This page provides a comprehensive overview of the Mississippi River Critical Area Program proposed as part of the 2009 Minnesota Legislative Session. To share the full story of the Critical Area and the reform legislation, this page is divided into several sections:

A very condensed version of this information can be found in our 2-page Adobe Acrobat PDF fact sheet.

The Mississippi River Critical Area: Its Purpose and Function

Because stewardship of the corridor is shared across so many municipalities and uses, there needs to be strong coordination among local governments and the DNR to manage the resource.

The Mississippi River Critical Area was established over 30 years ago to protect and preserve the unique scenic, environmental, recreational, mineral, economic, cultural and historic resources of the section of the Mississippi River flowing through the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area. It comprises 72 miles of river and 54,000 acres of surrounding land in some 30 governmental subdivisions.

Regulation of activities in this area of the Mississippi River is accomplished largely at the local level, with planning coordination, oversight and assistance provided primarily by the Minnesota Department of National Resources (DNR) and the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA).

Local municipalities within the Critical Area are required to adopt Critical Area Plans designed to provide a long-term vision for how the municiaplity intends to protect its stretch of the Mississippi River Corridor. From the Critical Area Plans, municipalities are expected to adopt local Critical Area Zoning Ordinances to help realize the goals of their Critical Area Plan, and protect the unique natural, recreational, historic and cultural features of the River in their area.

The DNR has the responsibility of reviewing and approving all Critical Area Plans and Zoning Ordinances before they go into effect. However, it is up to local municipalities to review applications for zoning actions.

The core of the Mississippi River Critical Area policy is found in state Executive Order 79-19; the Mississippi River Critical Area exists within a larger Critical Area framework, found in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 116G.

Geography of the Mississippi River Critical Area

The Mississippi River Critical Area stretches 72 miles from Ramsey and Dayton on the north, to Hastings, Denmark and Ravenna Township on the south. As the river travels that geography, it transforms from a smaller prairie river in the north, over the only natural waterfall on the entire river at St. Anthony Falls, through the Minneapolis and St. Paul gorge, and to the much larger floodplain river most Americans know.

As is explained below, the river corridor is currently divided into four zoning districts, shown on the maps below. Yellow corresponds to the Rural Open Space District; blue to the Urban Developed District; red to the Urban Diversified District; and green to the Urban Open Space district.

Clicking on the various sections of the map below will open one of twelve close-up maps that provide a more detailed view of the Critical Area boundaries, along with the boundaries of Crtical Area zoning districts, overlaid on aerial imagery of Critical Area communities.

The Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area is shown above. Click on a section of the map to see up a close-up aerial view in Adobe Acrobat PDF format.

Stakeholders and DNR assess the Effectiveness of Mississippi River Critical Area

The DNR Report to the Legislature.

The 2007 Minnesota Legislature requested that the Minnesota DNR lead a review of the Critical Area program and its effectiveness. The DNR surveyed local municiaplities and assessed how the Critical Area program was being implemented.

The DNR also contracted with the Friends of the Mississippi River to engage stakeholders in an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the Critical Area Program. FMR held three workshops with a total of 60 attendees, including a significant number of government, developer and citizen representatives.

In the spring of 2008, the DNR combined their assessment with the stakeholder feedback into the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Report to the Minnesota Legislature. The report identified and assessed several key options (found on pages 57-59 of the report) on how improve the Critical Area program, gauging whether the improvement could be accomplished through statute change, rule change, whether the improvement had notable costs associated with it, and the degree to which the improvement was supported by stakeholders.

Several key findings emerged. There was broad support for retaining the Critical Area program, and most felt it should continue to be housed with the DNR. There was strong support for clarifying and prioritizing key features to be protected along the corridor, and strong support for providing a mechanism to redraw the four zoning districts that make up the Critical Area. There was strong support for more coordination between the DNR and MNNRA, along with support for more coordination between local governments and the DNR. There was also strong support for providing greater DNR oversight in the granting discretionary land use actions such as zoning variances.

The 2009 Mississippi River Critical Area Reform Legislation

The DNR assessment and stakeholder feedback directly informed the creation of legislation which has been introduced in the 2009 legislative session. A subgroup of stakeholders from all sectors worked with Representative Rick Hansen and Senator Katie Sieben over several months to turn several of the directions that arose from the DNR report and stakeholder outreach into legislative action.

House File 424 and Senate File 671 change critical area law in several ways. A full comparison of changes is available, but there are four major changes of consequence:

• Calls for a DNR rulemaking process.

  The legislation calls for the Minnesota DNR to begin a state rulemaking process to address key areas of reform (which follow). The legislation calls for the process to begin no later than January 10th, 2010, is available for just one rulemaking process, and does not expire until the rules are adopted.

