supporTed by four guiding principles:
heal
Orchestrate careful efforts to restore, stabilize, and amend landscape impacts
that have proven damaging or unsafe.
sustain
Design, operate, and manage the park to incorporate resilient, low-impact
solutions that will hold up to visitor use without breaking down or negatively
affecting the natural or cultural resources of He Mni Can / Barn Bluff.
educate
Imbue the visitor experience with learning opportunities, and offer cues that lead
to a greater respect for the landscape and support a leave-no-trace ethic.
honor
Realize that our stewardship for this place is a great responsibility and any
interventions must reflect the sacred legacy of He Mni Can.
17 03: PaRk MasteR Plan
18 He MnI Can | BaRn BlUFF PaRk MasteR Plan: jUne 2016
Natural surface trails in the forest.
Goals & recommendations:
1. Keep the park as natural as possible, using a “light touch” and sensitive
design for any park improvements.
a. limit proposed improvements on the bluff to existing park destinations,
including the West Overlook, east Overlook, and the Carlson lime kiln.
ensure that improvements are designed to limit visual impacts and blend
with the natural landscape, utilizing local, native materials to the greatest
extent possible.
B. any new park facilities and amenities should be located at the base of bluff
at the park entry location (see Goal 5.)
2. remove existing features that compromise the integrity of he Mni
can’s natural and cultural resources. restore and protect the landscape
wherever possible.
a. Complete a Phase I archaeological study of the park to determine sensitive
cultural resources in areas identified for potential improvements, trail re-
alignments, or new trail locations.
B. Consider relocating the existing flagpole away from existing sensitive
cultural resources.
C. Conduct a series of public meetings to establish a consistent policy
regarding painting of the bluff.
D. Realign trails that conflict with known cultural resources, making efforts to
camouflage and restore undesired routes to prevent further use.
3. re-establish safety and durability of the trail system and reopen a loop
route through the park.
a. Implement a phased approach to trail improvements based on the trail
plans included within this master plan.
B. add safety measures to the north trail and reconstruct the connection to
the West Overlook in order to reopen the trail to park users.
C. Restore all historic kiwanis steps to a safe and durable condition.
4. increase general safety for visitors throughout the park with better
navigation and hazard awareness.
a. Develop a new set of trail maps that reflect changes to the trail system and
locate maps at identified park information locations.
B. Create a signage and wayfinding plan with a hierarchy of wayfinding and
identification within the park. Utilize a consistent design character for all
signage. ensure signage and wayfinding is low-profile and constructed of
resilient, nonreflective materials that are resistant to fire and vandalism.
C. Implement design interventions, visual cues, and/or signage in locations
that may be hazardous or pose fall hazards to make visitors immediately
aware of potential danger.
D. state clear and consistent rules about keeping on official trails when
travelling within the park.
The following goals for the
park master plan establish
a framework that organizes
plan recommendations
and improvements for the
park, and ensures that they
support the overall park
vision. The goals were derived
directly from the issues and
opportunities identified in the
analysis and input processes
and were further refined by
the guiding principles of the
master plan. Implementing the
recommendations associated
with each of the goals will
work to achieve the vision and
intentions of this plan for He
Mni Can / Barn Bluff Park.
master plan Framework
5. improve visibility and convenience by establishing a prominent park
entry where amenities, facilities, and park information can all be
located.
a. establish the e 5th street Corridor between downtown Red Wing and the
park as a special street with clear visible signage for the park.
B. enhance the Highway 61 overpass as a gateway feature to mark arrival at
the park. Coordinate improvements with scheduled construction on Hwy
61.
C. Implement phased improvements of park amenities and features based
on proposed projects, park improvement areas, and priorities outlined in
the implementation section of this master plan.
D. link the park entry to future regional trails that will connect with other
riverfront and bluff top parks nearby. Position He Mni Can/ Barn Bluff’s
entry plaza as a trailhead for the proposed Riverfront Regional trail.
e. Work with Xcel to consolidate/eliminate unnecessary utility poles on and
around the base of the bluff.
6. enhance opportunities for education and programming at the park.
a. Partner with the Prairie Island Indian Community to increase visitor
awareness of He Mni Can’s significance in Dakota culture.
B. Develop a Rock Climbing Master Plan for the park in collaboration with
the Minnesota Climbers association, the Red Wing environmental
learning Center, and Friends of the Bluff. Management of rock climbing
activity will be implemented with a memorandum of agreement (MOa)
and facilitated by members of the climbing community and volunteers,
within parameters outlined in the agreed MOa. Identify additional
opportunities for climbing events and promotion of He Mni Can / Barn
Bluff as a climbing destination in the region.
C. Continue partnerships with the UsFWs, DnR, Conservation Corps, Friends
of the Bluffs, and audubon Minnesota to manage natural resources and
wildlife habitat according to the park’s current Habitat Management Plan.
D. Work with nonprofit groups to increase offerings of park programming
related to recreation, outdoor education, cultural history, geology, and
art/photography. some partnering groups include: Friends of the Bluff,
kiwanis Club, audubon Minnesota, the YMCa, Red Wing Community
Recreation, the anderson Center, Red Wing environmental learning
Center, Goodhue County Historic society, and the Red Wing Historic
Preservation Commission.
7. enable visitors to easily become stewards of the bluff.
a. add signage and park information that raises awareness of the sacred
cultural significance of the bluff, and the sensitive and rare qualities of
the native bluff landscape.
B. establish and sign for a “leave no trace” ethic at the park.
C. add restroom facilities and trash / recycling receptacles at the bluff base
to limit visitors from littering the park.
Natural surface trails in the north forest The master plan proposes improvements to and restoration of the East Overlook, which is currently highly eroded
unfold To see The
he Mni can | barn
bluff parK MasTer
plan
19 03: PaRk MasteR Plan
-
He Mni Can
Barn Bluff Park Master Plan
east overlook
climbing walls
cli
m
b
i
n
g
w
a
l
l
s
midland Trail
1
4
2
3
Entry Trail
Quarry Tr
a
i
l
north Trail
south TrailHigHway 61
5TH sTr
E
E
T
missi
s
si
p
pi
ri
v
E
r
miss
i
s
s
i
p
p
i
r
i
v
E
r
south Trail
south Trail
prairie Trai
lprairie Trail
prairie Trail bypassc arlson Kiln Trail
Kiln Overlook s pur Trail
g.a. carlson lime kiln + plaza
rOcK fac E (painT ing pO licy T bd)
wEsT Q uarry
cEnT ral K iwanis sT airway
oak grove
south prairie south forest
east prairie
oak savanna
north forest
west prairie
Trail juncTiOn
west overlook
rEs TOrE d ciT izE n’s mEmO rial sT airway
fu
T
u
r
E
r
i
v
E
r
f
r
O
n
T
rE
g
i
O
n
a
l
T
r
a
i
l
fuTurE nEigHbOrHOOd cOnnEcTOr Trail fuTurE cOnnEcTiOn TO mEmOrial parK
(c
O
n
n
E
c
T
s
T
O
cO
l
v
i
l
l
p
a
r
K
)fuTurE rivErfrOnT rEgiOnal Trail
H
i
g
Hw
a
y
6
3
park entry
E asT K iwanis sT airway
barn bl
u
f
f
g
a
T
E
w
a
y
lEgE nd
par K imprOvEmEn T arE as (s EE individual plans fOr addiTiO nal d ETail)
#
Figure 3.1 illustrative Park Master Plan
20 He MnI Can | BaRn BlUFF PaRk MasteR Plan: jUne 2016
Features of the master plan
the illustrative master plan (Figure 3.1) envisions the future of He Mni Can/ Barn Bluff Park based on the
recommendations and improvements proposed for the park. key features in this master plan are listed here and
described in more detail on the following pages.
natural habitat Management
Zones of natural habitat are managed to maintain healthy
native plant communities. Restoration and management
of park habitat will be guided by the city’s Habitat
Management Plan for Barn Bluff. the diverse habitats to be
maintained, as noted in the plan drawing, include:
»north Forest - Mature maple-basswood
forest extending along the north side of the
bluff.
»south Forest - located on the south side and
extending around the east side of the bluff,
with a mix of deciduous tree species.
»south Prairie - native prairie with some
encroachment of woody species in need of
management
» West & east Prairie - High-quality bluff
top prairie divided by the Oak Grove and
threatened by woody invasives.
» Oak Grove - Former oak savanna now with
additional species, including walnut and
cottonwood.
» Oak savanna - Pristine remnant of native oak
savanna located along the bluff ridge line.
Trail network
the park-wide trail network provides a loop experience
featuring sublime views, access to cultural and historic
features, and connections to regional trails. all trails will
undergo improvements to increase safety and durability.
see page 27 for planned trail improvements.
regional Trail connections
new regional trail connections will link Barn Bluff with other
city parks along the (proposed) Riverfront Regional trail,
which is partially complete along the north side of the park.
additional connections will be installed south from the
park, though the east end neighborhood and to Memorial
Park on sorin’s Bluff.
link to downtown
e 5th street becomes a special corridor linking the park
with downtown Red Wing via more visible wayfinding
signage. a new gateway feature at the Highway 61 overpass
marks a clear sense of arrival and entry to the park.
cultural & natural resource restoration / protection
the City will address painting on the bluff by encouraging
the public to participate in a series of meetings to fully
understand the issues and establish new policies to
regulate the activity. In addition, the City will investigate
relocation of the flagpole that is potentially impacting
a cultural site. Other cultural resources throughout the
park have experienced damage due to trail locations and
foot traffic. trail improvements including realignment,
restoration and camouflage of undesired paths, and the
addition of educational and interpretive signage will work
to achieve better protection of the sensitive resources at He
Mni Can.
parK iMproveMenT areas
More specific features of the master plan can be organized
within four locations identified as park improvement areas.
each of these areas is described in greater detail on the
following pages.
park entry - a reconfigured park entry provides
an improved arrival experience, amenities for park
visitors, and new entry trail into the park.
east overlook - the overlook will be stabilized and
restored to improve visitor safety and trail durability.
West overlook - a realigned trail connection
between the West Overlook and the Prairie trail
will provide a buffer and protect cultural resources
in addition to decreasing erosion and improving
ease of access. Restoration of the Citizen’s Memorial
stairway will restore the loop experience connecting
the West Overlook and north trail.
g.a. carlson lime Kiln + plaza - an improved trail
will provide an aDa accessible path to the base
of the kiln where an enhanced plaza featuring
opportunities for historic interpretation is proposed.
1
2
3
4
21 03: PaRk MasteR Plan
Woodland
Trail
juncTion
5Th sTreeT
enTry gaTeWay
iMproveMenTs
inTerpreTive
panels along
WaTer sTorage
TanK
PREFERRED ENTRY CONCEPT BaRN Blu FF MasTER PlaN
Parking Council Ring Trail Junction Interpretation & Visitor Info Pumphouse Expansion Bike ParkingInterpretive Panels
WayfindingaDa a ccessible Dakota Memorial s paceKiln PlazaCoordinate Gateway improvements to Hwy 61 overpass with road constructionImprove signage along 5th s treet Quarry TrailNew Entry TrailsQuarry TrailMidland Trailsouth TrailPrairie Trail Parking within ROW (20 spaces)45o angle Parking Distinct Traffic Calming PavementBike ParkingXcel a ccess DriveRaIlPotential for occasional temporary overflow parking on Xcel property On-street overflow parking (optional)Event & Gathering l awn 20 s pacesEntry PlazaRe-aligned Kiln TrailKiln Overlook Trail spurPump House expanded to include visitor information and interpretationMove kiosk to base of stairsRemove concrete from existing landing area. Manage vegetation to form thresholdRestrooms added to north half of Pump HouseNew Woodland Trail Junction Gateway to Barn Bluff Future Trail to Memorial Park Riverfront Regional TrailNeighborhood Connecto r T ra il****Prairie Planting Prairie PlantingRail ROWEast OverlooksKEYPrairie PlantingInterpretationWayfindingWoodlandTurfstormwater Feature***C ONCEPT O VERVIEW >Kiwanis Stairs are maintained, but a new entry plaza centers around the Kiln Trail and Pump House >New trail winds through restored forest from the entry plaza to a new trail junction at a wooded Council Ring >Single parking lot surrounded by prairie plantings >Additional on-street parking available on 5th Street across from Izaak Walton League (north of the railroad tracks), and south of Hwy 61 on the north side of 5th St. >Restrooms located in north half of Pump House >Parking lot surrounded by prairie plantings >Opportunity for interpretion on panels along Water Storage Tank >Existing visitor information kiosk moved to base of Kiwanis Stairs >Riverfront Regional Trail utilizes Barn Bluff entry plaza for restrooms, water, and information >Natural surface circular landing replaces concrete landing at top of Kiwanis Stairs. Prairie and forest meet here, forming a threshold >The realigned ADA accessible kiln trail is benched into the bluff slightly, and includes a connection to the Dakota Memorial >Kiln Overlook Trail offers additional interpretation opportunity as an offshoot of the Quarry Trail (dead-end)Interpretive panels along Tank facade*****
barn bluff gateway b arn b luff Master Plan
The master planning process looks at how people
access the park. The existing drive through a
residential neighborhood brings visitors to a dead-end
road and industrial looking overpass. w hat else can
make this approach to the park more appealing?
b arn b luff gateway
Present future
Current view of e ntry to b arn b luff
Co MMents
Multi-use trail provides
a connection for area
residents to walk or bile to
b arn b luff park
l ow walls draw eye
toward the park and
provide wayfinding
a dded architectural
features highlight the
bridge as a gatewayPrairie plantings
matchlandscape
within the park
PREFERRED ENTRY CONCEPT BaRN Blu FF MasTER PlaN
Parking Council Ring Trail Junction Interpretation & Visitor Info Pumphouse Expansion Bike ParkingInterpretive Panels
WayfindingaDa a ccessible Dakota Memorial s paceKiln Plaza
Coordinate Gateway improvements to Hwy
61 overpass with road construction
Improve signage along 5th s treet Quarry TrailNew Entry TrailsQuarry TrailMidland Trail
south Trail
Prairie Trail Parking within ROW (20 spaces)45o angle Parking Distinct Traffic Calming PavementBike ParkingXcel a ccess DriveRaIl
Potential for occasional
temporary overflow
parking on Xcel property
On-street ov
e
r
f
l
o
w
parking (opt
i
o
n
a
l
)
Event & Gathering l awn 20 s pacesEntry PlazaRe-aligned Kiln TrailKiln Overlook Trail spurPump House expanded to include visitor information and interpretation
Move kiosk to base of stairs
Remove concrete from
existing landing area. Manage
vegetation to form threshold
Restrooms added to north half of Pump HouseNew Woodland Trail Junction
Gateway
t
o
B
a
r
n
B
l
u
f
f
Future
T
r
a
i
l
t
o
M
e
m
o
r
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
Riverfront Regional Trail
Neighborhood Connecto r T ra il****
Prairi
e
Pl
a
nti
n
g
Prairie
Planting
Rail ROWEast Overlooks
KEY
Prairie Planting
Interpretation
Wayfinding
Woodland
Turf
s tormwater Feature
**
*
CONCEPT O VERVIEW >Kiwanis Stairs are maintained, but a new entry plaza centers around the Kiln Trail and Pump House >New trail winds through restored forest from the entry plaza to a new trail junction at a wooded Council Ring >Single parking lot surrounded by prairie plantings >Additional on-street parking available on 5th Street across from Izaak Walton League (north of the railroad tracks), and south of Hwy 61 on the north side of 5th St. >Restrooms located in north half of Pump House >Parking lot surrounded by prairie plantings >Opportunity for interpretion on panels along Water Storage Tank >Existing visitor information kiosk moved to base of Kiwanis Stairs
>Riverfront Regional Trail
utilizes Barn Bluff entry plaza
for restrooms, water, and
information
>Natural surface circular
landing replaces concrete
landing at top of Kiwanis
Stairs. Prairie and forest meet
here, forming a threshold
>The realigned ADA accessible
kiln trail is benched into the
bluff slightly, and includes
a connection to the Dakota
Memorial
>Kiln Overlook Trail offers
additional interpretation
opportunity as an offshoot of
the Quarry Trail (dead-end)
Interpretive panels along Tank facade***
**envisioning the park entry Improvement area
unfold To see
The parK enTry
iMproveMenT
area plan
PREFERRED ENTRY CONCEPT BaRN BluFF MasTER PlaN
Parking Council Ring Trail Junction Interpretation & Visitor Info Pumphouse Expansion Bike ParkingInterpretive Panels
Wayfinding
aDa accessible Dakota Memorial s pace
Kiln Plaza
Coordinate Gateway improvements to Hwy 61 overpass with road construction
Improve signage along 5th s treet Quarry TrailNew Entry TrailsQuarry TrailMidlan
d
T
r
ail
south Trail
Prairie Trail
Parking within ROW (20 spaces)
45o an
g
l
e
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
Distinct Traffic Calming Pavement
Bike Parking
Xcel access Drive
R
a
I
l
Potential for occasional temporary overflow parking on Xcel property
On-street ov
e
r
f
l
o
w
parking (opt
i
o
n
a
l
)
Event & Gathering
l awn
20 s paces
Entry PlazaRe-a
l
igned
K
i
ln
Tra
i
l
Kiln Overlook
Trail spur
Pump House expanded to include visitor information and interpretation
Move kiosk to base of stairs
Remove concrete from existing landing area. Manage vegetation to form threshold
Restrooms added to north half of Pump House
New Woodland Trail Junction
Gateway
t
o
B
a
r
n
B
l
u
f
f
Future
T
r
a
i
l
t
o
M
e
m
o
r
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
Riverfront Regional Trail
Neighborhood Connecto r T ra il*
*
*
*
Prairi
e
Pl
a
nti
n
g
Prairie Planting
R
a
i
l
R
O
W
East Overlooks
KEY
Prairie Planting
Interpretation
Wayfinding
Woodland
Turf
s tormwater Feature
**
*
CONCEPT OVERVIEW
>Kiwanis Stairs are maintained,
but a new entry plaza centers
around the Kiln Trail and
Pump House
>New trail winds through
restored forest from the entry
plaza to a new trail junction
at a wooded Council Ring
>Single parking lot surrounded
by prairie plantings
>Additional on-street parking
available on 5th Street across
from Izaak Walton League
(north of the railroad tracks),
and south of Hwy 61 on the
north side of 5th St.
>Restrooms located in north
half of Pump House
>Parking lot surrounded by
prairie plantings
>Opportunity for interpretion
on panels along Water
Storage Tank
>Existing visitor information
kiosk moved to base of
Kiwanis Stairs
>Riverfront Regional Trail
utilizes Barn Bluff entry plaza
for restrooms, water, and
information
>Natural surface circular
landing replaces concrete
landing at top of Kiwanis
Stairs. Prairie and forest meet
here, forming a threshold
>The realigned ADA accessible
kiln trail is benched into the
bluff slightly, and includes
a connection to the Dakota
Memorial
>Kiln Overlook Trail offers
additional interpretation
opportunity as an offshoot of
the Quarry Trail (dead-end)
Interpretive panels along Tank facade
**
*
**
Figure 3.2 Park entry iMProveMent area Plan
22 He MnI Can | BaRn BlUFF PaRk MasteR Plan: jUne 2016
23 03: PaRk MasteR Plan
park entry Improvement area
the park’s entry suffers from a lack of organization and clarity. access to the park
along residential e 5th street is confusing to new visitors. the Highway 61 overpass
forms a threshold between the residential neighborhood and the park but is
further visual barrier. the addition of more visible wayfinding signage along e 5th
street from downtown would help guide visitors to the park. this, partnered with
some minor aesthetic changes to the Hwy 61 overpass, would transform the bleak
barrier into a welcoming entry gateway, providing an unmistakable entree into He
Mni Can / Barn Bluff Park.
the plan for the new park entry organizes parking by providing a lot with 20 vehicle
spaces—enough to accommodate typical use. On busy weekends, overflow
parking is available on e 5th street to the north and south. a partnership with
Xcel energy could also facilitate occasional use of their property east of the paved
surface lot for temporary overflow parking.
a portion of e 5th street is proposed to be resurfaced with traffic calming pavement
and crosswalks to promote safe passage between parking and the park’s new
entry plaza adjacent to the existing kiln trail and Pump House. Visitors are treated
to a striking view of the bluff’s highest point when they cross the street from the
parking lot toward the park. Prairie plantings on both sides of e 5th street bring
a bit of the blufftop landscape to the base. the future Riverfront Regional trail
travels past the parking lot, and utilizes Barn Bluff’s plaza as a trailhead.
the new park entry incorporates an interpretive walk along the base of the bluff
between the existing kiwanis stairs and the new plaza, with interpretive panels
along the reservoir as a key feature. the plaza functions as a central amenity,
providing water, waste receptacles, bike parking, and a repurposed and expanded
Pump House with restrooms, visitor information, and interpretation. Before
permanent restrooms are constructed, screened porta potties will be installed to
serve visitors. the adjacent lawn offers room to gather. Design of the entry plaza
achieves one of the goals of the master plan to ensure that the majority of park
improvements occur off the bluff. the plaza provides everything a visitor should
need to prepare for a trip within the park, so that once begun, the experience is
kept as natural as possible, uninterrupted by excessive human interventions.
the entry plaza leads to a new park trail that takes a more gradual, immersive
approach to entering the park and offers a foil to the abrupt ascent of the existing
kiwanis stairs. Visitors can take a climbing causeway or an aDa accessible ramp
to a new memorial space with a focus on He Mni Can’s significance to the Dakota.
Vegetation along the new trail is of poor quality, and restoration work should be
completed in conjunction with the trail’s construction. a woodland trail junction
unites both entry trails with the Midland and Quarry trails. Here, the understory is
cleared to form a circle, but trees remain within the space. stones mark the circular
edge and double as seating. Wayfinding directs visitors to choose from the Quarry
trail, the Midland trail, or the south trail.
the existing kiwanis stairway should be maintained and repaired as needed,
but the upper landing requires some intervention. the concrete slab should be
removed in lieu of a circular, natural surface landing. Vegetation surrounding the
landing should be maintained to form a threshold where prairie meets forest. the
information kiosk at the upper landing is relocated to the base of the stairs.
Bike parking
Expansion of pump house
Interpretation and visitor information
Parking
precedenTs
24 He MnI Can | BaRn BlUFF PaRk MasteR Plan: jUne 2016
West Overlook Improvement area
Barn Bluff’s West Overlook is relatively new and in good shape; however, the
portion of the Prairie trail leading down to it is steep and eroding, creating unsafe
conditions. additionally, the trail travels through sensitive cultural resources,
which challenges the integrity of this sacred place. In order to provide the
proper buffer around cultural resources, the City should work with the tribal
Preservation Officer with the Prairie Island Indian Community and the american
legion Commander to evaluate the potential to relocate the flag pole to another
location on the bluff and to reroute the Prairie trail farther south. the new
alignment helps to traverse the steep grades better than the existing path; at
roughly 8%, the new route is an easier hike, and will prevent further erosion of
the blufftop. a set of steps completes the new trail’s connection to the existing
West Overlook. the existing network of trails that is being bypassed should be
permanently closed and restored to prairie. Until established, trail camouflage
techniques should be employed in conjunction with educational efforts to inform
people why the trail has been rerouted and why visitors should respect the old
trail’s closure. Refer to the March 2015 Barn Bluff landscape Guidelines document
for further information.