• Revises Critical Area Zoning Districts and Statewide Standards through rulemaking.

  Most significantly, the legislation uses the rulemaking process to overhaul the heart of the critical area program standards. This responds to core stakeholder concern over the lack of clarity and inadequacy of some of the current standards

  Currently critical area law divides the corridor has been divided into just four zoning districts: Rural Open Space, Urban Developed, Urban Diversified, and Urban Open Space (these are indicated on the maps above). Existing law lays out certain expectations for each district, and local municipalities refine district standards through Critical Area zoning codes. The DNR believes the only way to change district boundaries is through legislative change, leaving cities effectively stuck for better or worse with the districts they have.

  But as the districts have been applied, it is clear that the way some boundaries were drawn was somewhat arbitrary. Moreover, many cities found that having just four districts created a set of tools that were too boilerplate in nature to respond to the unique conditions of each segment of the river corridor.

  

  New districts could more neatly respond to the natural, scenic, and cultural changes along the corridor. For example, one district might follow the boundaries of the Fort Snelling National Historic Landmark at the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers.

  Further, local regulations often treated the same portions of the resource very differently. So although two cities may be in the same zoning district, one city might allow (for example) buildings of 40 feet or less on their side of the river, while the other city could have no height limits on their side of the river. The result is that there is a patchwork of inconsistent protections for what was intended to be protected as a regional and national resource.

  As a result, the new state rulemaking process is designed to overhaul these zoning districts. Boundaries are to be redrawn in a way that takes greater account of the river corridor's unique geomorphic features, ecology, cultural features, as well as land uses. The rulemaking process would not be constrained to use just four districts, allowing them to define unique districts tied to distinct parts of the River. For example, the boundaries of the Fort Snelling National Historic Landmark might provide the natural basis for defining the boundaries of a Fort Snelling district.

  Rulemaking would establish shared baseline standards for each new zoning district along the river that in turn each municipality would incorporate and potentially expand upon in their local Critical Area zoning codes.

  We expect the DNR rulemaking process to engage and communicate directly and often with local communities and other stakeholders. For municipalities that have recently updated their Critical Area zoning code, and have been in strong consultation with the DNR and local stakeholders in updating that zoning code, we expect that work will be substantially incorporated into the recommendations that come out of the rulemaking process. For municipalities that have not updated their critical area zoning code in the last decade, more change may be possible. Municipalities will be allowed to update their Critical Area zoning code up until the time rulemaking is completed, which could be several years after passage of the legislation.

• Refines bluff-related definitions.

  Given experiences with the existing Critical Area law, and converstations that came out of the stakeholder process, it became clear the law needed to refine the definitions of bluff-related features.

  The DNR will come to a definitive, corridor-wide map of bluffs through rulemaking. Using the existing bluff-related definitions, along with the revised definitions below, the DNR will map all bluffs and blufflines in the Critical Area using these definitions, contour data, and modern tools like GIS that are readily available today.

  

  The owner of this bluffside in Mendota clearcut long-established vegetation in 2008, which is likely to accelerate erosion of the bluffside. The clearcut was possibly legal because - despite the city's best intentions - the City lacked clarity in its definition of bluff features.

  Once established, municiaplities will be able to suggest refinements to the definition of bluffs and blufflines. For example, municipalites might rightly argue that one area defined as a bluff is in fact a mandmade pile of fill, and thus should not be included. If there is sufficient reason provided to alter the standardized map the DNR creates, alterations will be made through the rulemaking process

  The five new definitions are:

  • Base of Bluff - "Base of bluff" means a line delineating the bottom of a slope connecting the points at which the slope bottom becomes 18 percent or greater. More than one bluff face may be encountered when proceeding landward from the water.
  • Bluffline - "Bluffline" means a line delinating the top of a slope connecting points at which the top of a slope becomes less than 18 percent.
  • Bluff face or bluff - "Bluff face" or "Bluff" means the area between the bluffline and the bluff base.
  • Steep slopes - "Steep slopes" means 12 to 18 percent slopes. Steep slopes are natural features with an average slope of 12 to 18 percent measured over a horizontal distance of 50 feet or more.
  • Very steep slope - "Very steep slopes" means slopes 18 percent and greater. Very steep slopes are natural topographic features with an average slope of 18 percent or greater, measured over a horizontal distance of 50 feet or more.
  
  
• Clarifies enforcement responsibilities of local municipalities and DNR.

  One of the key directions to come from the stakeholder process was to strengthen the relationship between the DNR and local municipalities in putting the Critical Area law into practice. Two key changes are designed to strengthen this relationship.