Figure 3.3 West overlook iMProveMent area Plan
West Overlook Improvement Area
realig n e d p r a i r i e t r a il
north
t
r
ai
l
0 75 150 300
flag pole(evaluate relocation)
camouflage
a
n
d
r
e
s
t
o
r
e
o
l
d
trails to pr
a
i
r
i
e
west overlook
restore citizen’s memorial stairway
Evaluate flag pole relocation and realign Prairie
Trail to prevent continued erosion of steep path
25 03: PaRk MasteR Plan
Reconfiguring the trail alignment leading down
to the east overlook is essential to reducing
erosion and improving user safety
east Overlook Improvement area
located on the eastern terminus of the Prairie trail, the east Overlook has a primal
draw. Views from Barn Bluff’s highest point stretch out for miles in all directions,
and the sheer cliff and steep slopes that border the Overlook lend a thrill to
the experience. the safety concerns inherent with this type of landscape are an
obvious issue, as are erosion and accessibility.
While the east Overlook begins at the peak of Barn Bluff, the most sought after
vista is actually about 30 feet lower, on the very edge of the eastern rock face.
Visitors clamber over eroded soils and exposed, crumbling bedrock to reach
this final overlook, worsening the trail’s condition over time. loosened rocks are
tempting to toss over the edge, presenting dangerous conditions for climbers
on the Quarry trail below. these problems can be remedied through subtle
realignments of the trail’s descent, and the experience can be enhanced through
careful orchestration of stopping points and views.
the east Overlook Improvement area Plan reconfigures the trail alignment using
a combination of sloped grades and steps to focus traffic, reduce erosion, and
provide a more controlled descent to the final overlook. existing users tend to
stop to take in views at three distinct points, a concept preserved in the plan
through a series of small, circular overlooks formed by rocks and vegetation.
as visitors make their way down to the final overlook, the path becomes more
rugged and natural, with limestone steps transitioning to limestone blocks. the
limestone blocks surrounding the lowest vista form a seatwall and function as a
Figure 3.4
east overlook iMProveMent area Plan
» 3 tiers of circular overlooks
»steps combined with sloped grades help
to traverse the terrain
»existing trail realigned to better
accommodate grade changes and
prevent continued erosion
»limestone steps transition to natural
stone blocks as the final overlook
approaches
» Boulders interspersed with prairie grasses
frame the first two vistas, providing a
visual edge without requiring railings
»a circle of limestone blocks defines the
final overlook. this area is held back
slightly from the cliff edge, so there’s no
immediate drop below
26 He MnI Can | BaRn BlUFF PaRk MasteR Plan: jUne 2016
Figure 3.5 envisioning Carlson kiln Plaza
Mill Ruins Park in Minneapolis uses a similar
aluminum grate platform on this sensitive site
semi-transparent aluminum grating
allows views to ground below
Interpretive
Displays
detail lime
production
process
platform
set at same
elevation as
second floor
of historic
lime house
kiln trail
realigned to
follow historic
quarry road
benched into
the slope
hard edge to establish a zone of safety, beyond which exploration is discouraged.
G.a. Carlson lime kiln + plaza Improvement area
the City of Red Wing has received a grant from the Minnesota Historical society
for the repair and preservation of the G.a. Carlson lime kiln. Presently, there is an
informal space set below the face of the kiln where visitors can view its facade.
Fencing has been installed around the structure to prevent people from climbing
remnant lime piles to get a closer look. In order to offer visitors a better view of
the kiln without risking damage to the City’s future investment in the structure,
the master plan recommends constructing Carlson kiln Plaza; this low-impact
platform creates a formal space for interpretation and a proper place to admire
this important vestige of Barn Bluff’s working history.
the Plaza’s semi-transparent aluminum grate surface allows visitors to see
through to the base of the kiln below. the platform is set at the same elevation
as the kiln’s historic lime House (demolished), and features built-in displays to
showcase interpretive items. Programming of the space could be a collaboration
with Goodhue County Historical society, or other interested organizations, with
27 03: PaRk MasteR Plan
trail Improvements plan
Trail invenTory
a comprehensive inventory of all named trails was conducted as part of the
master plan site analysis. the inventory identified existing conditions along all
trails within the park and categorized the types and severity of issues proposed
improvements need to address. these issues include:
»safety: steep slopes and drop-offs adjacent to trails contribute to fall hazards,
and uneven treads pose serious tripping hazards.
»erosion: Poorly designed trails cause erosion damage that is difficult to
restore.
»visual impacts: eroding trails pose unsightly negative impacts.
»cultural resource impacts: there are known locations where trails impact
sensitive historic cultural resources.
»system gaps: When desire lines of travel are not formalized as trails, or when
paths to desired locations are not clearly marked, visitors often make their
own way, creating “volunteer trails” over time.
the inventory conducted is graphically summarized in Figure 3.6 which shows
trails segments with moderate and severe erosion. these trails can be difficult
to navigate due to uneven surfaces. Combined with steep grades, the trails in
red pose the greatest risk to visitors and degradation to the landscape. analysis
indicated 1,190 feet of severely eroded trail, and nearly 4,000 feet of moderately
eroded trail. Reconstruction or rehabilitation of these segments will be needed to
correct these impacts.
the inventory also identified three known locations where trails conflict or
impact historic cultural resources—an issue only remedied through trail
realignment.
Finally, some trails have immediate fall hazards in several locations. the north
trail specifically, suffers from fall hazards along most of its length. some
remediation may be possible; however, alerting users to the presence of hazards
and providing information about safe and responsible trail use will be the first
strategy to prevent injuries.
Trail issues and iMproveMenT needs
several criteria are considered in the design and improvement of the trails:
Key design criteria
»restorative: trail interventions should not cause harm to the site’s habitats;
and should facilitate respectful use of the landscape.
»historic: trails should complement historic conditions and design should
strive to reflect historic character.
»functional: trail interventions must be durable (50+ years with timely minor
maintenance), and effective.
»reasonable: Implementation effort and cost must be worth the gain.
»aesthetic: trails must not contribute to negative visual impacts.The condition of Barn Bluff’s trail system is varied
28 He MnI Can | BaRn BlUFF PaRk MasteR Plan: jUne 2016
susTainable design sTandards
to be durable, trail improvements must also follow several standards for
sustainable design. trails are most often unsustainable because of improper
design and deferred maintenance. excessive erosion, primarily from drainage
issues, and to a lesser extent from foot traffic, is the most damaging aspect of
unsustainable trails. sustainable trail development focuses on preventing erosion
through thoughtful management of water and the use of durable materials and
construction methods.
design standards to follow
the following publications are the best known resources for local implementation
of sustainable trail design.
»trail Planning, Design, and Development Guidelines, Minnesota Department
of natural Resources, trails and Waterways, copyright 2006 state of Minnesota.
Primary author jeff schoenbauer.
»trail solutions: IMBa’s Guide to Building sweet singletrack. By the
International Mountain Bicycling association, 2004.
-While specific to mountain bike trails, the trail building fundamentals and
techniques found here are often transferable to the design of other trails.
Trail Width
Rules of thumb to apply for trails are:
» 18 - 30” for single walker
» 36 -48” for side by side.
» 60-72” for staggered with single user room to pass
» 84 – 96” for staggered with two hikers room to pass
(Standards from Trail Planning, Design, and Development Guidelines,
MN DNR, 2006, page 6.2)
Failure to make the trail wide enough will result in users widening it over time,
which can lead to erosion and negatively impact natural resources. trails at Barn
Bluff should vary in width to respond to traffic volume and natural features.
A Sustainable Trail:
is stable with little to no erosion
has a compacted and/or rocky tread with limited soil
displacement from foot traffic
has a constant outslope to the extent reasonably possible
has sufficient drainage outlets that limit erosion
has little to no pan (compacted middle area of trail)
The trail width was inadequate along this portion
of the South Trail, resulting in a second trail
forming alongside the first. Panning along the first
trail is severe in spots.
Trail analysis.Barn Bluff MasT er Plan
Trail analysis north trail
• Should be re-opened
• Loop experience missed
• Minor safety improvements desired
• Fall hazards nearly the entire length of trail
present serious risk
• Trail not suitable for use in certain conditions,
such as ice
• Visitors assume risk but effective safety
improvements are needed to reduce City liability
PoorunsafeOkay
Condition Safety Signage
Condition Safety Signage
GoodModerateGood prairie trail
• Very steep on way to West Overlook
• Spectacular views for much of length
• Many areas of the trail have moderate ro server
erosion issues
• Certain sections of trail have potential to damage
cultural resources
• Signficant fall hazards exist at the very east end
• Entire trail identified as a historic route
soU th trail
• Grade can be somewhat challenging in spots
• Erosion and panning present, sometimes severe
• Proximity to dropoffs can feel unsafe in places
• Direct and obvious route with adequate signage at
connecting trails
Condition Safety Signage
Moderate GoodModerate
QU arry trail
• Eroding in places. Wooden treads breaking down
• Many volunteer trails cut through forest nearby
(should be controlled)
• Rocks thrown from East overlook pose threat to
safety of climbers and people on trail
Condition Safety Signage
ModerateOkay Okay
C arlson K iln
trail
• Lack of signage and position adjacent to railroad
tracks make it less attractive to visitors
• Could be made ADA with minor improvements
Condition Safety Signage
Good s afe Poor
MiDlanD trail
• Narrow with some tripping hazards
• Encroaching vegetation- much buckthorn
• Not obvious from mapping/signage
• Identified as an historic trail route
Condition Safety Signage
ModeratePoorPoor
su MMary O f PredOMinaT e Trail i ssues:
• s afety: steep slopes contributing to falling, drop offs adjacent to
trails, serious tripping hazards on trail tread, similar
• e rosion: Most often from poorly designed trails, causing
ecological damage that is very difficult to restore and is visually
offensive
• Visual i mpact: Negative impact
• Cultural r esource i mpact: Some resource is negatively
impacted
• s ystem Gap: What users are looking for isn’t officially provided –
hence development of volunteer trails
suMMary Of TeChniCal
analysis:
• 3 known trail conflicts with cultural
resources
• 1,190 feet of severely eroded trail
• 3,924 feet of moderately eroded trail
• Significant site specific safety hazards
related to drop offs immediately
adjacent to trails
desiG n
CO nsideraTiO ns:
• New elements should be
compatible with historic
materials, features, size, and
proportion.
• Sensitivity to significant cultural
resources and use is required.
TyP es O f d esiG n r esPOnses:
• Trail d evelopment – new trails to fill a gap or solve a problem related
to safety, erosion, visual, cultural impacts
• Trail i mprovement – may involve a range of solutions including
addition of steps, deberming, widening, narrowing, and adding safety
improvements (walls, handrails, similar)
• Trail r ealignment – for safety, to avoid/reduce visual and cultural
impacts, create a sustainable trail
• Trail Closure and Restoration – for a significant reason
• User r esponsibility – Add signage detailing why it’s important to stay
on the trails
K iwanis stairs
• Identified as a historic resources
Condition Safety Signage
s afeOkay Good
While erosion is not a major concern on the north
trail, Fall h azards present a very serious risk.
shortcut poses signiF icant
slipping and F all hazards
and is one oF the most
eroded trails in park.Central StairsTrail analysis.Barn Bluff MasT er Plan
Trail analysis
north trail
• Should be re-opened
• Loop experience missed
• Minor safety improvements desired
• Fall hazards nearly the entire length of trail
present serious risk
• Trail not suitable for use in certain conditions,
such as ice
• Visitors assume risk but effective safety
improvements are needed to reduce City liability
Poor unsafe Okay
Condition Safety Signage
Condition Safety Signage
Good Moderate Good prairie trail
• Very steep on way to West Overlook
• Spectacular views for much of length
• Many areas of the trail have moderate ro server
erosion issues
• Certain sections of trail have potential to damage
cultural resources
• Signficant fall hazards exist at the very east end
• Entire trail identified as a historic route
soU th trail
• Grade can be somewhat challenging in spots
• Erosion and panning present, sometimes severe
• Proximity to dropoffs can feel unsafe in places
• Direct and obvious route with adequate signage at
connecting trails
Condition Safety Signage
Moderate GoodModerate
QU arry trail
• Eroding in places. Wooden treads breaking down
• Many volunteer trails cut through forest nearby
(should be controlled)
• Rocks thrown from East overlook pose threat to
safety of climbers and people on trail
Condition Safety Signage
ModerateOkay Okay
C arlson K iln
trail
• Lack of signage and position adjacent to railroad
tracks make it less attractive to visitors
• Could be made ADA with minor improvements
Condition Safety Signage
Good safe Poor
MiD lanD trail
• Narrow with some tripping hazards
• Encroaching vegetation- much buckthorn
• Not obvious from mapping/signage
• Identified as an historic trail route
Condition Safety Signage
Moderate PoorPoor
su MMary O f PredOMinaT e Trail i ssues:
• s afety: steep slopes contributing to falling, drop offs adjacent to
trails, serious tripping hazards on trail tread, similar
• e rosion: Most often from poorly designed trails, causing
ecological damage that is very difficult to restore and is visually
offensive
• Visual i mpact: Negative impact
• Cultural r esource i mpact: Some resource is negatively
impacted
• s ystem Gap: What users are looking for isn’t officially provided –
hence development of volunteer trails
su MMary O f TeC hniC al
a nalysis:
• 3 known trail conflicts with cultural
resources
• 1,190 feet of severely eroded trail
• 3,924 feet of moderately eroded trail
• Significant site specific safety hazards
related to drop offs immediately
adjacent to trails
desiG n
CO nsideraTiO ns:
• New elements should be
compatible with historic
materials, features, size, and
proportion.
• Sensitivity to significant cultural
resources and use is required.
TyP es O f d esiG n r esPOnses:
• Trail d evelopment – new trails to fill a gap or solve a problem related
to safety, erosion, visual, cultural impacts
• Trail i mprovement – may involve a range of solutions including
addition of steps, deberming, widening, narrowing, and adding safety
improvements (walls, handrails, similar)
• Trail r ealignment – for safety, to avoid/reduce visual and cultural
impacts, create a sustainable trail
• Trail Closure and Restoration – for a significant reason
• User r esponsibility – Add signage detailing why it’s important to stay
on the trails
K iwanis stairs
• Identified as a historic resources
Condition Safety Signage
s afeOkay Good
While erosion is not a major concern on the north
trail, Fall h azards present a very serious risk.
shortcut poses signiF icant
slipping and F all hazards
and is one oF the most
eroded trails in park.Central Stairssteep slope +
adjacent fall hazard
vehicular access needed
+ steep slope repair
shortcuts between
quarry trails present
29 03: PaRk MasteR Plan
unfold To see
The Trails,
circulaTion &
access plan for
he Mni can / barn
bluff parK
Figure 3.6 trails analysis suMMary graPhiC
-He Mni Can | Barn Bluff Park Trails, Circulation, & Access Plan
midland trail
entry trail
quarry
t
r
a
i
l
north trail
south trail
highway 61
5th str
e
e
t
mississippi river
missi
s
s
i
p
p
i
r
i
v
e
r
south trail
south trail
prairi
e
t
r
a
i
l
prairi
e
t
r
ai
l
B
y
p
a
s
s
prairie trail
carlson kiln trail
kiln overlook trail spur
central kiwanis stairway
oak grove
south prairie south forest
east prairie
oak savanna
north forest
west prairie
east kiwanis stairway
t rail junction
west overlook
restored citizen’s memorial stairway
Camouflage
previous trail
network here
P
P
P
East Overlook
regraded
according to
Improvement
Area Plan
Kiln Overlook Trail
Spur created off of
Quarry Trail (uses
existing historical
road bed)
New entry trail connects entry plaza to a Dakota
Memorial and a new trail junction. Option of
taking a climbing causeway (series of ramped
steps) or an ADA accessible ramp to the Memorial
east overlook
Park Entry circulation
reconfigured according to
Improvement Area Plan:
• Riverfront Regional Trail
• Neighborhood Connector Trail
• Entry Plaza Connected to
Kiwanis Stairway by an
Interpretive Walk
• Future trail connection to
Colvill Park
Prairie Trail
realigned to improve
grade (8%), reduce
erosion, and avoid
sensitive cultural
resources.
Portions of South
Trail engineered
for vehicular access
(aids in construction/
repair/maintenance/
emergency access
on top of bluff).
Materials used will
be aesthetically
appropriate and
walkable.
North trail re-opened with additional
safety measures, including:
»Anchored cable hand-hold
»Pinned log/rock border where feasible
»Tread/base improvements where
needed
»Posted signage notifying users of risk
and trail conditions
Carlson
Kiln Trail
relocated to
historical
quarry road
bed, benched
into slope
h
i
g
hw
a
y
6
3
»Shortcut trail
removed and
restored
»Prairie Trail Bypass
(stair-trail combo)
created to replace
shortcut
5th Street signage
from downtown to
Barn Bluff made
more visible.
Hwy 61 overpass
redesigned to
create gateway
(coordinate
with Hwy 61
construction).
Figure 3.7 trails, CirCulation, & aCCess Plan
30 He MnI Can | BaRn BlUFF PaRk MasteR Plan: jUne 2016
31 03: PaRk MasteR Plan
trail Design at the park
sTandards parTicularly applicable To he Mni can / barn bluff parK Trails include:
»alignment in regards to slope: Design the alignment with respect to existing topography such that trail grade does not
exceed standards, otherwise water management issues compound rapidly and an unsatisfactory trail will develop.
»full bench cuts for new trail: this is often ignored, resulting in trails with one half of the tread made from fill material cut
from the other half of the trail. Unless the fill is rocky and contains the right mix of sizes, it will excessively compact and
erode, resulting in a failed trail.
»Tread hardening: Use the right combination of native and if necessary, imported materials to ensure compaction and
stability.
»proper trail width: a trail can have a varied width to respond to obstacles and add interest. Fortunately, most of the named
trails on Barn Bluff have naturally evolved to an appropriate width to accomodate traffic volumes and adjacent topography.
-An exception to the generally appropriate existing trail widths are small lengths of the North Trail. Here the tread can be less
than 18” and widening to 18” may be necessary.
feaTures of The Trails, circulaTion & access plan
Figure 3.7 illustrates the overall improvements to He Mni Can/ Barn Bluff Park’s trails, circulation, and access. Outside of the new
park entry, there is not much need for new trails. the kiln Overlook trail spur follows an existing quarry road and offers access
to the top of the Carlson kiln, where interpretation on the kiln’s role in the historical quarrying and lime creation process can
be explored. the new Park entry trail offers access up the bluff directly from the new entry Plaza, via a climbing causeway, and
also offers an aDa option to a proposed Dakota Memorial. a woodland trail junction where the Quarry, entry, Midland, and
south trails meet offers a great on-bluff gathering place and orientation point for the journey. Other new paths include an
interpretive walk along the cistern’s proposed interpretive panels between the east kiwanis stairs and the new entry Plaza. safe
crossings of e 5th street are facilitated by crosswalks and traffic calming pavement.
access to the Park is improved by the addition of more visible signage along e 5th street from downtown, a formal gateway at
the Hwy 61 overpass, and additional parking, both on-street and off. a neighborhood connector trail and the future Riverfront
Regional trail will both facilitate access for non-motorized users.
existing trail routes that are badly eroded or pose danger to cultural resources are realigned in order to remedy issues (Prairie
trail Bypass, Prairie trail descent to the east Overlook, and the Prairie trail near the West Overlook). the decomissioned paths
replaced by the realigned trails need special attention. It is imperative that adequate resources be dedicated to the restoration
of these areas to their designated habitat. educational signage, trail camouflage techniques, access barriers, and vegetative
restoration all must be utilized to prevent these areas from being returned to trails.
the Carlson kiln trail is realigned to follow a historical quarry road, a route which distances the user from the railroad
tracks, and connects to an aDa path to the future Dakota Memorial and entry trail. Most other existing trails require minor
maintenance with some sections of more intensive repair. a portion of the south trail must be converted to handle vehicular
traffic in order to support future construction and maintenance activities farther up the bluff. With minor base improvements
to the north trail, the addition of a cable hand-hold, edging, and improved educational/trail conditions signage, the trail loop
at He Mni Can/ Barn Bluff will be able to be reopened.
In order to implement the features of the trails, Circulation, and access Plan, further engineering and design must be done on
the steep portions of the south trail, the east Overlook, and the kiwanis steps. Most other trail maintenance and improvements
can be done in the field.
32 He MnI Can | BaRn BlUFF PaRk MasteR Plan: jUne 2016
trail Design tool kit
the following ‘tools’ are the strategies and techniques to be used for trail
improvement work. these recommendations are derived from a detailed analysis
of the existing trails, in context of the vision and guiding principles for the park,
and a comprehensive understanding of sustainable trail design and remediation.
design soluTions for sTeep grades
steep grade Management (steps)
steps provide an erosion free way to negotiate steep grades where there is
no other viable option. Considering the natural and historic character of He
Mni Can / Barn Bluff, limestone steps, of a color and character similar to the
indigenous stone, are recommended. It is necessary to use a hard limestone that
is durable, resistant to flaking, and can be expected to last 50+ years. a 7” riser
is recommended to ascend slopes more quickly than risers of lesser height and
reduce the overall number of steps.
Use only where no other viable option to negotiate the slope and nearly
eliminate erosion is possible.
Types of steps to consider:
» Imported stone
-Stone must have excellent durability and match closely to the native limestone
found on the bluff (the local limestone, however, is too fragile for long term use
as steps).
»salvaged stone steps
-These may be collected from onsite or nearby locations with similar native
stone material for unique small applications.
examples of locations in need of steps:
» Prairie trail Bypass: just above the Central kiwanis steps, the trail goes
through a heavily eroding ravine where water is channelized. alternatives to
steps are extremely problematic.
» Quarry trail shortcuts: Where users are interested in ascending the bluff faster
than the circuitous trail route allows, they tend to create shortcut trails up the
hill. steps in one location will sustainably provide this shortcut option.
engineered hardened Trails for steep grades with vehicle use
(South Trail only)
about 950’ of the south trail spans grades from 9% up to 19% and is severely
eroded. Vehicles (for maintenance and construction) must be able to drive on
the surface. an engineered approach was developed with the intent to build
this section of trail to near road-like standards, including base preparation and
effective water management (ditches, pipes, ponding). Hardened surfacing
should accommodate occasional heavy equipment use, be hiker friendly, and
appear visually and historically acceptable.