  First, the legislation retains the existing provision in the law that the DNR should be notified 30 days before a municipality takes any discretionary action on a Critical Area zoning-related application. But the DNR has found that cities do not readily comply with this provision of the law. Therefore, the legislation adds a provision that requires municiaplities to pay a $500 late fee to the DNR if they do not notify the DNR at least 30 days in advance of any action.

  Second, the legislation allows the DNR to recover the costs associated with reviewing discretionary zoning-related applications. This is accomplished by charging municipalities for the review; in turn the legislation allows municipalities to pass those costs on to applicants. This helps to ensure the DNR can find the time and resources necessary to conduct a review of zoning-related actions, and provide advice and assistance to municipalities in revieiwng zoning decisions. The costs of review, and the way those costs are structured, will be set by the rulemaking process.

Key Supporters

• Co-authors in the House of Representatives: Representatives Rick Hansen, Sheldon Johnson, Karla Bigham, Diane Loeffler, David Bly, Phyllis Kahn, Jean Wagenius, Frank Hornstein, Carlos Mariani Rosa, Kent Eken, Erin Murphy, Nora Slawik, and Phillip Sterner.
• Co-authors in the Senate: Senators Katie Sieben, Patricia Torres Ray, James Metzen, and Satveer Chaudhary.
• Organizational supporters: Audubon Minnesota, Clean Water Action, Friends of the Mississippi River, Friends of the Parks and Trails of St. Paul and Ramsey County, and the Sierra Club Northstar Chapter.

Actions you can take

• Learn more by reading this web site and following links to other information
• Write or talk to decisionmakers.
• Support FMR.
• Join the coalition of groups and individuals supporting the legislation.
• Send us your thoughts about the legislation. Our contact informaiton can be found below.

Key Events in the History of the Mississippi River Critical Area

1973 The state Critical Areas Act of 1973 (Minnesota Statues Chapter 116G) allowed for the protection of specific areas which "possessing important historic, cultural, or esthetic values, or natural systems which perform functions of greater than local significance."

1976 The Mississippi River Critical Area was first created in 1976 under the framework of Chapter 116G. Governor Wendell Anderson created the Mississippi River Critical Area when he signed Executive Order 130, which sunsetted in 1979.

1979 By signing Executive Order 79-19, Governor Al Quie renewed and refined Executive Order 130, which today remains the regulatory framework for the Mississippi River Critical Area.

The Naitonal Park Service has worked to foster stewardship, education and interpretation in the Critical Area corridor. The Mississippi Naitonal River and Recreation Area shares the exact same borders as the Mississippi River Critical Area.

1988 Congress designates Mississippi River Critical Area Corridor as a National Recreation Area, known as the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA). The Park shares the identical boundaries with the Mississippi River Critical Area.

1991 State Statute 116G.06 is added to reference the Mississippi River Critical Area in state statute. The new provisions also call for the Governor to recommend modifications to the current Critical Area to reflect the thinking of the National Park Service Comprehensive Management Plan for the Park (see next item). No such updates have yet been made.

1995 The National Park Service establishes a Comprehensive Management Plan for the management of the MNRRA for the next decades.

2007 The 2007 Legislature called on the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to issue a report to the Legislature including, "the status of critical area plans, zoning ordinances, the number and types of revisions anticipated, and the nature and number of variances sought. The report shall include recommendations that adequately protect and manage the aesthetic integrity and natural environment of the river corridor."

2007-08 Friends of the Mississippi River, under contract with the Minnesota DNR, worked to engage diverse stakeholders in an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the Mississippi River Critical Area program. Municipal officials and staff, developers, community members and river advocates shared their experiences, which are compiled in a Summary of Stakeholder Engagement and Potential Management Options.

2008 Based on internal analysis and stakeholder feedback, the Minnesota DNR issues the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Report to the Minnesota Legislature. The report provides information on how the Mississippi River Critical Area law is being implemented, perspectives on the program's strengths and weaknesses, and an assessment of possible options to improve the program.

2008-09 Based on the recommendations in the DNR report, Senator Katie Sieben and Representative Rick Hansen call together a second group of stakeholders to figure out how to best put options in the DNR Report to the Legislature into reform legislation. The legislation is introduced in the 2009 Session as House File 424 and Senate File 671.

Contact information for further Questions

We'll happily address any questions - this is a complicated subject and we want to make sure we're all understanding this togther. Give us a call anytime:

Irene Jones; work: 651-222-2193 x11; email via our contact form
Whitney Clark; work: 651-222-2193 x13; email via our contact form

Aerial imagery on this page provided © Regents of the University of Minnesota. Used with Permission of Metropolitan Design Center.