Imported Stone Stairs
Engineered Slope
33 03: PaRk MasteR Plan
design soluTions for safeTy issues
Many variables affect trail safety, including: weather; trail design and condition; a
user’s age, experience, ability, or behavior; available light and visibility; and cover
of the trail surface by snow, ice, or leaf litter. a significant safety issue exists when:
»a minor error in judgment or a moment of inattention could result in serious
injury or worse.
»the user is likely to encounter trip hazards, very steep slopes, loose rocks on
trail, or other features that increase the likelihood of a slip or fall. Many of the
volunteer trails fit this description.
»the user is unaware of hidden, inconspicuous hazards (example: possible sink
holes above the Carlson kiln).
»locations are prone to hazardous circumstances, such as rocks falling onto
climbers or trail users below.
safety – adjacent fall hazard
nearly vertical to vertical drop offs exist along the edge of some trails and bluff
locations, creating a serious safety concern. this is especially true for much of the
1,700’ length of the north trail. tools to address this include:
»eyebolt/cable Handhold
Install eyebolts on posts or into bedrock along the uphill side of adjacent fall
hazards. string a coated cable (3/8” diameter or greater) through the eyebolts to
serve as a handhold. this solution is used on trails with similar hazards elsewhere
in the country. the eyebolt design mimics the existing eyebolts embedded into
the quarry walls used for rock climbing.
even with the addition of a handrail or handholds, the north trail should remain
closed when ice and/or snow covered.
» Other adjacent Fall Hazard tools
-Trail Realignment: Where a length of trail could be rerouted to reduce the
hazard.
-Signage: Use warning signs to educate trail users on proper safety etiquette.
-Visual Cues: Log or stone borders can be used to signal the edge. Larger stone
blocks can be placed to denote a barrier and provide a resting place.
safety – Tread related
Poor tread conditions can contribute to tripping and falling. a tread-related
safety issue exists where:
» Protruding objects like rocks and tree roots present a tripping hazard.
»slippery conditions from mud, ice, snow, or wet leaf litter are found.
»erosion has created deeply entrenched ruts that can twist ankles.
»loose rocks or gravel acts like ball bearings, creating slipping hazards.
Cable Handhold
Pinned log border to signal edge
Hazard Signage
34 He MnI Can | BaRn BlUFF PaRk MasteR Plan: jUne 2016
Trail Tread related Tools
ensure that the trail meets sustainable design standards; sustainable design
greatly increases safety.
»tread Rehabilitation – see Design solutions for Water Management
» Hazard Removal: Remove rocks, roots, and other protrusions, or route trail
around hazards. the removal of protruding rocks on the north trail, (except
where converted to use as stairs), would substantially improve safety.
» Width: a trail of proper width tends to keep people on the trail, where the
environment is designed to be safe
Kiwanis stairs
the three sets of existing kiwanis stairs are all in need of repair:
»east stairs (existing entry access): Minor concrete repair to stair treads
» Central stairs: Minor concrete repair to stair treads and erosion control along
slopes adjacent to stairs
»north trail stairs: these are the most severely compromised. Reconstruction
here is essential to reopening a trail loop. a structural evaluation should
precede any work done, to determine the extent of the damage. at minimum,
concrete repair is required, as well as replacement of missing treads and
handrails.
design soluTions for WaTer ManageMenT
erosion, primarily from poorly design trails, is the primary threat to historic
character and a substantial threat to ecological conditions on the bluff. tools to
manage water onsite include:
sustainable design
»see summary and resources on page 28
» It will not be possible to convert all trails to sustainable standards, but the
application of certain techniques for much of the trail system is feasible.
raising Tread elevation
this reduces the concentration of water to just what falls on the trail. see
Outslope.
de-berming
this removes the outside berm that develops as the trail tread compacts and soil
migrates to the edges (pan development).
outslope
De-berming, along with a constant 2-3% outslope on the trail, is a core
sustainable design technique. this prevents water from puddling or
concentrating.
Tread hardening
Hardening the tread through the precise use of stone and fines is a durable
East Kiwanis Stairs at Park Entry
Central Kiwanis Stairs
Kiwanis Stairs at North Trail
35 03: PaRk MasteR Plan
solution to the issue of muddy trails. as example, about 350’ of the south trail
is flat, cannot drain well, and becomes very muddy. Users walk on the edges to
avoid the mud, which widens the trail, resulting in muddier trail. Hardening the
surface is recommended in this situation.
Hardening is accomplished by use of graded rock such that the largest stones
become firmly embedded with only the tops exposed, while the spaces between
are filled with smaller, compacted materials.
Hardening Approach:
» Use 1 ½” crushed limestone, with smaller sizes and fines in between, to raise
the trail surface to drain across the top of the outside berm. Do not de-berm
as the berm serves to hold the outside edge of the stone in place.
»to reduce the visually jarring impact of freshly crushed limestone, the surface
of the trail can be deliberately muddied by sprinkling soil over the top.
However, over time the limestone will weather to a more neutral appearance.
Use of Aggregate
When discussing the Prairie trail, the Barn Bluff Cultural landscape Report
(two Pines Resource Group, llC january 2015) does not recommend the
use of crushed rock (page 75). It is understood that this is in reference to
the ¾” aggregate rock installed from the flagpole to the West Overlook. the
recommendation to use rock for hardening (but nOt ¾” on the surface), along
with staining it with soil, is a much different use.
Water diversion
numerous places exist where concentrated water flows must cross the trail. While
de-berming and creating outslopes can minimize water concentration, erosion
resistant water diversions are necessary. these can be accomplished through
armoring the trail with salvaged stone at diversion areas, or creating wooden or
earthen berm water bars at specified intervals. at some locations, armoring will
need to be done for 10’ or more downhill of the trail until an erosion free outlet is
possible.
design soluTions for Walls
stone wall remnants are common along the Midland trail and between east 5th
street and the Carlson kiln. Walls are effective to:
» Hold up a short length of trail that needs lateral support
»allow a trail to be raised up and over a drainage way
» Hold back soil/rock on the uphill side of a trail and provide informal seating
existing Wall repair:
the repair of an existing stone wall could provide a benefit – this may especially
be applicable to the walls along the Midland trail.
new stone walls:
Use stones unobtrusively salvaged from nearby.
29
IC4011 (Rev. 02/24/2009)
Figure 6. Earth Berm Water Bar Construction.
(Re-printed courtesy of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources)
Table 3. Water Bar & Cross Drain Spacing Intervals.
Road Grade
(percent)
Spacing
(feet)
2 250
5 135
10 80
15 60
20 45
30 35
Conveyor Belt Water Bars
On active roads or trails, conveyor belts, old snowmobile treads, and similar material (see
Figure 7) can be used instead of soil to build water bars. The material is buried on edge in the
traffic surface. It bends over to let wheeled vehicles easily pass, but diverts water off of the
road. These structures work best on forest roads used by automobile traffic or trails designated
for use by off-road vehicles, such as motorcycles and quadrunners.
They are not a good option on active skid trails where the butt of a log or log is skidded on the
ground and passes over the conveyer belt portion of the water bar. Moving tracked equipment
over these devices is also harmful to the integrity of the belt portion of the water bar. In both
cases, these actions break down the belt material and destroy the ability of this type of water
bar to divert water off the road or trail.
Wooden Water Bar Construction
Tread Hardening
Earthen Berm Water Bar Construction
36 He MnI Can | BaRn BlUFF PaRk MasteR Plan: jUne 2016
decoMMissioning of exisTing Trails
Due to steep slopes, compacted and low fertility soil, and the challenge of
keeping users off of restored or sensitive areas, considerable effort will be
required to successfully decommission trails. nearly all of the decommission work
required is in a prairie environment. the work involves:
» Grade Restoration: Use locally salvaged fill. Do not import fill because it could
contain the seeds of undesirable species
»seeding/Planting: Use only appropriate native species
»erosion Control: essential to success and may include biodegradable erosion
control blanket, water bars, or other water diversion techniques
» Barriers/signs: Clearly mark off-limits areas until restoration is complete.
Inform the public why the restoration was done and why it’s important to stay
off of it.
»education: Building understanding of He Mni Can’s cultural significance to the
Dakota could help to prevent continued use of decomissioned trails through
sensitive areas on top of the bluff.
the Trail Planning, Design, and Development Guidelines provide detailed
information on decommissioning.
informal / volunteer Trail decommission and Management
Over 5,500 linear feet of un-named, informal trails exist on the Bluff. some of
these are fall line trails with highly visible, severe erosion. Other informal trails,
such as those through the oak savannah on the blufftop, have few issues with
erosion. these trails exist because they:
»traverse a portion of the Bluff not served by named trails
»are a shortcut between desirable destinations, such as from the east end of
the Prairie trail to the Midland trail and then to east 5th street
» Offer a challenge/adventure to some users
this Plan recommends a focused effort to reduce/eliminate use of the informal
fall line trails – especially the multiple trails from the Prairie trail down the bluff.
tools to help accomplish this include:
» Constructing the Prairie trail Bypass to offer a more convenient and safe
shortcut than the existing shortcut trail
»education: Communicate the issues that arise when users don’t stay on
marked trails, and broadcast the risks associated with off-trail exploration
» Be vigilant in restoration of the fall line trails: users may avoid making new
trails if they see that footpaths are restored quickly and clearly marked as off-
limits
Informal paths, like this one near the Prairie Trail,
expand over time and require attention and
enforcement at early stages in order to prevent
them from becoming accepted trails.
37 03: PaRk MasteR Plan
MainTenance
every reasonable effort has been made in this plan to design for a durable and
effective trail system that will minimize erosion. as is the case with most facilities,
timely and effective maintenance is required to preserve the investment in
improvement. the most effective tasks are de-berming, outslope maintenance,
and water diversion.
the timing of performing these tasks is dependent mostly upon use and weather
conditions, but a yearly inspection and intervention effort is recommended. In
addition to City efforts, Friends of the Bluffs and other local organizations may
want to be partners in maintenance. Holding an annual stewardship weekend
can be a great way to build community and help to keep the bluff’s trails in prime
condition.
Regarding management, as is City practice now, the north trail must be closed
when ice/snow conditions exist. temporary trail closure of any trail for other
reasons, such as rock slides, deadfalls, or hazard trees, may be required.
38 He MnI Can | BaRn BlUFF PaRk MasteR Plan: jUne 2016
south trail Improvements
souTh Trail
the south trail stretches 2,855 feet from the top of the entry kiwanis stairs, to the
central kiwanis stairs, and continues west to a junction with the Prairie trail. the
trail inventory identified approximately 1,500 feet of severe erosion. Predominate
issues to address with trail improvements include: severe erosion, adjacent fall
hazards, vehicular access, and extents of muddy trail. tools needed to correct
these issues will include trail widening in spots, trail hardening, an engineered
hardened tread, water diversion, de-berming, and outslope maintenance.
Occasional stairs may be required to navigate grades without continued erosion.
Figure 3.8 south trail IIII I
III II II II II I
III II
II II III
III
II
II I
III II I
II
II
IIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIII
IIIIII
II
II
II II
IIIIII IIII
II
II
IIIIIIIIII
II
IIII
II
II
II
II
II
II
IIII
II
IIII
II
II
II
II
II
II
IIIIII
II
II
II
II
IIIIIIIII I
II
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIII I
III II II II II I
III II
II II III
III
II
II I
III II I
II
II
IIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIII
IIIIII
II
II
II II
IIIIII IIII
II
II
IIIIIIIIII
II
IIII
II
II
II
II
II
II
IIII
II
IIII
II
II
II
II
II
II
IIIIII
II
II
II
II
IIIIIIIII I
II
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
II789225517553000405262510
7
4
407230515621870607501715565
133579266063091244130
357
1540780250
18551632155208064
347517
6909101095
1060247
313348472162426659146171
3
8
4
13551770785264154420551
0
1
0
142
920149013502401265100425051474142111911314218010291801
6
8
5
1290
629216416507071710457
1
4
2
7
293012
6
0
2850870200525751151
2
3
0
195814
8
2
16
0
51382
30101555144974222524
1
3
1
5
112422481205401090103016
5
5
11601352220
11552135164
15157672985290589099411902265124022851185178
390365615101507500126000
0
02055Prairie T
r
a
i
l
South Trail
North Trail
Quarry Trail
0 150 300 450 600Feet[
Erosion
IIMinor/No Erosion
IIModerate Erosion
IISevere Erosion
RWBBTrailsHKGI
Erosion
IIMinor/No Erosion
IIModerate Erosion
IISevere Erosion
NotFormal
Trail analysis.Barn Bluff MasTer Plan
Trail analysis north trail
• Should be re-opened
• Loop experience missed
• Minor safety improvements desired
• Fall hazards nearly the entire length of trail
present serious risk
• Trail not suitable for use in certain conditions,
such as ice
• Visitors assume risk but effective safety
improvements are needed to reduce City liability
PoorunsafeOkay
Condition Safety Signage
Condition Safety Signage
GoodModerateGood prairie trail
• Very steep on way to West Overlook
• Spectacular views for much of length
• Many areas of the trail have moderate ro server
erosion issues
• Certain sections of trail have potential to damage
cultural resources
• Signficant fall hazards exist at the very east end
• Entire trail identified as a historic route
soU th trail
• Grade can be somewhat challenging in spots
• Erosion and panning present, sometimes severe
• Proximity to dropoffs can feel unsafe in places
• Direct and obvious route with adequate signage at
connecting trails
Condition Safety Signage
Moderate GoodModerate
QU arry trail
• Eroding in places. Wooden treads breaking down
• Many volunteer trails cut through forest nearby
(should be controlled)
• Rocks thrown from East overlook pose threat to
safety of climbers and people on trail
Condition Safety Signage
ModerateOkay Okay
C arlson K iln
trail
• Lack of signage and position adjacent to railroad
tracks make it less attractive to visitors
• Could be made ADA with minor improvements
Condition Safety Signage
Good s afe Poor
MiDlanD trail
• Narrow with some tripping hazards
• Encroaching vegetation- much buckthorn
• Not obvious from mapping/signage
• Identified as an historic trail route
Condition Safety Signage
ModeratePoorPoor
suMMary Of PredOMinaTe Trail issues:
• safety: steep slopes contributing to falling, drop offs adjacent to
trails, serious tripping hazards on trail tread, similar
• erosion: Most often from poorly designed trails, causing
ecological damage that is very difficult to restore and is visually
offensive
• Visual impact: Negative impact
• Cultural resource impact: Some resource is negatively
impacted
• system Gap: What users are looking for isn’t officially provided –
hence development of volunteer trails
suMMary Of TeChniCal
analysis:
• 3 known trail conflicts with cultural
resources
• 1,190 feet of severely eroded trail
• 3,924 feet of moderately eroded trail
• Significant site specific safety hazards
related to drop offs immediately
adjacent to trails
desiG n
CO nsideraTiO ns:
• New elements should be
compatible with historic
materials, features, size, and
proportion.
• Sensitivity to significant cultural
resources and use is required.
TyPes Of desiGn resPOnses:
• Trail development – new trails to fill a gap or solve a problem related
to safety, erosion, visual, cultural impacts
• Trail improvement – may involve a range of solutions including
addition of steps, deberming, widening, narrowing, and adding safety
improvements (walls, handrails, similar)
• Trail realignment – for safety, to avoid/reduce visual and cultural
impacts, create a sustainable trail
• Trail Closure and Restoration – for a significant reason
• User responsibility – Add signage detailing why it’s important to stay
on the trails
K iwanis stairs
• Identified as a historic resources
Condition Safety Signage
s afeOkay Good
While erosion is not a major concern on the north
trail, Fall hazards present a very serious risk.
shortcut poses signiFicant
slipping and Fall hazards
and is one oF the most
eroded trails in park.Central StairsGood
adjacent Fall Hazard -
signage or visual cue needed Vehicular access -
engineered hardened trail needed
Trail condition
Moderate Poor1480’590’785’
*
[
]
39 03: PaRk MasteR Plan
midland trail Improvements
Midland Trail
Following a historic pathway taken by quarry workers, the Midland trail extends
1,500 feet from a junction with the Quarry trail and the south trail (soon to be the
future Woodland trail junction, which will include the new entry trail as well). the
trail may need to be realigned where it meets the future Woodland trail junction.
From a technical perspective, most of the trail is in good, durable condition. Width
ranges from 18-24”, but does not appear to be too narrow to carry the amount
of traffic. limited improvements, including de-berming/outslope maintenance,
are necessary; however, public input highlights the fact the trail is difficult to find
or know where it leads. signage, wayfinding, and updated trail maps will help
this situation. Vegetation is encroaching in some areas, which can limit passage.
Regular trail maintenance can address this problem.
Figure 3.9 Midland trail IIIII
IIIIIIIIIII I
III II
II II III
III
II
II I
II
III I
II
II
IIIIIII
III
IIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIII
IIIIII
II
II
IIIIIIII
IIIIIIIII I
IIIIIIIIII
II
IIII
II
II
II
II
II
II
IIII
II
IIII
II
II
II
II
II
II
IIIIII
II
II
II
II
IIIIIIIII I
II
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIII I
III II
II II III
III
II
II I
II
III I
II
II
IIIIIII
III
IIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIII
IIIIII
II
II
IIIIIIII
IIIIIIIII I
IIIIIIIIII
II
IIII
II
II
II
II
II
II
IIII
II
IIII
II
II
II
II
II
II
IIIIII
II
II
II
II
IIIIIIIII I
II
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
II78922551755300040526251
0
74
407230515621870607501715565
133579266063091244130
357
1540780250
18551632155208064
347517
6909101095
1060247
313348472162426659146171
3
8
4
13551770785264154420551
0
1
0
142
920149013502401265100425051474142111911314218010291801
6
8
5
129
0
629216416507071710457
1
4
2
7
293012
6
0
2850870200525751151
2
3
0
19581
4
8
2
16
0
51382
30101555144974222524
1
3
1
5
112422481205401090103016
5
5
11601352220
11552135164
15157672985290589099411902265124022851185178
390365615101507500126000
0
02055Prairie T
r
a
i
l
South Trail
North Trail
Quarry Trail
0 150 300 450 600Feet[
Erosion
IIMinor/No Erosion
IIModerate Erosion
IISevere Erosion
RWBBTrailsHKGI
Erosion
IIMinor/No Erosion
IIModerate Erosion
IISevere Erosion
NotFormal
Good
Trail condition
Moderate Poor
Trail analysis.Barn Bluff MasT er Plan
Trail analysis north trail• Should be re-opened• Loop experience missed• Minor safety improvements desired • Fall hazards nearly the entire length of trail present serious risk• Trail not suitable for use in certain conditions, such as ice • Visitors assume risk but effective safety improvements are needed to reduce City liabilityPoorunsafeOkayCondition Safety SignageCondition Safety SignageGoodModerateGood prairie trail• Very steep on way to West Overlook• Spectacular views for much of length• Many areas of the trail have moderate ro server erosion issues• Certain sections of trail have potential to damage
cultural resources
• Signficant fall hazards exist at the very east end
• Entire trail identified as a historic route
soU th trail• Grade can be somewhat challenging in spots• Erosion and panning present, sometimes severe• Proximity to dropoffs can feel unsafe in places• Direct and obvious route with adequate signage at connecting trails Condition Safety SignageModerateGoodModerate QU arry trail• Eroding in places. Wooden treads breaking down
• Many volunteer trails cut through forest nearby
(should be controlled)
• Rocks thrown from East overlook pose threat to
safety of climbers and people on trail
Condition Safety SignageModerateOkayOkay
C arlson K iln
trail
• Lack of signage and position adjacent to railroad
tracks make it less attractive to visitors
• Could be made ADA with minor improvements
Condition Safety Signage
Good s afe Poor
MiD lanD trail
• Narrow with some tripping hazards
• Encroaching vegetation- much buckthorn
• Not obvious from mapping/signage
• Identified as an historic trail route
Condition Safety Signage
Moderate PoorPoor
su MMary O f PredOMinaT e Trail i ssues:
• s afety: steep slopes contributing to falling, drop offs adjacent to
trails, serious tripping hazards on trail tread, similar
• e rosion: Most often from poorly designed trails, causing
ecological damage that is very difficult to restore and is visually
offensive
• Visual i mpact: Negative impact
• Cultural r esource i mpact: Some resource is negatively
impacted
• s ystem Gap: What users are looking for isn’t officially provided –
hence development of volunteer trails
su MMary O f TeC hniC al
a nalysis:
• 3 known trail conflicts with cultural
resources
• 1,190 feet of severely eroded trail
• 3,924 feet of moderately eroded trail
• Significant site specific safety hazards
related to drop offs immediately
adjacent to trails
desiG n
CO nsideraTiO ns:
• New elements should be
compatible with historic
materials, features, size, and
proportion.
• Sensitivity to significant cultural
resources and use is required.
TyP es O f d esiG n r esPOnses:
• Trail d evelopment – new trails to fill a gap or solve a problem related
to safety, erosion, visual, cultural impacts
• Trail i mprovement – may involve a range of solutions including
addition of steps, deberming, widening, narrowing, and adding safety
improvements (walls, handrails, similar)
• Trail r ealignment – for safety, to avoid/reduce visual and cultural
impacts, create a sustainable trail
• Trail Closure and Restoration – for a significant reason
• User r esponsibility – Add signage detailing why it’s important to stay
on the trails
K iwanis stairs • Identified as a historic resourcesCondition Safety SignagesafeOkayGoodWhile erosion is not a major concern on the north trail, Fall h azards present a very serious risk.shortcut poses signiF icant slipping and F all hazards and is one oF the most eroded trails in park.Central StairsTrail analysis.Barn Bluff MasTer Plan
Trail analysis north trail
• Should be re-opened
• Loop experience missed
• Minor safety improvements desired
• Fall hazards nearly the entire length of trail
present serious risk
• Trail not suitable for use in certain conditions,
such as ice
• Visitors assume risk but effective safety
improvements are needed to reduce City liability
PoorunsafeOkay
Condition Safety Signage
Condition Safety Signage
GoodModerateGood prairie trail
• Very steep on way to West Overlook
• Spectacular views for much of length
• Many areas of the trail have moderate ro server
erosion issues
• Certain sections of trail have potential to damage
cultural resources
• Signficant fall hazards exist at the very east end
• Entire trail identified as a historic route
soU th trail
• Grade can be somewhat challenging in spots
• Erosion and panning present, sometimes severe
• Proximity to dropoffs can feel unsafe in places
• Direct and obvious route with adequate signage at
connecting trails
Condition Safety Signage
Moderate GoodModerate
QUarry trail
• Eroding in places. Wooden treads breaking down
• Many volunteer trails cut through forest nearby
(should be controlled)
• Rocks thrown from East overlook pose threat to
safety of climbers and people on trail
Condition Safety Signage
ModerateOkay Okay
Carlson K iln
trail
• Lack of signage and position adjacent to railroad
tracks make it less attractive to visitors
• Could be made ADA with minor improvements
Condition Safety Signage
Good s afe Poor
MiDlanD trail
• Narrow with some tripping hazards
• Encroaching vegetation- much buckthorn
• Not obvious from mapping/signage
• Identified as an historic trail route
Condition Safety Signage
ModeratePoorPoor
suMMary Of PredOMinaTe Trail issues:
• safety: steep slopes contributing to falling, drop offs adjacent to
trails, serious tripping hazards on trail tread, similar
• erosion: Most often from poorly designed trails, causing
ecological damage that is very difficult to restore and is visually
offensive
• Visual impact: Negative impact
• Cultural resource impact: Some resource is negatively
impacted
• system Gap: What users are looking for isn’t officially provided –
hence development of volunteer trails
suMMary Of TeChniCal
analysis:
• 3 known trail conflicts with cultural
resources
• 1,190 feet of severely eroded trail
• 3,924 feet of moderately eroded trail
• Significant site specific safety hazards
related to drop offs immediately
adjacent to trails
desiGn
COnsideraTiO ns:
• New elements should be
compatible with historic
materials, features, size, and
proportion.
• Sensitivity to significant cultural
resources and use is required.
TyPes Of desiGn resPOnses:
• Trail development – new trails to fill a gap or solve a problem related
to safety, erosion, visual, cultural impacts
• Trail improvement – may involve a range of solutions including
addition of steps, deberming, widening, narrowing, and adding safety
improvements (walls, handrails, similar)
• Trail realignment – for safety, to avoid/reduce visual and cultural
impacts, create a sustainable trail
• Trail Closure and Restoration – for a significant reason
• User responsibility – Add signage detailing why it’s important to stay
on the trails
Kiwanis stairs
• Identified as a historic resources
Condition Safety Signage
s afeOkay Good
While erosion is not a major concern on the north
trail, Fall hazards present a very serious risk.
shortcut poses signiFicant
slipping and Fall hazards
and is one oF the most
eroded trails in park.Central Stairs1156’0’344’
40 He MnI Can | BaRn BlUFF PaRk MasteR Plan: jUne 2016
Quarry trail Improvements
quarry Trail
the Quarry trail follows a historic quarry road 1,465 feet from the top of the
kiwanis entry stairs, around the east side of the bluff, past the base of the rock
climbing walls, to connect to the north trail. the trail is in great condition through
the north forest, but some erosion exists where the trail navigates grades on
the east side of the bluff. the winding nature of the trail has produced some
shortcut trails, which are beginning to exacerbate erosion. to remedy this, a set of
steps should be introduced in order to focus shortcut traffic and reduce impacts
elsewhere along the trail. tread rehabilitation including trail hardening and water
diversion in specific locations will help to prevent the severity of panning and
erosion that we see in select spots today.
Figure 3.10 Quarry trail IIIII
III II II II II I
III II
II II I
II
III
II
II I
III II I
II
II
IIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIII
IIIIII
II
II
III I
IIIIII IIII
II
II
IIIIIIIIII
II
IIII
II
II
II
II
II
II
IIII
II
IIII
II
II
II
II
II
II
IIIIII
II
II
II
II
IIIIIIIII I
II
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIII
III II II II II I
III II
II II I
II
III
II
II I
III II I
II
II
IIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIII
IIIIII
II
II
III I
IIIIII IIII
II
II
IIIIIIIIII
II
IIII
II
II
II
II
II
II
IIII
II
IIII
II
II
II
II
II
II
IIIIII
II
II
II
II
IIIIIIIII I
II
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
II7892255175530004052625107
4
407230515621870607501715565
133579266063091244130
357
1540780250
18551632155208064
347517
6909101095
1060247
313348472162426659146171
3
8
4
13551770785264154420551
0
1
0
142
920149013502401265100425051474142111911314218010291801
6
8
5
129
0
629216416507071710457
1
4
2
7
293012
6
0
2850870200525751151
2
3
0
19581
4
8
2
16
0
51382
30101555144974222524
1
3
1
5
112422481205401090103016
5
5
11601352220
11552135164
15157672985290589099411902265124022851185178
390365615101507500126000
0
02055Prairie T
r
a
i
l
South Trail
North Trail
Quarry Trail
0 150 300 450 600Feet[
Erosion
IIMinor/No Erosion
IIModerate Erosion
IISevere Erosion
RWBBTrailsHKGI
Erosion
IIMinor/No Erosion
IIModerate Erosion
IISevere Erosion
NotFormal
Good
Trail condition
Moderate Poor
Trail analysis.Barn Bluff MasTer Plan
Trail analysis north trail• Should be re-opened• Loop experience missed• Minor safety improvements desired • Fall hazards nearly the entire length of trail present serious risk• Trail not suitable for use in certain conditions, such as ice • Visitors assume risk but effective safety improvements are needed to reduce City liabilityPoorunsafeOkayCondition Safety Signage
Condition Safety Signage
GoodModerateGood prairie trail
• Very steep on way to West Overlook
• Spectacular views for much of length
• Many areas of the trail have moderate ro server
erosion issues
• Certain sections of trail have potential to damage
cultural resources
• Signficant fall hazards exist at the very east end
• Entire trail identified as a historic route
soU th trail• Grade can be somewhat challenging in spots• Erosion and panning present, sometimes severe• Proximity to dropoffs can feel unsafe in places• Direct and obvious route with adequate signage at connecting trails Condition Safety SignageModerateGoodModerate
QU arry trail
• Eroding in places. Wooden treads breaking down
• Many volunteer trails cut through forest nearby
(should be controlled)
• Rocks thrown from East overlook pose threat to
safety of climbers and people on trail
Condition Safety Signage
ModerateOkay Okay
C arlson K iln
trail
• Lack of signage and position adjacent to railroad
tracks make it less attractive to visitors
• Could be made ADA with minor improvements
Condition Safety Signage
Good s afe Poor
MiDlanD trail
• Narrow with some tripping hazards
• Encroaching vegetation- much buckthorn
• Not obvious from mapping/signage
• Identified as an historic trail route
Condition Safety Signage
ModeratePoorPoor
suMMary Of PredOMinaTe Trail issues:
• safety: steep slopes contributing to falling, drop offs adjacent to
trails, serious tripping hazards on trail tread, similar
• erosion: Most often from poorly designed trails, causing
ecological damage that is very difficult to restore and is visually
offensive
• Visual impact: Negative impact
• Cultural resource impact: Some resource is negatively
impacted
• system Gap: What users are looking for isn’t officially provided –
hence development of volunteer trails
suMMary Of TeChniCal
analysis:
• 3 known trail conflicts with cultural
resources
• 1,190 feet of severely eroded trail
• 3,924 feet of moderately eroded trail
• Significant site specific safety hazards
related to drop offs immediately
adjacent to trails
desiG n
CO nsideraTiO ns:
• New elements should be
compatible with historic
materials, features, size, and
proportion.
• Sensitivity to significant cultural
resources and use is required.
TyPes Of desiGn resPOnses:
• Trail development – new trails to fill a gap or solve a problem related
to safety, erosion, visual, cultural impacts
• Trail improvement – may involve a range of solutions including
addition of steps, deberming, widening, narrowing, and adding safety
improvements (walls, handrails, similar)
• Trail realignment – for safety, to avoid/reduce visual and cultural
impacts, create a sustainable trail
• Trail Closure and Restoration – for a significant reason
• User responsibility – Add signage detailing why it’s important to stay
on the trails
K iwanis stairs
• Identified as a historic resources
Condition Safety SignagesafeOkayGoodWhile erosion is not a major concern on the north trail, Fall hazards present a very serious risk.
shortcut poses signiFicant
slipping and Fall hazards
and is one oF the most
eroded trails in park.Central Stairs1823’80’852’
Formalize shortcut trail with stairs.
Repair erosion, restore adjacent habitat,
decomission all other shortcut trails.
41 03: PaRk MasteR Plan
prairie trail Improvements
prairie Trail
Improvements to the Prairie trail will focus on correcting the extents of severely
and moderately eroded trail. the approach to the West Overlook and the descent
to the east Overlook are both critical sections of this trail that are difficult to
navigate and continue to degrade. several realignments are proposed in order
to remove existing conflicts with sensitive historic/cultural resources, improve
safety/ease of access, and to prevent continued erosion. signage and education
about staying on the trail and respecting decomissioned trails and restoration
areas will be key to the success of the Prairie trail’s realignment, the protection of
blufftop cultural resources, and the safety of visitors.
Figure 3.11 Prairie trail
-
He Mni Can
Barn Bluff Park Master Plan
east overlook
climbing walls
clim
b
i
n
g
w
a
l
l
s
midland Trail
1
4
2
3
Entry Trail
Quarry Tr
a
i
l
north Trail
south TrailHigHway 61
5TH sTrE
E
T
missi
s
si
p
pi
ri
v
E
r
miss
i
s
s
i
p
p
i
r
i
v
E
r
south Trail
south Trail
prairie Trai
lprairie Trail
prairie Trail bypassc arlson Kiln Trail
Kiln Overlook s pur Trail
g.a. carlson lime kiln + plaza
rOcK fac E (painT ing pO licy T bd)
wEsT Q uarry
cEnT ral K iwanis sTairway
oak grove
south prairie south forest
east prairie
oak savanna
north forest
west prairie
Trail juncTiOn
west overlook
rEs TOrE d ciT izE n’s mEmO rial sTairway
fu
T
u
r
E
r
i
v
E
r
f
r
O
n
T
rE
g
i
O
n
a
l
T
r
a
i
l
fuTurE nEigHbOrHOOd cOnnEcTOr Trail fuTurE cOnnEcTiOn TO mEmOrial parK
(c
O
n
n
E
c
T
s
T
O
cO
l
v
i
l
l
p
a
r
K
)fuTurE rivErfrOnT rEgiOnal TrailH
i
g
Hw
a
y
6
3
park entry
E asT K iwanis sT airway
barn bl
u
f
f
g
a
T
E
w
a
y
lEgE nd
par K imprOvEmEn T arE as (s EE individual plans fOr addiTiO nal d ETail)
#
Good
Trail condition
Moderate Poor IIII I
III II II II II I
III II
II II III
III
II
II I
III II I
II
II
IIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIII
IIIIII
II
II
II II
IIIIII IIII
II
II
IIIIIIIIII
II
IIII
II
II
II
II
II
II
IIII
II
IIII
II
II
II
II
II
II
IIIIII
II
II
II
II
IIIIIIIII I
II
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIII I
III II II II II I
III II
II II III
III
II
II I
III II I
II
II
IIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIII
IIIIII
II
II
II II
IIIIII IIII
II
II
IIIIIIIIII
II
IIII
II
II
II
II
II
II
IIII
II
IIII
II
II
II
II
II
II
IIIIII
II
II
II
II
IIIIIIIII I
II
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
II78922551755300040526251
0
74
407230515621870607501715565
133579266063091244130
357
1540780250
18551632155208064
347517
6909101095
1060247
313348472162426659146171
3
8
4
13551770785264154420551
0
1
0
142
920149013502401265100425051474142111911314218010291801
6
8
5
1290
629216416507071710457
1
4
2
7
293012
6
0
2850870200525751151
2
3
0
19581
4
8
2
16
0
5 138230101555144974222524
1
3
1
5
112422481205401090103016
5
5
11601352220
11552135164
15157672985290589099411902265124022851185178
390365615101507500126000
0
02055Prairie T
r
a
i
l
South Trail
North Trail
Quarry Trail
0 150 300 450 600Feet[
Erosion
II Minor/No Erosion
II Moderate Erosion
II Severe Erosion
RWBBTrailsHKGI
Erosion
II Minor/No Erosion
II Moderate Erosion
II Severe Erosion
NotFormal
1081’355’1704’
Decomission
informal trails
Decomission
eroding descent to
West Overlook
Realign to improve grade navigation
& avoid cultural resources
Minor realignment to disconnect
Prairie trail from decomissioned
shortcut trail
east Overlook approach realigned
and restored to prevent erosion
current conditions
proposed alignment
]]Trail analysis.Barn Bluff MasT er Plan
Trail analysis north trail• Should be re-opened• Loop experience missed• Minor safety improvements desired • Fall hazards nearly the entire length of trail present serious risk• Trail not suitable for use in certain conditions,
such as ice
• Visitors assume risk but effective safety
improvements are needed to reduce City liability
Poor u nsafe OkayCondition Safety Signage
Condition Safety Signage
Good Moderate Good prairie trail
• Very steep on way to West Overlook
• Spectacular views for much of length
• Many areas of the trail have moderate ro server
erosion issues
• Certain sections of trail have potential to damage
cultural resources
• Signficant fall hazards exist at the very east end
• Entire trail identified as a historic route
soU th trail• Grade can be somewhat challenging in spots• Erosion and panning present, sometimes severe• Proximity to dropoffs can feel unsafe in places• Direct and obvious route with adequate signage at connecting trails Condition Safety SignageModerateGoodModerate
QU arry trail
• Eroding in places. Wooden treads breaking down
• Many volunteer trails cut through forest nearby
(should be controlled)
• Rocks thrown from East overlook pose threat to
safety of climbers and people on trail
Condition Safety Signage
ModerateOkay Okay
C arlson K iln
trail
• Lack of signage and position adjacent to railroad
tracks make it less attractive to visitors
• Could be made ADA with minor improvements
Condition Safety Signage
Good safe Poor
MiD lanD trail
• Narrow with some tripping hazards
• Encroaching vegetation- much buckthorn
• Not obvious from mapping/signage
• Identified as an historic trail route
Condition Safety Signage
Moderate PoorPoor
su MMary O f PredOMinaT e Trail i ssues:
• s afety: steep slopes contributing to falling, drop offs adjacent to
trails, serious tripping hazards on trail tread, similar
• e rosion: Most often from poorly designed trails, causing
ecological damage that is very difficult to restore and is visually
offensive
• Visual i mpact: Negative impact
• Cultural r esource i mpact: Some resource is negatively
impacted
• s ystem Gap: What users are looking for isn’t officially provided –
hence development of volunteer trails
su MMary O f TeC hniC al
a nalysis:
• 3 known trail conflicts with cultural
resources
• 1,190 feet of severely eroded trail
• 3,924 feet of moderately eroded trail
• Significant site specific safety hazards
related to drop offs immediately
adjacent to trails
desiG n
CO nsideraTiO ns:
• New elements should be
compatible with historic
materials, features, size, and
proportion.
• Sensitivity to significant cultural
resources and use is required.
TyP es O f d esiG n r esPOnses:
• Trail d evelopment – new trails to fill a gap or solve a problem related
to safety, erosion, visual, cultural impacts
• Trail i mprovement – may involve a range of solutions including
addition of steps, deberming, widening, narrowing, and adding safety
improvements (walls, handrails, similar)
• Trail r ealignment – for safety, to avoid/reduce visual and cultural
impacts, create a sustainable trail
• Trail Closure and Restoration – for a significant reason
• User r esponsibility – Add signage detailing why it’s important to stay
on the trails
K iwanis stairs
• Identified as a historic resources
Condition Safety Signage
safeOkay Good
While erosion is not a major concern on the north trail, Fall h azards present a very serious risk.
shortcut poses signiF icant
slipping and F all hazards
and is one oF the most
eroded trails in park.Central Stairsto severe
42 He MnI Can | BaRn BlUFF PaRk MasteR Plan: jUne 2016
prairie trail Bypass Improvements
prairie Trail bypass
Over time, informal use of a path between the Prairie trail and the Central kiwanis
stairs has caused an extremely steep- and now severely eroded- bypass trail to
form, that unfortunately conflicts with known historic and cultural resources.
to remove this shortcut trail will only take away a connection used by many
visitors. However, making this bypass resistant to erosion will require a significant
number of stairs. a proposal to realign a portion of the Prairie trail and connect
the bypass at a lower point will keep the number of stairs to the minimum
necessary and remove the conflict with sensitive resources.
Figure 3.12 Prairie trail byPass
-
He Mni Can
Barn Bluff Park Master Plan
east overlook
climbing walls
cli
m
b
i
n
g
w
a
l
l
s
midland Trail
1
4
2
3
Entry Trail
Quarry Tr
a
i
l
north Trail
south TrailHigHway 61
5TH sTr
E
E
T
missi
s
si
p
pi
ri
v
E
r
miss
i
s
s
i
p
p
i
r
i
v
E
r
south Trail
south Trail
prairie Trai
lprairie Trail
prairie Trail bypassc arlson Kiln Trail
Kiln Overlook s pur Trail
g.a. carlson lime kiln + plaza
rOcK facE (painTing pOlicy Tbd)
wEsT Q uarry
cEnT ral K iwanis sT airway
oak grove
south prairie south forest
east prairie
oak savanna
north forest
west prairie
Trail junc TiOn
west overlook
rEsTOrEd ciTizEn’s mEmOrial sTairway
fu
T
u
r
E
r
i
v
E
r
f
r
O
n
T
rE
g
i
O
n
a
l
T
r
a
i
l
fuTurE nEigHbOrHOOd cOnnEcTOr Trail fuTurE cOnnEcTiOn TO mEmOrial parK
(c
O
n
n
E
c
T
s
T
O
cO
l
v
i
l
l
p
a
r
K
)fuTurE rivErfrOnT rEgiOnal Trail
H
i
g
Hw
a
y
6
3
park entry
E asT K iwanis sT airway
barn bl
u
f
f
g
a
T
E
w
a
y
lEgE nd
par K imprOvEmEn T arE as (s EE individual plans fOr addiTiO nal d ETail)
#
43 03: PaRk MasteR Plan
nor th trail Improvements
norTh Trail
the north trail is currently closed due to adjacent fall hazards. establishing safer
navigation is the most important improvement to this trail. the addition of an
anchored cable handhold along the uphill edge of the trail will provide a safeguard
against falls. this, along with trail widening in strategic locations, and tread
improvements where possible, will facilitate better passage. Visual cues signalling
the edge will also help visitors to remain safely on the trail. the connection to
the West Overlook requires restoration and reconstruction of the kiwanis stairs.
the north trail’s exposure keeps the trail wetter and icier for longer periods than
other sections of trail, and it should be closed when these conditions are present.
signage informing users of trail conditions and risks needs to be clearly posted.
Figure 3.13 north trail
IIII I
III II II II II I
III
II
II II I
II
III
II
II I
II
III I
II
II
IIIIIII
III
IIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIII
IIIIII
II
II
II II
IIIIII IIII
II
II
IIIIIIIIII
II
IIII
II
II
II
II
II
II
IIII
II
IIII
II
II
II
II
II
II
IIIIII
II
II
II
II
IIIIIIIII I
II
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIII I
III II II II II I
III
II
II II I
II
III
II
II I
II
III I
II
II
IIIIIII
III
IIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIII
IIIIII
II
II
II II
IIIIII IIII
II
II
IIIIIIIIII
II
IIII
II
II
II
II
II
II
IIII
II
IIII
II
II
II
II
II
II
IIIIII
II
II
II
II
IIIIIIIII I
II
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
II78922551755300040526251
07
4
407230515621870607501715565
133579266063091244130
357
1540780250
18551632155208064
347517
6909101095
1060247
313348472162426659146171
3
8
4
13551770785264154420551
0
1
0
142
920149013502401265100425051474142111911314218010291801
6
8
5
129
0
629216416507071710457
1
4
2
7
29301
2
6
0
2850870200525751151
2
3
0
19581
4
8
2
16
0
5 138230101555144974222524
1
3
1
5
112422481205401090103016
5
5
11601352220
11552135164
15157672985290589099411902265124022851185178
390365615101507500126000
0
02055Prairie T
r
a
i
l
South Trail
North Trail
Quarry Trail
0 150 300 450 600Feet[
Erosion
IIMinor/No Erosion
IIModerate Erosion
IISevere Erosion
RWBBTrailsHKGI
Erosion
IIMinor/No Erosion
IIModerate Erosion
IISevere Erosion
NotFormal
Good
Trail condition
Moderate Poor
Trail analysis.Barn Bluff MasT er Plan
Trail analysis north trail
• Should be re-opened
• Loop experience missed
• Minor safety improvements desired
• Fall hazards nearly the entire length of trail
present serious risk
• Trail not suitable for use in certain conditions,
such as ice
• Visitors assume risk but effective safety
improvements are needed to reduce City liability
Poor unsafe Okay
Condition Safety Signage
Condition Safety Signage
Good Moderate Good prairie trail
• Very steep on way to West Overlook
• Spectacular views for much of length
• Many areas of the trail have moderate ro server
erosion issues
• Certain sections of trail have potential to damage
cultural resources
• Signficant fall hazards exist at the very east end
• Entire trail identified as a historic route
soU th trail
• Grade can be somewhat challenging in spots
• Erosion and panning present, sometimes severe
• Proximity to dropoffs can feel unsafe in places
• Direct and obvious route with adequate signage at
connecting trails
Condition Safety Signage
Moderate GoodModerate
QU arry trail
• Eroding in places. Wooden treads breaking down
• Many volunteer trails cut through forest nearby
(should be controlled)
• Rocks thrown from East overlook pose threat to
safety of climbers and people on trail
Condition Safety Signage
ModerateOkay Okay
C arlson K iln
trail
• Lack of signage and position adjacent to railroad
tracks make it less attractive to visitors
• Could be made ADA with minor improvements
Condition Safety Signage
Good s afe Poor
MiD lanD trail
• Narrow with some tripping hazards
• Encroaching vegetation- much buckthorn
• Not obvious from mapping/signage
• Identified as an historic trail route
Condition Safety Signage
Moderate PoorPoor
su MMary O f PredOMinaT e Trail i ssues:
• s afety: steep slopes contributing to falling, drop offs adjacent to
trails, serious tripping hazards on trail tread, similar
• e rosion: Most often from poorly designed trails, causing
ecological damage that is very difficult to restore and is visually
offensive
• Visual i mpact: Negative impact
• Cultural r esource i mpact: Some resource is negatively
impacted
• s ystem Gap: What users are looking for isn’t officially provided –
hence development of volunteer trails
su MMary O f TeC hniC al
a nalysis:
• 3 known trail conflicts with cultural
resources
• 1,190 feet of severely eroded trail
• 3,924 feet of moderately eroded trail
• Significant site specific safety hazards
related to drop offs immediately
adjacent to trails
desiG n
COnsideraTiO ns:
• New elements should be
compatible with historic
materials, features, size, and
proportion.
• Sensitivity to significant cultural
resources and use is required.
TyP es O f d esiG n r esPOnses:
• Trail d evelopment – new trails to fill a gap or solve a problem related
to safety, erosion, visual, cultural impacts
• Trail i mprovement – may involve a range of solutions including
addition of steps, deberming, widening, narrowing, and adding safety
improvements (walls, handrails, similar)
• Trail r ealignment – for safety, to avoid/reduce visual and cultural
impacts, create a sustainable trail
• Trail Closure and Restoration – for a significant reason
• User r esponsibility – Add signage detailing why it’s important to stay
on the trails
K iwanis stairs
• Identified as a historic resources
Condition Safety Signage
s afeOkay Good
While erosion is not a major concern on the north
trail, Fall h azards present a very serious risk.
shortcut poses signiF icant
slipping and F all hazards
and is one oF the most
eroded trails in park.Central StairsTrail analysis.Barn Bluff MasTer Plan
Trail analysis north trail
• Should be re-opened
• Loop experience missed
• Minor safety improvements desired
• Fall hazards nearly the entire length of trail
present serious risk
• Trail not suitable for use in certain conditions,
such as ice
• Visitors assume risk but effective safety
improvements are needed to reduce City liability
PoorunsafeOkay
Condition Safety Signage
Condition Safety Signage
GoodModerateGood prairie trail
• Very steep on way to West Overlook
• Spectacular views for much of length
• Many areas of the trail have moderate ro server
erosion issues
• Certain sections of trail have potential to damage
cultural resources
• Signficant fall hazards exist at the very east end
• Entire trail identified as a historic route
soU th trail
• Grade can be somewhat challenging in spots
• Erosion and panning present, sometimes severe
• Proximity to dropoffs can feel unsafe in places
• Direct and obvious route with adequate signage at
connecting trails
Condition Safety Signage
Moderate GoodModerate
QU arry trail
• Eroding in places. Wooden treads breaking down
• Many volunteer trails cut through forest nearby
(should be controlled)
• Rocks thrown from East overlook pose threat to
safety of climbers and people on trail
Condition Safety Signage
ModerateOkay Okay
C arlson K iln
trail
• Lack of signage and position adjacent to railroad
tracks make it less attractive to visitors
• Could be made ADA with minor improvements
Condition Safety Signage
Good s afe Poor
MiDlanD trail
• Narrow with some tripping hazards
• Encroaching vegetation- much buckthorn
• Not obvious from mapping/signage
• Identified as an historic trail route
Condition Safety Signage
ModeratePoorPoor
suMMary Of PredOMinaTe Trail issues:
• safety: steep slopes contributing to falling, drop offs adjacent to
trails, serious tripping hazards on trail tread, similar
• erosion: Most often from poorly designed trails, causing
ecological damage that is very difficult to restore and is visually
offensive
• Visual impact: Negative impact
• Cultural resource impact: Some resource is negatively
impacted
• system Gap: What users are looking for isn’t officially provided –
hence development of volunteer trails
suMMary Of TeChniCal
analysis:
• 3 known trail conflicts with cultural
resources
• 1,190 feet of severely eroded trail
• 3,924 feet of moderately eroded trail
• Significant site specific safety hazards
related to drop offs immediately
adjacent to trails
desiG n
COnsideraTiO ns:
• New elements should be
compatible with historic
materials, features, size, and
proportion.
• Sensitivity to significant cultural
resources and use is required.
TyPes Of desiGn resPOnses:
• Trail development – new trails to fill a gap or solve a problem related
to safety, erosion, visual, cultural impacts
• Trail improvement – may involve a range of solutions including
addition of steps, deberming, widening, narrowing, and adding safety
improvements (walls, handrails, similar)
• Trail realignment – for safety, to avoid/reduce visual and cultural
impacts, create a sustainable trail
• Trail Closure and Restoration – for a significant reason
• User responsibility – Add signage detailing why it’s important to stay
on the trails
K iwanis stairs
• Identified as a historic resources
Condition Safety Signage
s afeOkay Good
While erosion is not a major concern on the north
trail, Fall hazards present a very serious risk.
shortcut poses signiFicant
slipping and Fall hazards
and is one oF the most
eroded trails in park.Central Stairs1511’0’239’
44 He MnI Can | BaRn BlUFF PaRk MasteR Plan: jUne 2016
Carlson kiln trail Improvements
carlson Kiln Trail
the existing trail is essentially separate from the broader park trail system. the
benefit of its location is that the flat steady route could easily be made aDa
accessible. Vehicles also use it as access to the pump house and railroad right-of-
way. the planned realignment of this trail will better incorporate it into the overall
trail network and provide a buffer between visitors and rail traffic, which can be
quite alarming due to its proximity. the trail is intended to be aDa accessible
from the park entry plaza to the base of the G.a. Carlson lime kiln. aDa access to
the proposed Dakota Memorial via the new Park entry trail is also feasible from
the Carlson kiln trail. the proposed Carlson kiln Plaza and kiln Overlook trail
will provide interpretive opportunities to attract more visitors to the soon-to-be
restored kiln than it currently sees. signage at the park entry plaza and visitor
center will contribute to increased usage as well. Habitat restoration adjacent to
the realigned trail should be done concurrently with construction.
Figure 3.14 Carlson kiln trail
-
He Mni Can
Barn Bluff Park Master Plan
east overlook
climbing walls
cli
m
b
i
n
g
w
a
l
l
s
midland Trail
1
4
2
3
Entry Trail
Quarry Tr
a
i
l
north Trail
south TrailHigHway 61
5TH sTr
E
E
T
missi
s
si
p
pi
ri
v
E
r
miss
i
s
s
i
p
p
i
r
i
v
E
r
south Trail
south Trail
prairie Trai
lprairie Trail
prairie Trail bypassc arlson Kiln Trail
Kiln Overlook s pur Trail
g.a. carlson lime kiln + plaza
rOcK facE (painTing pOlicy Tbd)
wEsT Quarry
cEnTral Kiwanis sTairway
oak grove
south prairiesouth forest
east prairie
oak savanna
north forest
west prairie
Trail juncTiOn
west overlook
rEsTOrEd ciTizEn’s mEmOrial sTairway
fu
T
u
r
E
r
i
v
E
r
f
r
O
n
T
rE
g
i
O
n
a
l
T
r
a
i
l
fuTurE nEigHbOrHOOd cOnnEcTOr Trail fuTurE cOnnEcTiOn TO mEmOrial parK
(c
O
n
n
E
c
T
s
T
O
cO
l
v
i
l
l
p
a
r
K
)fuTurE rivErfrOnT rEgiOnal Trail
H
i
g
Hw
a
y
6
3
park entry
E asT K iwanis sT airway
barn bl
u
f
f
g
a
T
E
w
a
y
lEgE nd
par K imprOvEmEn T arE as (s EE individual plans fOr addiTiO nal d ETail)
#
Trail analysis.Barn Bluff MasTer Plan
Trail analysis north trail• Should be re-opened• Loop experience missed• Minor safety improvements desired • Fall hazards nearly the entire length of trail present serious risk• Trail not suitable for use in certain conditions, such as ice • Visitors assume risk but effective safety improvements are needed to reduce City liabilityPoorunsafeOkayCondition Safety SignageCondition Safety SignageGoodModerateGood prairie trail• Very steep on way to West Overlook• Spectacular views for much of length• Many areas of the trail have moderate ro server erosion issues• Certain sections of trail have potential to damage cultural resources
• Signficant fall hazards exist at the very east end
• Entire trail identified as a historic route
soU th trail• Grade can be somewhat challenging in spots• Erosion and panning present, sometimes severe• Proximity to dropoffs can feel unsafe in places• Direct and obvious route with adequate signage at connecting trails Condition Safety SignageModerateGoodModerate QU arry trail• Eroding in places. Wooden treads breaking down• Many volunteer trails cut through forest nearby
(should be controlled)
• Rocks thrown from East overlook pose threat to
safety of climbers and people on trail
Condition Safety SignageModerateOkayOkay
C arlson K iln
trail
• Lack of signage and position adjacent to railroad
tracks make it less attractive to visitors
• Could be made ADA with minor improvements
Condition Safety Signage
Good s afe Poor
MiDlanD trail
• Narrow with some tripping hazards
• Encroaching vegetation- much buckthorn
• Not obvious from mapping/signage
• Identified as an historic trail route
Condition Safety Signage
ModeratePoorPoor
suMMary Of PredOMinaTe Trail issues:
• safety: steep slopes contributing to falling, drop offs adjacent to
trails, serious tripping hazards on trail tread, similar
• erosion: Most often from poorly designed trails, causing
ecological damage that is very difficult to restore and is visually
offensive
• Visual impact: Negative impact
• Cultural resource impact: Some resource is negatively
impacted
• system Gap: What users are looking for isn’t officially provided –
hence development of volunteer trails
suMMary Of TeChniCal
analysis:
• 3 known trail conflicts with cultural
resources
• 1,190 feet of severely eroded trail
• 3,924 feet of moderately eroded trail
• Significant site specific safety hazards
related to drop offs immediately
adjacent to trails
desiG n
CO nsideraTiO ns:
• New elements should be
compatible with historic
materials, features, size, and
proportion.
• Sensitivity to significant cultural
resources and use is required.
TyPes Of desiGn resPOnses:
• Trail development – new trails to fill a gap or solve a problem related
to safety, erosion, visual, cultural impacts
• Trail improvement – may involve a range of solutions including
addition of steps, deberming, widening, narrowing, and adding safety
improvements (walls, handrails, similar)
• Trail realignment – for safety, to avoid/reduce visual and cultural
impacts, create a sustainable trail
• Trail Closure and Restoration – for a significant reason
• User responsibility – Add signage detailing why it’s important to stay
on the trails
K iwanis stairs • Identified as a historic resourcesCondition Safety SignagesafeOkayGoodWhile erosion is not a major concern on the north trail, Fall hazards present a very serious risk.shortcut poses signiFicant slipping and Fall hazards and is one oF the most eroded trails in park.Central Stairs
45 03: PaRk MasteR Plan
proposal for new trails
Kiln overlooK Trail connecTion
a new trail is proposed to link the Quarry trail with an overlook area behind the top of the restored Carlson lime kiln. the trail
alignment largely exists now along a historic quarry road, and is occasionally used by park visitors. the intent of the new trail
is to provide an additional intperetive opportunity exploring the history of quarrying and lime production at Barn Bluff. this
quarry road played a key part in the transportation and loading of limestone into the kiln, and offers a complementary insight
to the interpretation of the process seen at the base of the kiln at the proposed Carlson kiln Plaza. Providing access to the top
of the kiln is contingent on preservation of the historic structure’s integrity; as such, barriers and signage will be necessary to
prevent visitors from climbing on or around the kiln from the overlook.
PREFERRED ENTRY CONCEPTBaRN Blu FF MasTER PlaN
ParkingCouncil Ring Trail Junction Interpretation & Visitor Info Pumphouse Expansion Bike ParkingInterpretive Panels
Figure 3.15 kiln overlook trail
kiln Overlook trail spur
Q
u
a
r
r
y
t
r
ai
l
Quarry trailMidlan
d
t rail
C
a
r
l
s
o
n
k
il
n
t
r
ai
l
new Park
entry trails
Climbing
Causeway
Dakota
Memorial
Park
entry
Pump
House
Woodland
trail junction
Carlson kiln
Plaza
Interpretive
Overlook
]
]
46 He MnI Can | BaRn BlUFF PaRk MasteR Plan: jUne 2016
parK enTry Trails
the new park entry trails will provide direct access up the bluff to visitors
using the park entry plaza, restrooms, and visitor center. the gradual climbing
causeway (combination of stairs and sloping trail) provides a foil to the existing
kiwanis staircase on the south side of the park entry. an additional aDa
accessible trail connects the entry Plaza and the kiln trail to the proposed Dakota
Memorial space. the new entry trails terminate in a wooded trail junction that
offers visitors several options for navigating through the park. Habitat restoration
adjacent to the new trails should be done concurrently with construction.
Buckthorn is a known issue in this area.
Figure 3.16 Park entry trails
PREFERRED ENTRY CONCEPTBaRN BluFF MasTER PlaN
ParkingCouncil Ring Trail Junction Interpretation & Visitor Info Pumphouse Expansion Bike ParkingInterpretive Panels
Wayfinding
aDa a ccessible Dakota Memorial s pace
Kiln Plaza
Coordinate Gateway improvements to Hwy
61 overpass with road construction
Improve signage along 5th street Quarry TrailNew Entry TrailsQuarry TrailMidlan
d
Tr
ail
south Trail
Prairie Trail
Parking within ROW (20 spaces)
45o an
g
l
e
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
Distinct Traffic Calming Pavement
Bike Parking
Xcel access Drive
R
a
I
l
Potential for occasional
temporary overflow
parking on Xcel property
On-street ov
e
r
f
l
o
w
parking (opt
i
o
n
a
l
)
Event &
Gathering
l awn
20 s paces
Entry
PlazaRe-a
l
igned
K
i
ln
Tra
i
l
Kiln Overlook
Trail spur
Pump House expanded to include visitor
information and interpretation
Move kiosk to base of stairs
Remove concrete from
existing landing area. Manage
vegetation to form threshold
Restrooms added to north half of Pump House
New Woodland Trail Junction
Gateway
t
o
B
a
r
n
B
l
u
f
f
Future
T
r
a
i
l
t
o
M
e
m
o
r
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
Riverfront Regional Trail
Neighborhood Connecto r T ra il*
*
*
*
Prairi
e
Pl
a
nti
n
g
Prairie
Planting
R
a
i
l
R
O
W
East Overlooks
KEY
Prairie Planting
Interpretation
Wayfinding
Woodland
Turf
stormwater Feature
**
*
CONCEPT OVERVIEW
>Kiwanis Stairs are maintained,
but a new entry plaza centers
around the Kiln Trail and
Pump House
>New trail winds through
restored forest from the entry
plaza to a new trail junction
at a wooded Council Ring
>Single parking lot surrounded
by prairie plantings
>Additional on-street parking
available on 5th Street across
from Izaak Walton League
(north of the railroad tracks),
and south of Hwy 61 on the
north side of 5th St.
>Restrooms located in north
half of Pump House
>Parking lot surrounded by
prairie plantings
>Opportunity for interpretion
on panels along Water
Storage Tank
>Existing visitor information
kiosk moved to base of
Kiwanis Stairs
>Riverfront Regional Trail
utilizes Barn Bluff entry plaza
for restrooms, water, and
information
>Natural surface circular
landing replaces concrete
landing at top of Kiwanis
Stairs. Prairie and forest meet
here, forming a threshold
>The realigned ADA accessible
kiln trail is benched into the
bluff slightly, and includes
a connection to the Dakota
Memorial
>Kiln Overlook Trail offers
additional interpretation
opportunity as an offshoot of
the Quarry Trail (dead-end)
Interpretive panels
along Tank facade
**
*
**
Climbi n g C ausewayADA TrailWoodland Trail Junction
Woodland Trail Junction
Chapter Four addresses the phasing of improvements, financial sources & uses,
management & operations, partnerships, promotion, and research.
Phasing
A phasing plan suggests how recommendations for park improvements can be
sequenced over time to achieve the design vision described in the master plan.
The phasing plan for He Mni Can bundles capital improvements into logical
groupings that can be described and constructed as distinct projects. The
projects are sequenced based a combination of need, safety, construction logic,
community interests, and funding considerations. Four phasing categories are
identified for the project including:
» Immediate 2016/17: Funding is already in place to address a top-priority safety
and stabilization needs.
» Early Phase 2017/18: Funding is immediately being secured or pursued
to address fundamental safety, stewardship, and visitor needs as soon as
possible.
» Mid Phase 2019 – 2021: Projects that enhance visitor experience and are
logically sequenced in the middle slot.
» Later Phase 2022 – 2026: Projects that are higher cost or that access “slower”
money to finish out the park’s visitor experience and character
Financial Sources & Uses
Layered on the phasing plan is a financial sources & uses strategy that outlines
project budgets and likely funding sources for each project. Project budgets
are built by quantifying construction elements and applying hard costs of
construction as well as soft costs of contingency, design/engineering, and
other expenses. Budgets account for normal inflation (or escalation) based on
implementation timing described in the phasing plan. Construction costs are
based on experience with recent work in the city and region.
Current East Overlook Conditions
Citizens Memorial Stairway is in need of repair
04. management, & StewardShiP
imPlementation,
47 04: IMPLEMEnTATIon, MAnAgEMEnT, & sTEwArdsHIP
LegendImmediate (2016-2017)Early Phase (2017-2018)Later Phase (2022-2026)G1G2H1 KJ3I1I2J4J2J2J1B1B3B4B5C1C2C3D2D4D7D8F1F2 ED1D3D5D6B2 AMid Phase (2019-2021)48 HE MnI CAn | BArn BLUFF PArk MAsTEr PLAn: jUnE 2016
FIgurE 4.1 Park PhasIng PLan
Park improvement Projects Summary table
Key Project Phase(s)estimated Cost
a Carlson Kiln Restoration Project Immediate $319,000
B Basic Entry and Trail Restoration Early $423,983
B1 gravel Parking lot Early
B2 gathering Lawn Early
B3 Interpretive Plaza Early
B4 Woodland Trail Junction and new Entry Trails Early
B5 Council ring at East kiwanis stairs Early
C Kiwanis Stair Restoration Early $248,820
C1 East kiwanis stair restoration Early
C2 Central kiwanis stair rehabilitation Early
C3 Citizen’s Memorial stairway reconstruction Early
D Upper Bluff Trail Rehabilitation Early $807,279
D1 Decommissioned Trails Early
D2 south Trail rehabilitation Early
D3 Midland Trail rehabilitation Early
D4 Prairie Trail Bypass Trail realignment Early
D5 East Overlook reconstruction Early
D6 West Overlook modifications Early
D7 north Trail rehabilitation Early
D8 Quarry Trail rehabilitation Early
E Dakota Memorial Early $223,938
F Carlson Kiln Interpretive Project Early $113,130
F1 realigned kiln Trail (aDa)Early
F2 kiln Overlook and Trail spur with interpretation Early
G Park Entry Completion Project Mid $533,848
g1 Interpretive Panels on reservoir Mid
g2 Entry restoration & stormwater treatment Mid
H Carlson Kiln Plaza Mid $680,394
h1 Plaza Platform and interpretive displays Mid
I Pump House Renovation & Expansion Later $1,561,560
I1 restrooms Later
I2 Visitor Information & Interpretation Later
J 5th Street Gateway Later $1,164,664
J1 5th street neighborhood Connector Trail Later
J2 On-street Parking Later
J3 highway 61 Bridge gateway Later
J4 5th street Traffic Calming Pavement Later
k Car Park Project Later $500,166
TOTAL (includes operating + fundraising costs) ALL $7,074,268
49 04: IMPLEMEnTATIon, MAnAgEMEnT, & sTEwArdsHIP
Likely funding sources have been identified in close collaboration with City
leadership. A digital sources & uses spreadsheet has been provided as a working
tool for City staff to continually update through the life of the master plan. Three
categories of funding sources identified for He Mni Can are the City of red wing,
greater Minnesota Parks & Trails Program, and third party sources. Third party
sources has numerous subcategories including grants, philanthropy, partner
funding or in-kind service, Legacy Arts & History funding, and state and federal
appropriation. Figure 4.2 integrates the projects, budgets, phasing, and likely
funding sources into an initial financial sources & uses strategy (it will inevitably
evolve over time). detailed project budgets are included in the appendix.
management and operations
He Mni Can / Barn Bluff Park is managed by the City of red wing which provides
local funds through the general park budget to operate and maintain the park.
The City facilitates park maintenance and oversees facility operations and
occasional programming for recreation and educational events. The City allocates
funding for specific items at the park as needs arise.
non-profit groups and other agencies also facilitate park programs with limited
City involvement. staffing is provided as needed, most frequently through
employment of seasonal staff. City of red wing emergency response provides
public safety and rescue services.
natural resources management services, including water resources and forestry/
horticulture, are provided by the city and the UsFws. some natural areas within
the park are cooperatively managed by these agencies and volunteer groups.
The City, in partnership with the UsFws and Audubon Minnesota, is considering
a significant request from the Conservation Partners Legacy grant to expand
conservation management efforts at He Mni Can/ Barn Bluff Park (and Memorial
Park, sorin’s Bluff, and the Billings-Thomfohr Conservation Area) in 2017.
other operational and support services to the park include administrative
services, revenue handling and finance, human resources, planning and
development, and research.
regulations for the park are enforced by the City; however, there are few stated
rules currently posted at the park. Most regulations warn visitors to use caution
on all trails. This Plan proposes that comprehensive regulatory signage be posted
at the new entry plaza’s visitor center and at the kiosk relocated to the base of
the east kiwanis stairs. signage should emphasize that visitors stay on marked
trails, and that throughout the park they may encounter loose rocks, steep slopes,
vertical drops, and are advised to proceed at their own risk. All children are
advised to be accompanied by an adult. signage should also detail up-to-date
trail conditions, closures, restoration areas, and any other pertinent information,
including park hours.
The South Trail is used by vehicles for emergency
and maintenance access
50 HE MnI CAn | BArn BLUFF PArk MAsTEr PLAn: jUnE 2016
He Mni Can (Barn Bluff) Master Plan Funding Sources and Uses Sheet 1 of 1
He Mni Can (Barn Bluff) Master Plan
Funding Sources & Uses
rev: 6/10/2016
prepared by: Hoisington Koegler Group / Loam Grant Funding
Philanthropic
Funding
Partner Funding
/ In-Kind
Legacy Funding
(Arts & History)
State
Appropriation
Federal
Appropriation
Item Amount Totals
TOTAL MASTER PLAN BUDGET $7,074,268 $1,066,658 $2,347,888 $3,659,722
$0 $2,251,508 $743,639 $664,575 $0 $0
IMMEDIATE PHASE BUDGET (2016/2017)$319,000 $60,400 $0 $258,600 $0 $0 $0 $258,600 $0 $0
Carlson Kiln Restoration Project $319,000 $60,400 $0 $258,600 $0 $0 $0 $258,600 $0 $0
Hard Costs $220,000 $0 $0 $220,000 $220,000
Soft Costs $99,000 $60,400 $0 $38,600 $38,600
EARLY PHASE BUDGET (2017/2018)$1,885,897 $311,096 $765,783 $809,019 $0 $224,404 $403,639 $180,975 $0 $0
Upper Bluff Safe Trails Project $807,279 $111,429 $292,210 $403,639 $0 $0 $403,639 $0 $0 $0
Hard Costs $584,420 $0 $292,210 $292,210 $292,210 value of conservation corp in-kind labor
Soft Costs $222,859 $111,429 $0 $111,429 $111,429 reduced dsn/admin fees due to conservation corp process
Park Entry "The Basics" Project $423,983 $0 $423,983 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Hard Costs $296,491 $0 $296,491 $0
Soft Costs $127,491 $0 $127,491 $0
Kiwanis Stair Restoration Project $248,820 $74,820 $49,590 $124,410 $0 $0 $0 $124,410 $0 $0
Hard Costs $174,000 $0 $49,590 $124,410 $124,410
Soft Costs $74,820 $74,820 $0 $0
Carlson Kiln Interpretive Project $113,130 $56,565 $0 $56,565 $0 $0 $0 $56,565 $0 $0
Hard Costs $79,112 $22,547 $0 $56,565 $56,565
Soft Costs $34,018 $34,018 $0 $0
Dakota Memorial Project $223,938 $40,000 $0 $183,938 $0 $183,938 $0 $0 $0 $0
Hard Costs $156,600 $0 $0 $156,600 $156,600 Prairie Island
Soft Costs $67,338 $40,000 $0 $27,338 $27,338 Prairie Island
Other Costs for this Phase $68,748 $28,281 $40,466 $0 $40,466 $0 $0 $0 $0
Operating Escrow Contribution $46,675 $28,281 $18,394 $18,394 philanthropic campaign
Fundraising Administration $22,073 $22,073 $22,073 philanthropic campaign
MID PHASE BUDGET (2019-2021)$1,234,701 $225,053 $784,648 $225,000 $0 $0 $0 $225,000 $0 $0
Park Entry Completion Project $533,848 $0 $533,848 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Hard Costs $373,320 $0 $373,320 $0
Soft Costs $160,528 $0 $160,528 $0
Carlson Kiln Plaza Project $680,394 $204,594 $250,800 $225,000 $0 $0 $0 $225,000 $0 $0
Hard Costs $475,800 $0 $250,800 $225,000 $225,000
Soft Costs $204,594 $204,594 $0 $0
Other Costs for this Phase $20,459 $20,459 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Operating Escrow Contribution $20,459 $20,459 $0 $0 philanthropic campaign
Fundraising Administration $0 $0 $0 philanthropic campaign
LATER PHASE BUDGET (2022-2026)$3,634,669 $470,108 $797,458 $2,367,103 $0 $2,027,103 $340,000 $0 $0 $0
Car Park Project $500,166 $117,158 $333,008 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0
Hard Costs $265,850 $0 $215,850 $50,000 $50,000 Xcel contribution
Soft Costs $234,316 $117,158 $117,158 $0
Pump House Renovation Project $1,561,560 $0 $0 $1,561,560 $0 $1,561,560 $0 $0 $0 $0
Hard Costs $1,092,000 $0 $0 $1,092,000 $1,092,000 philanthropic campaign
Soft Costs $469,560 $0 $0 $469,560 $469,560 philanthropic campaign
5th Street Gateway Project $1,164,664 $310,214 $464,450 $390,000 $0 $100,000 $290,000 $0 $0 $0
Hard Costs $814,450 $0 $464,450 $350,000 philanthropic campaign $100,000 $250,000 MNDOT contribution
Soft Costs $350,214 $310,214 $0 $40,000 $40,000 MNDOT contribution
Other Costs for this Phase $408,280 $42,737 $0 $365,543 $0 $365,543 $0 $0 $0 $0
Operating Escrow Contribution $208,893 $42,737 $166,156 $166,156 philanthropic campaign
Fundraising Administration $199,387 $199,387 $199,387 philanthropic campaign
PROJECT BUDGETS
City of Red Wing Greater MN
Parks & Trails
Third-Party
Funding
Third-Party: specific sourcesFUNDING SOURCES (targeted)
51 04: IMPLEMEnTATIon, MAnAgEMEnT, & sTEwArdsHIP
FIgurE 4.2 sOurCEs & usEs suMMary
Partnerships & Funding opportunities
Improvements and ongoing development of He Mni Can/ Barn Bluff Park will
continue to involve partnerships with other agencies and non-profit groups.
Projects identified in this master plan will likely be implemented with a variety
of funding sources. In addition to the City’s general parks budget, the City of
red wing will actively seek grants, collaborative funding agreements, donations,
volunteer projects, and multi-agency involvement where opportunity exists.
Implementation will require continued community advocacy and outside money.
This master plan provides guidance for identifying useful allocation of funding
sources. Existing opportunities for funding of park improvements and potential
volunteer projects include the following organizations and agencies. Additional
sources will continue to be sought for ongoing future park needs.
» Environment and natural resources Trust Fund (EnrTF)
» Conservation Partners Legacy grant Program
» Lessard sams outdoor Heritage Council
» Parks & Trails Legacy grants
» Conservation Partners Legacy grant
» Audubon Minnesota
»kiwanis
» Friends of the Bluff
» Minnesota Climbers Association
»red wing Environmental Learning Center
» Conservation Corps
» Us Fish and wildlife service
» Mn ornithology Union
» Mn Climbers Association
other Promotional opportunities & initiatives
PUBLIC HEALTH vALUES
Active living is growing trend not only in red wing, but around the country.
Locally, there are several established organizations that support residents’ efforts
for active and healthy living. Live Healthy red wing is dedicated to building
a community of active, informed, connected citizens that can bring about a
healthier place to live. Improvements at He Mni Can/ Barn Bluff Park support the
efforts being made by this organization by providing access to recreation in the
heart of the city.
other organizations, including red wing YMCA and red wing Community
recreation already offer recreation and fitness programs at the park. ongoing
partnerships with the City will only increase the opportunities for fitness and
exercise to take place at the park and contribute to greater community health for
residents.
Kiwanis Clubs have been active partners in Barn
Bluff ‘s stewardship for many generations.
Mississippi River Valley from the top of Barn Bluff
52 HE MnI CAn | BArn BLUFF PArk MAsTEr PLAn: jUnE 2016
EConoMIC DEvELoPMEnT AnD ToURISM oPPoRTUnITIES
Rock Climbing Destination
rock climbing has been a popular activity at He Mni Can/ Barn Bluff for at least 35
years, despite little involvement from the City. The bluff is already well known for
its challenging routes and fantastic views, and many climbers travel to red wing
to experience climbing at the bluff. Embracing this sport as a welcome activity
at the park will open up opportunities for the City to promote related events
and programming, and may spur local economic development for rock climbing
tourism.
Community Events
The park entry improvements will allow a greater number of visitors to access
the park and enjoy the plaza and trails, making it more accommodating for
community events and group activities. The gathering lawn will provide space for
organized programs and orientation of groups prior to ascending the bluff.
Historic/Cultural Education
The addition of a visitor’s center and new historic/ cultural interpretive features
will provide a greater incentive for visitors to travel from a broader area and make
the bluff a destination. Partnerships with area historic and cultural organizations
will allow their stories and educational efforts to reach a larger audience,
including local school groups.
research initiatives
Currently, there are no research efforts underway outside of the analysis
undertaken for development of this master plan. However, the City of red wing
will participate in research initiatives requested by the gMrPTC as these are
developed and implemented over time. such initiatives may address visitation
counts, visitor profiles, and recreation trends and demands. Information
gathered may inform further development of the regional park system in greater
Minnesota.
Conclusion
He Mni Can/ Barn Bluff is a landmark for the City of red wing and an icon of
natural, cultural, and historic significance. with proper stewardship, it will
continue to stand as an important cultural landscape for future generations.
This document outlines the approach and continued care required to restore
and protect Barn Bluff’s integrity. The master plan will serve as a guide to future
generations as they take on the responsibility of caring for and celebrating He
Mni Can.
Generations of people have journeyed to the top
of He Mni Can. With good stewardship, we can
ensure that future generations will enjoy the same
experience.
Sport climbing of the bluff’s quarry walls has been
a popular activity since the 1970s
53 04: IMPLEMEnTATIon, MAnAgEMEnT, & sTEwArdsHIP
The following documents provided essential background information in
the development of this master plan and will continue to influence ongoing
management, programming, and other initiatives at Barn Bluff Park. These
documents are availalbe at the City of red wing Planning department.
»Habitat Management Plan for City of Red Wing Parks: Barn Bluff, UsFws, 2014
»Barn Bluff Cultural Landscape Report, Two Pines resources, january 2015
»Historic Structure Report for the G.A. Carlson Lime Kiln, Macdonald & Mack ,
january 2015
»Barn Bluff Landscape Guidelines, damon Farber, March 2015
reFerenCed doCUmentS
54 HE MnI CAn | BArn BLUFF PArk MAsTEr PLAn: jUnE 2016
A. gMrPTC regional designation Letter, August 2015
B. Meetings summaries of early public and stakeholder participation
C. Project Cost Estimates
aPPendix
55 APPEndIx
APPEnDIx A.
GMRPTC REGIonAL DESIGnATIon LETTER, AUGUST 2015
56 HE MnI CAn | BArn BLUFF PArk MAsTEr PLAn: jUnE 2016
APPEnDIx B.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATIon MEETInG SUMMARIES: CLIMBInG STAKEHoLDER MEETInG
Page 1 of 2
Barn Bluff Park Master Plan
Stakeholder Input Meetings
Climbing
October 28, 2015
3:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
HKGi Office, Minneapolis
Attendees:
Brian Peterson, City of Red Wing Planning
Shawn Blaney, City of Red Wing Public Works
Steve Kohn, City of Red Wing Planning
Bruce Blair, Project Manager
Bruce Chamberlain, LOAM
Jennifer Cater, HKGi
Kevin Clarke, HKGi
Jeff Engel, MCA
James Loveridge, MCA
Lacy Shelby, MCA
Laura Wildenborg, RW ELC
SUMMARY
Introductions
Review why the city is conducting a park master plan and where we are at in the beginning of the
process. Purpose of the meeting is to gain input about context, knowledge, activities and sensitives
related to park use and planning for the future.
Discussion Items
Meeting purpose:
▪Barn Bluff has an established and mature climbing presence since 1970s
▪Climbing at Barn Bluff has generally functioned as a don't ask/don't tell activity
▪City interested in understanding how best to embrace the use as a park activity, limit
liability, and understand best management practices to support the sport
Growing trends of rock climbing in the state:
▪Other regional climbing destinations in Winona area (John Latch State Park) – growing
activity and establishing more routes
▪Other Minnesota climbing destinations: Sandstone (Robinson Park and Banning State
Park), Interstate/Taylor's Falls, Duluth, Tettegouche/North Shore, Crane Lake
▪Robinson Park, city park in Sandstone – underwent similar process to formally support
climbing
▪Climbing Management Plan adopted by Sandstone in 2007 – Jeff and James helped
develop it
57 APPEndIx
APPEnDIx B.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATIon MEETInG SUMMARIES: CLIMBInG STAKEHoLDER MEETInG
Barn Bluff Stakeholder Input Meeting – Historic & Cultural Resources
Page 2 of 2
▪Robinson Park now a supported destination for climbing and ice climbing; managed by
climbers
Climbing specifics at Barn Bluff:
▪Once supported and advertised more, climbing will help increase tourism to Red Wing
▪Growing regional (potentially national) destination between Red Wing and Winona
▪Barn Bluff climbing is mostly all lead‐style climbing using ropes and anchors
▪Never accessing the top of the bluff
▪Fixed anchors system: now use glue‐in anchors for protecting lead climbing; long‐lasting
and low‐impact; can be painted for camouflaging into rock face
▪Currently a fair amount of old hardware that needs replacing – has been managed by
climbing community
Facilities to support climbing at Barn Bluff:
▪Restrooms at base near parking (open seasonally, locked at night)
▪More parking
▪Wayfinding/ park signage
▪Open pavilion(s) near climbing areas for inclement weather
▪Picnic tables / benches near climbing areas
▪Posted info and rules/restrictions at climbing locations; updated current info by QR code
▪Clean up/ stewardship days (facilitated by or partnered with climbers)
Also consider…
▪Permit fee or registration?
▪Seasonal tent camping opportunities / walk‐in sites
▪Ice climbing
Next Steps/Resources
Jeff Engel:
Advertise park user survey and public workshop through MCA website and social media
Consultant team:
Incorporate input into concept development and master plan
58 HE MnI CAn | BArn BLUFF PArk MAsTEr PLAn: jUnE 2016
APPEnDIx B.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATIon MEETInG SUMMARIES: nATURAL RESoURCES STAKEHoLDER MEETInG
Page 1 of 2
Barn Bluff Park Master Plan
Stakeholder Input Meetings – November 2015
Natural Resources
November 4, 2015
1:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m.
Red Wing Public Library, Red Wing
Attendees:
Brian Peterson, City of Red Wing Planning
Bruce Blair, Project Manager
Shawn Blaney, City of Red Wing Public Works
Pat Ramaker, City of Red Wing Public Works
Bruce Chamberlain, LOAM
Jennifer Cater, HKGi
Sarah Evenson, HKGi
Tim Connolly, USFWS
Dustin Looman, Conservation Corps
Doug Ekstrom, Conservation Corps
Kit Elstad‐Haveles, DNR
Tim Schlagenhaft, Audubon Society
SUMMARY
Introductions
Review why the city is conducting a park master plan and where we are at in the beginning of the
process. Purpose of the meeting is to gain input about context, knowledge, activities and sensitives
related to park use and planning for the future.
Discussion Items
Priorities:
▪Maintain habitat diversity and quality
‐There’s not a lot of prairie bird (ground nesting) diversity, but the river corridor is a
national flyway
‐Red‐headed woodpecker present
‐The west prairie is about 4 acres and could be expanded
‐The east prairie is 33 acres
‐Site is 73 acres total
‐Third Tier bullet
▪Ongoing habitat management
‐Youth conservation corps are pulling sweet clover (to break biennial cycle)
‐Focus on drainage‐ways on the east prairie to keep woodies contained
‐Burns needed at 3‐5 year intervals with woody removal in between
‐Citizen intervention often impedes scheduled maintenance (fires too soon)
59 APPEndIx
APPEnDIx B.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATIon MEETInG SUMMARIES: nATURAL RESoURCES STAKEHoLDER MEETInGBarn Bluff Stakeholder Input Meeting – Historic & Cultural Resources
Page 2 of 2
‐Brush/tree removal in the fall, piled, then burned in winter
‐Restore and buffer high quality habitat areas to prevent woody encroachment along
edges, then work out from there
‐Oak savanna is a high priority for maintenance
‐Removal of ash, walnut
▪Limit future trails and reduce existing trails if not needed
▪Education is needed
‐People need to understand why they should stay on existing trails
‐Prairie management could be a topic for interpretive signage
‐Global significance of the prairie and savanna ecosystems should also be signage
topics
▪Add boot cleaners and an educational kiosk with pictures of the invasives whose spread we are
working to prevent and a schedule of upcoming maintenance activities so people understand what’s
going on in the park (look at Memorial Park’s signage for an example.)
Potential Future Management:
▪Goats
‐Fence mending is a safety issue
‐Would likely need to be used for 3+ years
‐Expense is an issue
‐Should be used either first, to clear low, young growth before manual cutting+treating
of larger specimens; or after larger specimens have been cleared to continue to
deplete the seedbank before the saplings can reproduce.
‐Could also burn and use goats afterwards to manage seedlings
‐Burning buckthorn is difficult on shady or wet sites
▪Expansion of prairie areas to the south (removal of encroaching forest)
‐Would need lane closures along Hwy 61 to account for falling rocks
‐Ideally, burns would happen in 3 distinct segments over 3 years so as to leave enough
habitat for animals displaced by each burn
‐Burns would only take 1 day/year and could be done at Barn Bluff, Sorins Bluff, and
the other bluff in Red Wing in the same day in order to fit this O&M task into the city’s
broader O&M needs efficiently (this is important)
Potential Programming:
▪Interest in birding walks
Next Steps/Resources
▪Audubon Winter Meeting in January. Will discuss the 2016 work plan
▪Talk to Jaime Edwards with the DNR about habitat management techniques (she’s a specialist)
▪Look into A.P. Anderson Park‐ they used goats for management
▪Look into Andersen Center for buckthorn removal/ management example
60 HE MnI CAn | BArn BLUFF PArk MAsTEr PLAn: jUnE 2016
APPEnDIx B.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATIon MEETInG SUMMARIES: HISToRIC/CULTURAL RESoURCES STAKEHoLDER MEETInG
61 APPEndIx
Page 1 of 2
Barn Bluff Park Master Plan
Stakeholder Input Meetings – November 2015
Historic & Cultural Resources
November 4, 2015
4:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Red Wing Public Library, Red Wing
Attendees:
Brian Peterson, City of Red Wing Planning
Bruce Blair, Project Manager
Shawn Blaney, City of Red Wing Public Works
Pat Ramaker, City of Red Wing Public Works
Bruce Chamberlain, LOAM
Jennifer Cater, HKGi
Sarah Evenson, HKGi
Ruth Nerhaugen, Heritage Preservation Comm.
Ryan Howell, Prairie Island Indian Community
Afton Esson, Goodhue County Historical Society
James Clinton, Goodhue County Historical Society
SUMMARY
Introductions
Review why the city is conducting a park master plan and where we are at in the beginning of the
process. Purpose of the meeting is to gain input about context, knowledge, activities and sensitives
related to park use and planning for the future.
Discussion Items
Goodhue County Historical Society:
▪Facilitating guided hikes with Environmental Learning Center this past summer/fall. Focus on
lime kilns and lime production.
▪Not much information on Dakota history 900‐1300AD; lacking native community history
▪Historic era of significance for national register does not include Dakota relationship
▪Interest in learning more about and doing more with Dakota history to complete the story
of the bluff
▪Interest in outdoor programming with historic interpretation
▪Vandalism of historic structures is a problem
APPEnDIx B.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATIon MEETInG SUMMARIES: HISToRIC/CULTURAL RESoURCES STAKEHoLDER MEETInG
62 HE MnI CAn | BArn BLUFF PArk MAsTEr PLAn: jUnE 2016
Barn Bluff Stakeholder Input Meeting – Historic & Cultural Resources
Page 2 of 2
Prairie Island Indian Community:
▪Dakota name for bluff is He‐Mni Can = wood water hill; linked to sacred oral history
▪Bluff is extremely sacred to Dakota people – most are not allowed to go there
▪Dakota buried dead using kapahas – sky‐exposed scaffold burials
▪European impacts and construction are all considered desecrations by Dakota people
▪Only acceptable approach to bluff is to not go there; restoration
▪Interpretation of Dakota stories (i.e., signage) is not supported if located at the bluff; telling the
stories from a non‐Dakota perspective is insulting
▪Possible to identify the bluff as sacred Dakota ground
▪Limit areas of construction to be outside of bluff
▪Possible to tell stories of Dakota off‐site; maybe through historical society?
▪Flagpole is a negative message to Dakota; would like to see if removed, or at least flown with
Dakota flag as well
▪"Development" in park, if done, should be as natural and low‐impact as possible
▪Support trash removal and cleanups and promotion of stewardship
▪Limit areas of access; parking should be located away from bluff with ped access only
▪Wisconsin Ice Age trail is successful example of trail development sensitive to native
communities
▪Consider honoring Dakota cultural history with park or trail closures at special times of year –
November is National American Indian Heritage Month; March is heritage preservation month
Next steps
63 APPEndIx
APPEnDIx B.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATIon MEETInG SUMMARIES: LoCAL non-PRoFIT oRGAnIzATIon STAKEHoLDER MEETInG
Page 1 of 3
Barn Bluff Park Master Plan
Stakeholder Input Meetings – November 2015
Local Non‐Profit Organizations
November 4, 2015
2:30 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.
Red Wing Public Library, Red Wing
Attendees:
Brian Peterson, City of Red Wing Planning
Bruce Blair, Project Manager
Shawn Blaney, City of Red Wing Public Works
Pat Ramaker, City of Red Wing Public Works
Jay Owens, City Engineer
Bruce Chamberlain, LOAM
Jennifer Cater, HKGi
Sarah Evenson, HKGi
Paul Karlen, Kiwanis Club
Johnny Ostberg, Friends of the Bluff
Jason Jech, Environmental Learning Center
Laura Wildenborg, Environmental Learning
Center
Leanne Knott, Friends of the Bluff
Sue Dopkins, Kiwanis Club
Dave Borgen, Red Wing Community Recreation
David Anderson, Friends of the Bluff
Michelle Leise, Live Healthy Red Wing
SUMMARY
Introductions
Review why the city is conducting a park master plan and where we are at in the beginning of the
process. Purpose of the meeting is to gain input about context, knowledge, activities and partnerships
related to park use and planning for the future.
Discussion Items
Priorities:
▪Reopen the North Trail (Friends of the Bluffs)
▪Keep the bluff wild‐ as natural as possible (but safe)
‐Immersiveness is key to the Barn Bluff experience
▪Keep the bluff maintained over time (good condition)
▪Ice climbing (could be an attraction)‐ Environmental Learning Center
▪Would like to promote bluff use by locals not typically involved
‐Need conversations with the east side neighborhoods
‐Entryway improvements are important
‐Verbal promotion and marketing via social media
Barn Bluff Stakeholder Input Meeting – Historic & Cultural Resources
Page 2 of 3
‐Accessibility improvements, at least partially (like along Kiln Trail) would help attract
others
▪Loop trail opportunity needs to be pursued (ideal for group hikes)
▪Improve trail network and access as a whole
▪A picnic/orientation area at the bottom of the bluff
‐Could this also happen in the space left by bridge removal at the bottom of the bluff’s
west face?
▪Improved entry experience
‐Need water/bathrooms
‐Xcel is using reservoir for untreated process water
Could the space be retrofitted and shared?
Educational/promotional opportunity for Xcel
Reuse of building is desired versus building new
Has water hookup but not sanitary sewer
‐Need bike parking
‐Need Parking; expansion possible in area to the northeast of the bluff – could lease
land under power lines from Xcel
‐Signs are present, but the residential feel dissuades people from knowing they’re on
the right track
▪Keep the bluff available to unstructured uses‐ accessible, open to all , and free
▪Could there be a path from Colville Park to Barn Bluff? Or to Baypoint?
What They Do:
▪Friends of the Bluffs
‐Works with the City, US Fish + Wildlife Service, and DNR to restore the bluff
‐Coordinate volunteer efforts and have the potential to lead fundraising
‐Maintain trails (sumac clearing & mgmt. of wild parsnip)
‐Helped to build the new overlook
‐Have an active social media network‐ could be used to get the word out/ educate
▪Noontime Kiwanis/ Dawnbreakers Kiwanis/ Golden K Kiwanis
‐Organized fundraising to move the Kiwanis stairways.
‐Pay for occasional stair maintenance
‐Have a focus on youth‐ could get grants for youth‐focused programming
▪Environmental Learning Center
‐Has been teaching climbing for over 40 years
‐Do geocaching sometimes
‐Built water bars along the quarry trail
‐Organize service projects (mostly trail maintenance related)
‐Lead some hikes
‐Geology education
Concerns:
▪Safety on the bluff – even on the south side…
‐You assume the risk
64 HE MnI CAn | BArn BLUFF PArk MAsTEr PLAn: jUnE 2016
APPEnDIx B.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATIon MEETInG SUMMARIES: LoCAL non-PRoFIT oRGAnIzATIon STAKEHoLDER MEETInG
Barn Bluff Stakeholder Input Meeting – Historic & Cultural Resources
Page 3 of 3
‐Well‐signed trails are important
‐Not many people want railings
‐Balance of safety and natural landscape
▪Barn Bluff’s “Billboard” (graffiti)
‐Gets a mixed response
Some see it as a tradition; part of the culture (good or bad)
Others see it as disrespectful
▪Miss the past ease of access from downtown
‐Visitors have to know about the bluff, figure out how to get there, find parking, and be
familiar with the trail network
‐“It’s not that it’s not clear‐ it’s just not easy.”
▪Blocking trails has not been successful in the past.
‐Need trail signage that shows actual trails and tells you reasons why you need to stay
on them
Need to promote learned respectful behaviors that will become culturally enforced
over time
‐Need volunteer trails blocked immediately after someone re‐opens them (a
notification/reporting system would help)
▪Increase accessibility for more people
‐Incorporate east neighborhood
‐Bluff feels separate from community compared to Memorial Park
Potential Programming:
▪Themed hikes like the “Walk with Thoreau” at the Anderson Center
‐History especially
‐Environmental Learning Center says they would do more
▪Self‐guided tours via app, mobile site, or QR code
‐Stopping points like plaques on limestone aren’t always used
‐Should include the dynamite storage spot
▪Camping? Maybe in partnership with Izaak Walton League
▪Art classes on the bluff/ Displayed/featured local art/ Places to post photography
Other groups that can get involved:
▪Live Healthy Red Wing
▪The YMCA (sometimes leads hikes); 3rd‐5th graders with mixed success
▪Izaak Walton League – Red Wing Chapter
▪Goodhue County Historical Society
▪Audubon
▪Anderson Center ("Walk with Thoreau")
65 APPEndIx
APPEnDIx B.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATIon MEETInG SUMMARIES: LoCAL non-PRoFIT oRGAnIzATIon STAKEHoLDER MEETInG
APPEnDIx B.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATIon MEETInG SUMMARIES: LoCAL non-PRoFIT oRGAnIzATIon STAKEHoLDER MEETInG
APPEnDIx B.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATIon MEETInG SUMMARIES: PUBLIC woRKSHoP MEETInG CoMMEnTS
Barn Bluff Park Master Plan
Public Workshop – November 2015
Public Workshop #1
November 4, 2015
6:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m.
Red Wing Public Library, Red Wing
SUMMARY OF INPUT
How do you feel connected/disconnected to Barn Bluff?
Disconnected:
Participants' feelings about disconnection with the bluff relate to the difficulty and lack of safety
on trails, the lack of a loop route through the park, and lack of parking. A sense of a welcoming
entry also limits connection by making the park difficult to find or navigate through.
o North trail / lack of a loop and missing out on experience / Because the North Trail is
closed (3)
o Painting on bluff face / Graffiti ‐1958 (2)
o Lack of parking (2)
o Signage ‐ not visually pleasing / hard to find (2)
o Hard to find park entry – better signage, describe at memorial park
o Scared (ability wise – no prior experience)
o Unknown safety – bad reputation/history
o Trail difficulty
o No direct access from riverboat/waterfront – need for organized transportation
o Signage needed and should be at the bottom too
o Overcrowded – feel more connected when fewer people are there
o Through lack of facilities
o Physical limitations to access
o Highway is a disconnect
o Flag pole
o Construction atmosphere on top
o Invasive plants
66 HE MnI CAn | BArn BLUFF PArk MAsTEr PLAn: jUnE 2016
APPEnDIx B.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATIon MEETInG SUMMARIES: PUBLIC woRKSHoP MEETInG CoMMEnTS
o Trail erosion
o Power lines
o NSP/Xcel steam plant
o Trail head needs work
o History explanation (2)
o Interpretation center
o Traffic control
o Smells are a disconnect, takes you out of the experience
Connected:
Participants feel connected to the park through their visits and traditions. Many came as
children and have spent time with family there; others visit repeatedly to climb the bluff,
experience the natural areas through the seasons, and take in the views. Outside of the park,
participants feel connected to the bluff as a landmark and icon of the city – that the bluff makes
this "Red Wing". Some participants noted the bluff as a sacred and religious place.
o Like improvements at Memorial Park
o “The Crack” scramble trail (from quarry on south side to prairie trail near east overlook):
A challenge, but do‐able for youth (good introduction to climbing)
o Interpretation – education – views and history geology
o Southern exposure
o Less use 10yrs ago, more activity since advertising on rec sites
o Love natural character
o Looking at it / Looking out from it
o Climbing – A place to do what you love
o Religious and sacred place
o Place of family memories / Childhood‐Life connection – would come to Red Wing to
climb Barn Bluff (2)
o Seasonally different experiences
o Visual connection
o Can walk to it
o To prairie
o As a natural area
o The view / multiple views from the bluff and of the bluff
o Painting on face
o Wooded quarry natural area
o Solitude
o Historic stairs
o Natural beauty
o Easily accessible
o Iconic
o Makes Red Wing ‘Red Wing’
67 APPEndIx
APPEnDIx B.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATIon MEETInG SUMMARIES: PUBLIC woRKSHoP MEETInG CoMMEnTS
o Through rock climbing
o Through love of native plants/prairie
What are the Top 3 activities do you enjoy at the park?
The top activities noted most by participants included the following: sport climbing, photography,
hiking, bird watching, and appreciation of the natural communities.
Sport climbing (4)
Photography (4)
Hiking (3)
Bird watching (3)
Appreciation of natural communities
(wild flowers) (3)
Picnic / social gathering (2)
Overlooks
Nature watching
Day dreaming
Socializing
Sharing with visitors
Hiking with pets
Urban solitude
Snow shoeing
Sightseeing
Geocaching
Fireworks
Exercise
Appreciation of historic features
Watching climbers
What features or amenities currently support these activities or are needed to
better support them?
A strong theme carried through many of the comments and suggested making sure the bluff is better
managed to leave it as natural as possible, and encourage stewardship that follows the ethos of "leave
no trace". Comments related to developments and improvements centered mainly on the need for a
trailhead with related facilities, such as more parking, signage, restrooms or porta‐potties. Other
comments discuss developing sustainable trails that are better managed for durability, safety, and
health of the surrounding natural landscape. Some participants noted the desire for more educational
opportunities either at the park or about the park from other locations or through various forms of
technology.
Trailhead with water and sanitation (restrooms that are bio‐degradable?) services – with
lighting and security (at bottom‐street level) (4)
More and better parking (2)
More signage
Porta‐potty ‐ near parking
Better / consistent signage (especially at base), not necessarily more
Educational opportunities: Signage at entry detailing significance to Dakota Nation, Intrusions
detailed why low impact is important, What the landscape was, and why it needs respect
68 HE MnI CAn | BArn BLUFF PArk MAsTEr PLAn: jUnE 2016
APPEnDIx B.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATIon MEETInG SUMMARIES: PUBLIC woRKSHoP MEETInG CoMMEnTS
Remove flagpole or fly both flags
No more bush‐whacking trails, better management
Pipe and cable rail on North Trail to prevent falls
Steps, railings, resting places and benches
Signage: Pet waste, invasive species, cultural significance
Improved trail maintenance
Trash receptacles or ‘bring‐it‐in / bring it out’ policy that is promoted
Brushes for shoes to prevent invasive species spread
Change public perception for the bluff – i.e. safety of path, appropriate footwear
Online space to share photos from local photographers
Sustainable trails
Concern for respecting native peoples
Concern about too much development – losing natural beauty
Concern about to much signage
Interpretation at Carlson Kiln – maybe have a paved accessible trail to kiln only
An app instead of signs
Fully looped trail system
Improved railing with stairs
Interpretive signage about history, geology, eagles/wildlife, etc.
o Must be well integrated (not obtrusive)
o Some opposition to this exits, want to preserve natural state
Sign at east overlook ‘No rock throwing, climbers below’
Barn Bluff smartphone app – do this in place of visible signage, enable clips that present info on
smartphones as you pass various spots – this preserves natural state while offering visitors info
Signs in other locations such as Bay Point Ark, Levee Park, Memorial Park, etc. with info about it
and directing people to it
Trash receptacles – near parking
‘Take pictures only’ signage
Educational opportunities – on site and broader programming
Added features that do not detract from natural character
Expansion of oak savanna and prairie
General Comments:
General comments received echo the idea of keeping the park as a natural setting for people to enjoy in
a manner that does not impact its natural and historic significance.
The key to any Barn Bluff development is to determine if the City wishes to ‘preserve’ the Barn
Bluff into its most natural state or wishes to make it a more friendly destination for more
people. To develop the bluff so more people can use it will mean putting manmade amenities
69 APPEndIx
APPEnDIx B.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATIon MEETInG SUMMARIES: PUBLIC woRKSHoP MEETInG CoMMEnTS
on the bluff itself, something some people may not want. There should be signage that says the
hikers should leave the bluff as they came to it.
Should be a promotional campaign with flyers available to people in downtown regarding the
bluff.
Leave only footprints / take only photographs: low‐impact interaction should be enforced.
I keep being asked, by ‘Twin Cities people’, when that north trail will be fixed. There is an 88yr
old woman from the Twin Cities who says she hikes that trail every year.
Preserve the natural areas
I am very concerned about keeping the bluff as natural as possible including the actual trails
If barn bluff is to be a destination, then the entire community must be involved so promotional
materials are available along with off‐site signage (Bay Point Park) because the view is more
than ‘on the bluff’. Memorial Park is another site
Please‐ less impact here than on the project at Sorins Bluff, there should be a way to have more
thoughtful signage and trail maintenance
After becoming more informed, it weighs heavily on the heart to see Barn Bluff remain in as
natural as setting as possible thereby honoring the natural history and spiritual aspects
surrounding the Dakota People and their heritage.
Making ‘Memorial Park’ and ‘Barn Bluff’ two different identities
o Memorial Park – Family oriented and very accessible
o Barn Bluff – A sacred place to learn, grow, honor and respect
Get rid of and find a way to prevent/suppress graffiti issue
Needs better parking and restroom facilities
70 HE MnI CAn | BArn BLUFF PArk MAsTEr PLAn: jUnE 2016
APPEnDIx B.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATIon MEETInG SUMMARIES: oPEn HoUSE MEETInG CoMMEnTS
Barn Bluff Park Master Plan
Open House Workshop – January 2016
Open House
January 28th, 2016
5:30 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.
Red Wing Public Library, Red Wing
SUMMARY OF INPUT
Concept Feedback: Feature Preferences
CONCEPT FEEDBACK Concept 1 Concept 2 Preferred Concept
Feature Like Dislike Like Dislike
Entry 3 8 1 2
Parking 2 1 10 2
Restrooms 4 1 7 2 2
Lawn/Picnic area 1 1 9 2 2
Interpretation 3 1 3 1 tie
Bike Connections 2 1 5 1 2
Roof of water storage
tank 7 2 3 1
Trail junctions 7 2 2 1 1
Additional Trails 4 1 5 3 tie
Totals 33 8 51 14
Like the added parking
Like the wall with the historical photos/interpretive displays
Riverfront Trail will be a great connection
Like how Concept 2 puts distance/buffer between rails and Kiln Trail/Park Entry Trail
If no distance or buffer, put sign up indicating active tracks
71 APPEndIx
APPEnDIx B.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATIon MEETInG SUMMARIES: oPEn HoUSE MEETInG CoMMEnTS
Barn Bluff Gateway Feedback:
What can make the approach to the park more appealing?
Like the multi-use trail connection (2)
Black/gold signage like that used elsewhere around Red Wing should be present before the
bridge overpass
Need locking parking for bikes
Carlson Kiln Plaza Feedback:
Like the idea of a viewing plaza
Prairie restoration is important
Like the development of the kiln per the concept drawings
Love to see the kiln restored and attractive for tourists
Signs explaining the kiln’s use and construction would be great
Stairs from the kiln to the proposed upper kiln or quarry trail would be beneficial
East Overlook Concepts Feedback:
Concept 1
o Very nice / Like this idea/ yes (6)
o I enjoy the current path and grade change
o Natural look is better (2)
o No steps, please
o Not sure I like the stone walls (maybe)
o A very low wall at the east end [is okay] (2)
o Natural stone stairs are good
o Check out the park overlooking Alma, WI- great precedent
o Would like to have a railing
Concept 2
o The Prairie Trail lower loop is a good idea- prevents the current trail from being one long
dead end
o I love not having steps- it is easier to hike a hill than to climb steps
o Keep path natural- no flagstones (4)
o Prefer no steps- keep the path and grades as is. Too much development in this concept-
intrusive
o I think people will be tempted to deface tall rocks
Native Elements Feedback:
It’s important to have Native American input and participation in feature construction
Like the trail marking cairns shown
72 HE MnI CAn | BArn BLUFF PArk MAsTEr PLAn: jUnE 2016
APPEnDIx B.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATIon MEETInG SUMMARIES: oPEn HoUSE MEETInG CoMMEnTS
General Comments:
Encourage lots of vegetation diversity
Encourage pollinators
Would love signage on the geology of Barn Bluff, its historical significance, and Native American
use of the bluff/river. Addition of this interpretation would encourage me to bring my friends
and family to visit and recommend it to others
Use social media to help attract people
The “this is not an approved trail” signs there currently catch the light and can be seen from
across town (remove/replace- like the cairn trail marker idea)
Remove flag and flagpole
Reopen north trail
Put something in place to prevent/discourage painters from graffiti-ing rock face
The casual paths that lead off the bluff-top trail to the north and northeast should be masked
and restored with vegetation so as not to entice an out-of-towner to walk/run on them (more
safety measures needed to formalize path network). Or create an overlook there.
73 APPEndIx
APPEnDIx C.
PRoJECT CoST ESTIMATES: SoURCES AnD USES TABLEHe Mni Can (Barn Bluff) Master Plan Funding Sources and Uses Sheet 1 of 4
He Mni Can (Barn Bluff) Master Plan
Funding Sources & Uses
rev: 6/10/2016
prepared by: Hoisington Koegler Group / Loam Grant Funding
Philanthropic
Funding
Partner Funding
/ In-Kind
Legacy Funding
(Arts & History)
State
Appropriation
Federal
Appropriation
Item Amount Totals
TOTAL MASTER PLAN BUDGET $7,074,268 $1,066,658 $2,347,888 $3,659,722 $0 $2,251,508 $743,639 $664,575 $0 $0
IMMEDIATE PHASE BUDGET (2016/2017)$319,000 $60,400 $0 $258,600 $0 $0 $0 $258,600 $0 $0
Carlson Kiln Restoration Project $319,000 $60,400 $0 $258,600 $0 $0 $0 $258,600 $0 $0
Hard Costs $220,000 $0 $0 $220,000 $220,000
Soft Costs $99,000 $60,400 $0 $38,600 $38,600
EARLY PHASE BUDGET (2017/2018)$1,885,897 $311,096 $765,783 $809,019 $0 $224,404 $403,639 $180,975 $0 $0
Upper Bluff Safe Trails Project $807,279 $111,429 $292,210 $403,639 $0 $0 $403,639 $0 $0 $0
Hard Costs $584,420 $0 $292,210 $292,210 $292,210 value of conservation corp in-kind labor
Soft Costs $222,859 $111,429 $0 $111,429 $111,429 reduced dsn/admin fees due to conservation corp process
Park Entry "The Basics" Project $423,983 $0 $423,983 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Hard Costs $296,491 $0 $296,491 $0
Soft Costs $127,491 $0 $127,491 $0
Kiwanis Stair Restoration Project $248,820 $74,820 $49,590 $124,410 $0 $0 $0 $124,410 $0 $0
Hard Costs $174,000 $0 $49,590 $124,410 $124,410
Soft Costs $74,820 $74,820 $0 $0
Carlson Kiln Interpretive Project $113,130 $56,565 $0 $56,565 $0 $0 $0 $56,565 $0 $0
Hard Costs $79,112 $22,547 $0 $56,565 $56,565
Soft Costs $34,018 $34,018 $0 $0
Dakota Memorial Project $223,938 $40,000 $0 $183,938 $0 $183,938 $0 $0 $0 $0
Hard Costs $156,600 $0 $0 $156,600 $156,600 Prairie Island
Soft Costs $67,338 $40,000 $0 $27,338 $27,338 Prairie Island
Other Costs for this Phase $68,748 $28,281 $40,466 $0 $40,466 $0 $0 $0 $0
Operating Escrow Contribution $46,675 $28,281 $18,394 $18,394 philanthropic campaign
Fundraising Administration $22,073 $22,073 $22,073 philanthropic campaign
MID PHASE BUDGET (2019-2021)$1,234,701 $225,053 $784,648 $225,000 $0 $0 $0 $225,000 $0 $0
Park Entry Completion Project $533,848 $0 $533,848 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Hard Costs $373,320 $0 $373,320 $0
Soft Costs $160,528 $0 $160,528 $0
Carlson Kiln Plaza Project $680,394 $204,594 $250,800 $225,000 $0 $0 $0 $225,000 $0 $0
Hard Costs $475,800 $0 $250,800 $225,000 $225,000
Soft Costs $204,594 $204,594 $0 $0
Other Costs for this Phase $20,459 $20,459 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Operating Escrow Contribution $20,459 $20,459 $0 $0 philanthropic campaign
Fundraising Administration $0 $0 $0 philanthropic campaign
LATER PHASE BUDGET (2022-2026)$3,634,669 $470,108 $797,458 $2,367,103 $0 $2,027,103 $340,000 $0 $0 $0
Car Park Project $500,166 $117,158 $333,008 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0
Hard Costs $265,850 $0 $215,850 $50,000 $50,000 Xcel contribution
Soft Costs $234,316 $117,158 $117,158 $0
Pump House Renovation Project $1,561,560 $0 $0 $1,561,560 $0 $1,561,560 $0 $0 $0 $0
Hard Costs $1,092,000 $0 $0 $1,092,000 $1,092,000 philanthropic campaign
Soft Costs $469,560 $0 $0 $469,560 $469,560 philanthropic campaign
5th Street Gateway Project $1,164,664 $310,214 $464,450 $390,000 $0 $100,000 $290,000 $0 $0 $0
Hard Costs $814,450 $0 $464,450 $350,000 philanthropic campaign $100,000 $250,000 MNDOT contribution
Soft Costs $350,214 $310,214 $0 $40,000 $40,000 MNDOT contribution
Other Costs for this Phase $408,280 $42,737 $0 $365,543 $0 $365,543 $0 $0 $0 $0
Operating Escrow Contribution $208,893 $42,737 $166,156 $166,156 philanthropic campaign
Fundraising Administration $199,387 $199,387 $199,387 philanthropic campaign
PROJECT BUDGETS
City of Red Wing Greater MN
Parks & Trails
Third-Party
Funding
Third-Party: specific sourcesFUNDING SOURCES (targeted)
74 HE MnI CAn | BArn BLUFF PArk MAsTEr PLAn: jUnE 2016
APPEnDIx C.
PRoJECT CoST ESTIMATES
He Mni Can (Barn Bluff) Estimated Budgets: Park Entry Projects
rev: 6/10/2016
prepared by: Hoisington Koegler Group / Loam
Quantity Unit Price/ Unit Cost Estimate
Park Entry "The Basics" Project - Early Phase
Hard Costs
Demolition/Removals/Electrical Line Relocation 1 LS $60,000 $60,000
Site Grading 1 LS $20,000 $20,000
Gravel Parking Lot 20 STALLS $400 $8,000
New Entry Trail: Climbing Causeway 300 LF $50 $15,000
New Entry Trail: Accessible Route 445 LF $40 $17,800
Interpretive Plaza (Pump House to Kiwanis Stairs)8,750 SF $6 $52,500
Woodland Trail Junction 1 LS $20,000 $20,000
Council ring at East Kiwanis Stairs 1 LS $15,000 $15,000
Park Entry Kiosk 1 LS $25,000 $25,000
Biff Enclosure 1 LS $15,000 $15,000
Gathering Lawn 608 SY $12 $7,296
Mobilization 10%$25,560
Escalation (6% early, 12% mid, 20% later phase)6%$15,336
Hard Cost Subtotal $296,491
Soft Costs
Construction Contingency 25%$74,123
Design/Engineering/Administration 18%$53,368
Soft Cost Subtotal $127,491
Project Budget $423,983
Dakota Memorial Project - Early Phase
Hard Costs
Dakota Memorial Artwork 1 LS $120,000 $120,000
Surrounding Site Work 1 LS $15,000 $15,000
Mobilization 10%$13,500
Escalation (6% early, 12% mid, 20% later phase)6%$8,100
Hard Cost Subtotal $156,600
Soft Costs
Construction Contingency 25%$39,150
Design/Engineering/Administration 18%$28,188
Soft Cost Subtotal $67,338
Project Budget $223,938
Park Entry Completion Project - Mid Phase
Hard Costs
General Interpretive Features 1 LS $20,000 $20,000
Interpretive Panels on Reservoir Wall 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
Wayfinding/ Signage 1 LS $40,000 $40,000
Site Furnishings 1 LS $20,000 $20,000
Lighting / Electrical 1 LS $80,000 $80,000
Rainwater Garden 3,000 SF $12 $36,000
Landscaping 1 LS $60,000 $60,000
Mobilization 10%$30,600
Escalation (6% early, 12% mid, 20% later phase)12%$36,720
Hard Cost Subtotal $373,320
Soft Costs
Construction Contingency 25%$93,330
Design/Engineering/Administration 18%$67,198
Soft Cost Subtotal $160,528
Project Budget $533,848
Car Park Project - Later Phase
Hard Costs
Paved parking lot w/stormwater infrastructure 20 STALLS $4,000 $80,000
Grass overflow parking on Xcel property 19,500 SF $3 $58,500
Lighting / Electrical 1 LS $20,000 $20,000
Rainwater Garden 3,000 SF $12 $36,000
Landscaping 1 LS $10,000 $10,000
Mobilization 10%$20,450
Escalation (6% early, 12% mid, 20% later phase)20%$40,900
Hard Cost Subtotal $265,850
Soft Costs
Soil Correction Contingency 60,000 SF $2 $120,000
Construction Contingency 25%$66,463
Design/Engineering/Administration 18%$47,853
Soft Cost Subtotal $234,316
Project Budget $500,166
Pump House Renovation Project - Later Phase
Hard Costs
Utilities 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
Building Renovation/Addition 1 LS $600,000 $600,000
Security, Lighting, Communications, Electrical 1 LS $120,000 $120,000
Associated Site Work 1 LS $40,000 $40,000
Fixtures & Furnishings 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
Mobilization 10%$84,000
Escalation (6% early, 12% mid, 20% later phase)20%$168,000
Hard Cost Subtotal $1,092,000
Soft Costs
Construction Contingency 25%$273,000
Design/Engineering/Administration 18%$196,560
Soft Cost Subtotal $469,560
Project Budget $1,561,560
5th Street Gateway Project - Later Phase
5th Street Trail (neighborhood to regional trail)1,230 LF $50 $61,500
On-street Diagonal Parking (18 spaces on 5th St.)18 each $2,500 $45,000
5th Street Special Pavement (pavers)9,000 SF $30 $270,000
Gateway Features at Highway 61 Bridge 1 LS $120,000 $120,000
Lighting / Electrical 1 LS $80,000 $80,000
Landscaping/Stormwater 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
Mobilization 10%$62,650
Escalation (6% early, 12% mid, 20% later phase)20%$125,300
Hard Cost Subtotal $814,450
Soft Costs
Construction Contingency 25%$203,613
Design/Engineering/Administration 18%$146,601
Soft Cost Subtotal $350,214
Project Budget $1,164,664
75 APPEndIx
APPEnDIx C.
PRoJECT CoST ESTIMATES
He Mni Can (Barn Bluff) Estimated Budgets: Park Entry Projects
rev: 6/10/2016
prepared by: Hoisington Koegler Group / Loam
Quantity Unit Price/ Unit Cost Estimate
Park Entry "The Basics" Project - Early Phase
Hard Costs
Demolition/Removals/Electrical Line Relocation 1 LS $60,000 $60,000
Site Grading 1 LS $20,000 $20,000
Gravel Parking Lot 20 STALLS $400 $8,000
New Entry Trail: Climbing Causeway 300 LF $50 $15,000
New Entry Trail: Accessible Route 445 LF $40 $17,800
Interpretive Plaza (Pump House to Kiwanis Stairs)8,750 SF $6 $52,500
Woodland Trail Junction 1 LS $20,000 $20,000
Council ring at East Kiwanis Stairs 1 LS $15,000 $15,000
Park Entry Kiosk 1 LS $25,000 $25,000
Biff Enclosure 1 LS $15,000 $15,000
Gathering Lawn 608 SY $12 $7,296
Mobilization 10%$25,560
Escalation (6% early, 12% mid, 20% later phase)6%$15,336
Hard Cost Subtotal $296,491
Soft Costs
Construction Contingency 25%$74,123
Design/Engineering/Administration 18%$53,368
Soft Cost Subtotal $127,491
Project Budget $423,983
Dakota Memorial Project - Early Phase
Hard Costs
Dakota Memorial Artwork 1 LS $120,000 $120,000
Surrounding Site Work 1 LS $15,000 $15,000
Mobilization 10%$13,500
Escalation (6% early, 12% mid, 20% later phase)6%$8,100
Hard Cost Subtotal $156,600
Soft Costs
Construction Contingency 25%$39,150
Design/Engineering/Administration 18%$28,188
Soft Cost Subtotal $67,338
Project Budget $223,938
Park Entry Completion Project - Mid Phase
Hard Costs
General Interpretive Features 1 LS $20,000 $20,000
Interpretive Panels on Reservoir Wall 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
Wayfinding/ Signage 1 LS $40,000 $40,000
Site Furnishings 1 LS $20,000 $20,000
Lighting / Electrical 1 LS $80,000 $80,000
Rainwater Garden 3,000 SF $12 $36,000
Landscaping 1 LS $60,000 $60,000
Mobilization 10%$30,600
Escalation (6% early, 12% mid, 20% later phase)12%$36,720
Hard Cost Subtotal $373,320
Soft Costs
Construction Contingency 25%$93,330
Design/Engineering/Administration 18%$67,198
Soft Cost Subtotal $160,528
Project Budget $533,848
Car Park Project - Later Phase
Hard Costs
Paved parking lot w/stormwater infrastructure 20 STALLS $4,000 $80,000
Grass overflow parking on Xcel property 19,500 SF $3 $58,500
Lighting / Electrical 1 LS $20,000 $20,000
Rainwater Garden 3,000 SF $12 $36,000
Landscaping 1 LS $10,000 $10,000
Mobilization 10%$20,450
Escalation (6% early, 12% mid, 20% later phase)20%$40,900
Hard Cost Subtotal $265,850
Soft Costs
Soil Correction Contingency 60,000 SF $2 $120,000
Construction Contingency 25%$66,463
Design/Engineering/Administration 18%$47,853
Soft Cost Subtotal $234,316
Project Budget $500,166
Pump House Renovation Project - Later Phase
Hard Costs
Utilities 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
Building Renovation/Addition 1 LS $600,000 $600,000
Security, Lighting, Communications, Electrical 1 LS $120,000 $120,000
Associated Site Work 1 LS $40,000 $40,000
Fixtures & Furnishings 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
Mobilization 10%$84,000
Escalation (6% early, 12% mid, 20% later phase)20%$168,000
Hard Cost Subtotal $1,092,000
Soft Costs
Construction Contingency 25%$273,000
Design/Engineering/Administration 18%$196,560
Soft Cost Subtotal $469,560
Project Budget $1,561,560
5th Street Gateway Project - Later Phase
5th Street Trail (neighborhood to regional trail)1,230 LF $50 $61,500
On-street Diagonal Parking (18 spaces on 5th St.)18 each $2,500 $45,000
5th Street Special Pavement (pavers)9,000 SF $30 $270,000
Gateway Features at Highway 61 Bridge 1 LS $120,000 $120,000
Lighting / Electrical 1 LS $80,000 $80,000
Landscaping/Stormwater 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
Mobilization 10%$62,650
Escalation (6% early, 12% mid, 20% later phase)20%$125,300
Hard Cost Subtotal $814,450
Soft Costs
Construction Contingency 25%$203,613
Design/Engineering/Administration 18%$146,601
Soft Cost Subtotal $350,214
Project Budget $1,164,664
He Mni Can (Barn Bluff) Estimated Budgets: Park Entry Projectsrev: 6/10/2016prepared by: Hoisington Koegler Group / Loam Quantity Unit Price/ Unit Cost EstimatePark Entry "The Basics" Project - Early PhaseHard CostsDemolition/Removals/Electrical Line Relocation 1 LS $60,000 $60,000 Site Grading 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 Gravel Parking Lot 20 STALLS $400 $8,000 New Entry Trail: Climbing Causeway 300 LF $50 $15,000 New Entry Trail: Accessible Route 445 LF $40 $17,800 Interpretive Plaza (Pump House to Kiwanis Stairs)8,750 SF $6 $52,500 Woodland Trail Junction 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 Council ring at East Kiwanis Stairs 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 Park Entry Kiosk 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 Biff Enclosure 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 Gathering Lawn 608 SY $12 $7,296 Mobilization 10%$25,560 Escalation (6% early, 12% mid, 20% later phase)6%$15,336 Hard Cost Subtotal $296,491 Soft Costs Construction Contingency 25%$74,123 Design/Engineering/Administration 18%$53,368 Soft Cost Subtotal $127,491 Project Budget $423,983 Dakota Memorial Project - Early PhaseHard CostsDakota Memorial Artwork 1 LS $120,000 $120,000 Surrounding Site Work 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 Mobilization 10%$13,500 Escalation (6% early, 12% mid, 20% later phase)6%$8,100
Hard Cost Subtotal $156,600
Soft Costs
Construction Contingency 25%$39,150
Design/Engineering/Administration 18%$28,188
Soft Cost Subtotal $67,338
Project Budget $223,938
Park Entry Completion Project - Mid Phase
Hard Costs
General Interpretive Features 1 LS $20,000 $20,000
Interpretive Panels on Reservoir Wall 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
Wayfinding/ Signage 1 LS $40,000 $40,000
Site Furnishings 1 LS $20,000 $20,000
Lighting / Electrical 1 LS $80,000 $80,000
Rainwater Garden 3,000 SF $12 $36,000
Landscaping 1 LS $60,000 $60,000
Mobilization 10%$30,600
Escalation (6% early, 12% mid, 20% later phase)12%$36,720
Hard Cost Subtotal $373,320
Soft Costs
Construction Contingency 25%$93,330
Design/Engineering/Administration 18%$67,198
Soft Cost Subtotal $160,528
Project Budget $533,848
Car Park Project - Later Phase
Hard Costs
Paved parking lot w/stormwater infrastructure 20 STALLS $4,000 $80,000
Grass overflow parking on Xcel property 19,500 SF $3 $58,500
Lighting / Electrical 1 LS $20,000 $20,000
Rainwater Garden 3,000 SF $12 $36,000
Landscaping 1 LS $10,000 $10,000
Mobilization 10%$20,450
Escalation (6% early, 12% mid, 20% later phase)20%$40,900
Hard Cost Subtotal $265,850
Soft Costs
Soil Correction Contingency 60,000 SF $2 $120,000
Construction Contingency 25%$66,463
Design/Engineering/Administration 18%$47,853
Soft Cost Subtotal $234,316
Project Budget $500,166
Pump House Renovation Project - Later Phase
Hard Costs
Utilities 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
Building Renovation/Addition 1 LS $600,000 $600,000
Security, Lighting, Communications, Electrical 1 LS $120,000 $120,000
Associated Site Work 1 LS $40,000 $40,000
Fixtures & Furnishings 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
Mobilization 10%$84,000
Escalation (6% early, 12% mid, 20% later phase)20%$168,000
Hard Cost Subtotal $1,092,000
Soft Costs
Construction Contingency 25%$273,000
Design/Engineering/Administration 18%$196,560
Soft Cost Subtotal $469,560
Project Budget $1,561,560
5th Street Gateway Project - Later Phase
5th Street Trail (neighborhood to regional trail)1,230 LF $50 $61,500
On-street Diagonal Parking (18 spaces on 5th St.)18 each $2,500 $45,000
5th Street Special Pavement (pavers)9,000 SF $30 $270,000
Gateway Features at Highway 61 Bridge 1 LS $120,000 $120,000
Lighting / Electrical 1 LS $80,000 $80,000
Landscaping/Stormwater 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
Mobilization 10%$62,650
Escalation (6% early, 12% mid, 20% later phase)20%$125,300
Hard Cost Subtotal $814,450
Soft Costs
Construction Contingency 25%$203,613
Design/Engineering/Administration 18%$146,601
Soft Cost Subtotal $350,214
Project Budget $1,164,664
76 HE MnI CAn | BArn BLUFF PArk MAsTEr PLAn: jUnE 2016
APPEnDIx C.
PRoJECT CoST ESTIMATES
He Mni Can (Barn Bluff) Estimated Budgets: Park Entry Projects
rev: 6/10/2016
prepared by: Hoisington Koegler Group / Loam
Quantity Unit Price/ Unit Cost Estimate
Park Entry "The Basics" Project - Early Phase
Hard Costs
Demolition/Removals/Electrical Line Relocation 1 LS $60,000 $60,000
Site Grading 1 LS $20,000 $20,000
Gravel Parking Lot 20 STALLS $400 $8,000
New Entry Trail: Climbing Causeway 300 LF $50 $15,000
New Entry Trail: Accessible Route 445 LF $40 $17,800
Interpretive Plaza (Pump House to Kiwanis Stairs)8,750 SF $6 $52,500
Woodland Trail Junction 1 LS $20,000 $20,000
Council ring at East Kiwanis Stairs 1 LS $15,000 $15,000
Park Entry Kiosk 1 LS $25,000 $25,000
Biff Enclosure 1 LS $15,000 $15,000
Gathering Lawn 608 SY $12 $7,296
Mobilization 10%$25,560
Escalation (6% early, 12% mid, 20% later phase)6%$15,336
Hard Cost Subtotal $296,491
Soft Costs
Construction Contingency 25%$74,123
Design/Engineering/Administration 18%$53,368
Soft Cost Subtotal $127,491
Project Budget $423,983
Dakota Memorial Project - Early Phase
Hard Costs
Dakota Memorial Artwork 1 LS $120,000 $120,000
Surrounding Site Work 1 LS $15,000 $15,000
Mobilization 10%$13,500
Escalation (6% early, 12% mid, 20% later phase)6%$8,100
Hard Cost Subtotal $156,600
Soft Costs
Construction Contingency 25%$39,150
Design/Engineering/Administration 18%$28,188
Soft Cost Subtotal $67,338
Project Budget $223,938
Park Entry Completion Project - Mid Phase
Hard Costs
General Interpretive Features 1 LS $20,000 $20,000
Interpretive Panels on Reservoir Wall 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
Wayfinding/ Signage 1 LS $40,000 $40,000
Site Furnishings 1 LS $20,000 $20,000
Lighting / Electrical 1 LS $80,000 $80,000
Rainwater Garden 3,000 SF $12 $36,000
Landscaping 1 LS $60,000 $60,000
Mobilization 10%$30,600
Escalation (6% early, 12% mid, 20% later phase)12%$36,720
Hard Cost Subtotal $373,320
Soft Costs
Construction Contingency 25%$93,330
Design/Engineering/Administration 18%$67,198
Soft Cost Subtotal $160,528
Project Budget $533,848
Car Park Project - Later Phase
Hard Costs
Paved parking lot w/stormwater infrastructure 20 STALLS $4,000 $80,000
Grass overflow parking on Xcel property 19,500 SF $3 $58,500
Lighting / Electrical 1 LS $20,000 $20,000
Rainwater Garden 3,000 SF $12 $36,000
Landscaping 1 LS $10,000 $10,000
Mobilization 10%$20,450
Escalation (6% early, 12% mid, 20% later phase)20%$40,900
Hard Cost Subtotal $265,850
Soft Costs
Soil Correction Contingency 60,000 SF $2 $120,000
Construction Contingency 25%$66,463
Design/Engineering/Administration 18%$47,853
Soft Cost Subtotal $234,316
Project Budget $500,166
Pump House Renovation Project - Later Phase
Hard Costs
Utilities 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
Building Renovation/Addition 1 LS $600,000 $600,000
Security, Lighting, Communications, Electrical 1 LS $120,000 $120,000
Associated Site Work 1 LS $40,000 $40,000
Fixtures & Furnishings 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
Mobilization 10%$84,000
Escalation (6% early, 12% mid, 20% later phase)20%$168,000
Hard Cost Subtotal $1,092,000
Soft Costs
Construction Contingency 25%$273,000
Design/Engineering/Administration 18%$196,560
Soft Cost Subtotal $469,560
Project Budget $1,561,560
5th Street Gateway Project - Later Phase
5th Street Trail (neighborhood to regional trail)1,230 LF $50 $61,500
On-street Diagonal Parking (18 spaces on 5th St.)18 each $2,500 $45,000
5th Street Special Pavement (pavers)9,000 SF $30 $270,000
Gateway Features at Highway 61 Bridge 1 LS $120,000 $120,000
Lighting / Electrical 1 LS $80,000 $80,000
Landscaping/Stormwater 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
Mobilization 10%$62,650
Escalation (6% early, 12% mid, 20% later phase)20%$125,300
Hard Cost Subtotal $814,450
Soft Costs
Construction Contingency 25%$203,613
Design/Engineering/Administration 18%$146,601
Soft Cost Subtotal $350,214
Project Budget $1,164,664
He Mni Can (Barn Bluff) Estimated Budgets: Park Entry Projectsrev: 6/10/2016prepared by: Hoisington Koegler Group / Loam Quantity Unit Price/ Unit Cost EstimatePark Entry "The Basics" Project - Early PhaseHard CostsDemolition/Removals/Electrical Line Relocation 1 LS $60,000 $60,000 Site Grading 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 Gravel Parking Lot 20 STALLS $400 $8,000 New Entry Trail: Climbing Causeway 300 LF $50 $15,000 New Entry Trail: Accessible Route 445 LF $40 $17,800 Interpretive Plaza (Pump House to Kiwanis Stairs)8,750 SF $6 $52,500 Woodland Trail Junction 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 Council ring at East Kiwanis Stairs 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 Park Entry Kiosk 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 Biff Enclosure 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 Gathering Lawn 608 SY $12 $7,296 Mobilization 10%$25,560 Escalation (6% early, 12% mid, 20% later phase)6%$15,336 Hard Cost Subtotal $296,491 Soft Costs Construction Contingency 25%$74,123 Design/Engineering/Administration 18%$53,368 Soft Cost Subtotal $127,491 Project Budget $423,983 Dakota Memorial Project - Early PhaseHard CostsDakota Memorial Artwork 1 LS $120,000 $120,000 Surrounding Site Work 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 Mobilization 10%$13,500 Escalation (6% early, 12% mid, 20% later phase)6%$8,100 Hard Cost Subtotal $156,600 Soft Costs Construction Contingency 25%$39,150 Design/Engineering/Administration 18%$28,188 Soft Cost Subtotal $67,338 Project Budget $223,938 Park Entry Completion Project - Mid PhaseHard CostsGeneral Interpretive Features 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 Interpretive Panels on Reservoir Wall 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 Wayfinding/ Signage 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 Site Furnishings 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 Lighting / Electrical 1 LS $80,000 $80,000 Rainwater Garden 3,000 SF $12 $36,000 Landscaping 1 LS $60,000 $60,000 Mobilization 10%$30,600 Escalation (6% early, 12% mid, 20% later phase)12%$36,720 Hard Cost Subtotal $373,320 Soft Costs Construction Contingency 25%$93,330 Design/Engineering/Administration 18%$67,198 Soft Cost Subtotal $160,528 Project Budget $533,848 Car Park Project - Later PhaseHard CostsPaved parking lot w/stormwater infrastructure 20 STALLS $4,000 $80,000 Grass overflow parking on Xcel property 19,500 SF $3 $58,500 Lighting / Electrical 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 Rainwater Garden 3,000 SF $12 $36,000 Landscaping 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 Mobilization 10%$20,450 Escalation (6% early, 12% mid, 20% later phase)20%$40,900 Hard Cost Subtotal $265,850
Soft Costs
Soil Correction Contingency 60,000 SF $2 $120,000
Construction Contingency 25%$66,463
Design/Engineering/Administration 18%$47,853
Soft Cost Subtotal $234,316
Project Budget $500,166
Pump House Renovation Project - Later Phase
Hard Costs
Utilities 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
Building Renovation/Addition 1 LS $600,000 $600,000
Security, Lighting, Communications, Electrical 1 LS $120,000 $120,000
Associated Site Work 1 LS $40,000 $40,000
Fixtures & Furnishings 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
Mobilization 10%$84,000
Escalation (6% early, 12% mid, 20% later phase)20%$168,000
Hard Cost Subtotal $1,092,000
Soft Costs
Construction Contingency 25%$273,000
Design/Engineering/Administration 18%$196,560
Soft Cost Subtotal $469,560
Project Budget $1,561,560
5th Street Gateway Project - Later Phase
5th Street Trail (neighborhood to regional trail)1,230 LF $50 $61,500
On-street Diagonal Parking (18 spaces on 5th St.)18 each $2,500 $45,000
5th Street Special Pavement (pavers)9,000 SF $30 $270,000
Gateway Features at Highway 61 Bridge 1 LS $120,000 $120,000
Lighting / Electrical 1 LS $80,000 $80,000
Landscaping/Stormwater 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
Mobilization 10%$62,650
Escalation (6% early, 12% mid, 20% later phase)20%$125,300
Hard Cost Subtotal $814,450
Soft Costs
Construction Contingency 25%$203,613
Design/Engineering/Administration 18%$146,601
Soft Cost Subtotal $350,214
Project Budget $1,164,664
77 APPEndIx
APPEnDIx C.
PRoJECT CoST ESTIMATES
He Mni Can (Barn Bluff) Estimated Budgets: Trail/Overlook Projects
rev: 6/10/2016
prepared by: Hoisington Koegler Group / Loam
Project Quantity Unit Price/ Unit Cost Estimate
Upper Bluff Safe Trails Project - Early Phase
Hard Costs (costs assume conservation corp approach)
South Trail Rehabilitation 1 LS $106,000 $106,000
Midland Trail Rehabilitation 1 LS $6,000 $6,000
Rogue Trail Decommissioning 1 LS $6,000 $6,000
Prairie Bypass Trail Realignment 1 LS $28,000 $28,000
Prairie Trail Realignment and West Overlook Modifications 1 LS $25,000 $25,000
Citizen's Memorial Stairway Minimal Rehabilitation 1 LS $5,000 $5,000
North Trail Rehabilitation 1 LS $20,000 $20,000
Quarry Trail Rehabilitation 1 LS $65,000 $65,000
East Overlook Reconstruction 1 LS $50,000 $50,000
Mobilization 5%$15,550
Escalation (6% early, 12% mid, 20% later phase)6%$18,660
Upcharge to Convetionally Bid the Project 100%$345,210
Hard Cost Subtotal $584,420
Soft Costs
Construction Contingency 25%$146,105
Archeological Survey 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
Design/Engineering/Administration 8%$46,754
Soft Cost Subtotal $222,859
Project Budget $807,279
Kiwanis Stair Restoration Project - Early Phase
Hard Costs
Citizen's Memorial Stairway Reconstruction 1 LS $100,000 $100,000
East Kiwanis Stair Restoration 1 LS $30,000 $30,000
Central Kiwanis Stairs Rehabilitation 1 LS $20,000 $20,000
Mobilization 10%$15,000
Escalation (6% early, 12% mid, 20% later phase)6%$9,000
Hard Cost Subtotal $174,000
Soft Costs
Construction Contingency 25%$43,500
Design/Engineering/Administration 18%$31,320
Soft Cost Subtotal $74,820
Project Budget $248,820
78 HE MnI CAn | BArn BLUFF PArk MAsTEr PLAn: jUnE 2016
APPEnDIx C.
PRoJECT CoST ESTIMATES
He Mni Can (Barn Bluff) Estimated Budgets: Carlson Kiln Projects
rev: 6/10/2016
prepared by: Hoisington Koegler Group / Loam
Quantity Unit Price/ Unit Cost Estimate
Carlson Kiln Restoration Project - Immediate Phase
Hard Costs
Kiln Structural Stabilization & Restoration 1 LS $200,000 $200,000
Mobilization 10%$20,000
Escalation (6% early, 12% mid, 20% later phase)0%$0
Hard Cost Subtotal $220,000
Soft Costs
Construction Contingency 20%$44,000
Design/Engineering/Administration 25%$55,000
Soft Cost Subtotal $99,000
Project Budget $319,000
Carlson Kiln Interpretive Project - Early Phase
Hard Costs
ADA Access Trail (park entry to kiln base)500 LF $40 $20,000
Kiln Overlook (top of kiln)1 LS $30,000 $30,000
Kiln Overlook Trail Spur 330 LF $40 $13,200
Overlook Interpretive Displays 1 LS $5,000 $5,000
Mobilization 10%$6,820
Escalation (6% early, 12% mid, 20% later phase)6%$4,092
Hard Cost Subtotal $79,112
Soft Costs
Construction Contingency 25%$19,778
Design/Engineering/Administration 18%$14,240
Soft Cost Subtotal $34,018
Project Budget $113,130
Carlson Kiln Plaza Project - Mid Phase
Hard Costs
Elevated Platform (at kiln base)1 LS $120,000 $120,000
Plaza Interpretive Displays 1 LS $20,000 $20,000
Site Furnishings 1 LS $10,000 $10,000
Security, Lighting, Communications, Electrical 1 LS $200,000 $200,000
Landscape Enhancements 1 LS $40,000 $40,000
Mobilization 10%$39,000
Escalation (6% early, 12% mid, 20% later phase)12%$46,800
Hard Cost Subtotal $475,800
Soft Costs
Construction Contingency 25%$118,950
Design/Engineering/Administration 18%$85,644
Soft Cost Subtotal $204,594
Project Budget $680,394
79 APPEndIx
he mni Can
barn blUFF
Park Master Plan
june 2016