Pave the River Bottom Trail??

[Don Youngdahl]

Do they still want to pave the Minnesota River Trail? Find out soon!

As many of you know, there have been preliminary plans afoot for several years to pave or otherwise “improve” with crushed rock our popular River Bottom Trail. The issue may be coming to a head soon, and now is another opportunity for all concerned riders to get involved.

A public meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 21, 2003, 7:00-9:00 pm, Scott County Government Center, Room J127, 200 4th Avenue West, Shakopee to present the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) draft plan for the Minnesota Valley State Recreation Area. This is a large project that involves a trail and other recreational developments in the Minnesota River corridor from Fort Snelling to LeSeuer. The Bloomington portion is just a small part of the overall project, but it’s very important to the many mountain bikers, hikers, birders, dog walkers, runners, and others who want to keep the natural surface trail we now enjoy.

The last we heard, the Minnesota DNR and another major stakeholder, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, were still sticking to the concept of a paved or crushed rock trail, in spite of overwhelming user preference for keeping a natural surface trail, particularly in the Bloomington area. The draft plan will not be available for public review until October 21.

Please plan on attending the meeting to show your interest and concern for keeping the River Bottom Trail in its present natural surface condition. Please note that we are not selfishly referring to the River Bottoms as a “Mountain Bike Trail”, because it is truly a multi-use trail shared by a variety of users. In my many conversations with these non-biking users on the trail in the last several years, I have met NOT ONE PERSON who favors a paved or crushed rock trail.

Remember, if we all sit back and say “we can’t do anything about what they want to do”, that will be an accurate self-fulfilling prophecy. My contrasting view is that “government works for those who show up and work the government”

Don Youngdahl
dmy@visi.com

[jkalla]

Does the city of Bloomington still have a say in the use of this land? From previous meetings of this type I remember that to be the case.

[daveyp]

Perhaps they could better use their DNR/Bloomington money to rehab/open the old Cedar bridge and perhaps supply various user groups a more permanent crossing at Nine Mile. That would be a much more positive impact for birders/bikers/walkers/taxpayers,etc. At less cost I'd imagine.

[Don Youngdahl]

In response to the two previous posts, Bloomington owns a sizable segment of the land in the proposed trail corridor, so they will certainly have a say in planning the trail. The overall project responsibility belongs to the Minnesota DNR Divison of Parks & Recreation.

There is an initiative in progress to rebuild/replace the old Cedar Ave bridge, with the anticipated funding coming from different sources than the likely funding for the Minnesota River Valley Recreation Area.

Don Youngdahl

[Rocky Mountain]

This paving issue has been ocurring for a couple of years now. I have attended 3 meetings related to this topic. One at REI, another at the Burnsville City Hall and the last one at the Church at Fort Snelling. A fair amount of mtn bikers showed up at the most recent one at the Fort Snelling Church. We ended up talking to the DNR rep who has been at most of the other meetings and he considered mountain bikers to be "EXTREME". After talking with for some time there was no way we were going to change his mind. This is just one of the many misconceptions the DNR and most likely the other groups who want this trail paved will have.

For those just hearing about this project then here is the history from what I have heard. The money to provide an adequate trail from Le Sueur to Fort Snelling was set aside back in the 60' or 70's by the MN government. The way I look at it this money is burning a hole in there pocket or they would like to create work and/or jobs for government employees.

[martini]

Jason, you're right to a point. The money was allocated 20+ years ago. Thing is, if they want the money, they HAVE to USE it with in the next few years. There's already been one 5 year delay in the matter. I think most of us are familiar with teh situation, but I'll do a breif recap: Money issued long before MTB's were thought of. Idea was to create a paved path then, not recently. MN~DNR, in all thier bearucratic glory doesn't recognize MTBs as legitimate recreation usage. Also Natural Surface trails are not sustainable (WTF?!) and require constant maintenance. Now MTBs are standing up to be heard, and the DNR doens't want to listen. They are having these meetings simply becasue they are mandated by law to have them. It doesn't mean that they have to listen to us, much less take our advice. I've also attended a few of the meetings, and the reaction I get out of teh DNR staffer attending is one of being a pompus ass(I get that out of many in the natural resource branches actually), and not willing to listen, nor compromise.

With all that negativity happening, all we can do is try to be more postitive, show numbers. Show the DNR how literally thousands of users, through at least 5 user groups, DO NOT WANT THE RB's PAVED.

[seberly]

WOW, some great points and history is raised below. Thanks for all the interest.

As Don points out the most important thing for us to do NOW is be at the table expressing our views when the decisions are being made. In this budgetary climate I'm would think expenditures for things people aren't asking for will seem foolish. Keep in mind this plan is about tons and tons of things in the river corridor with the multi-use trail through Bloomington only a small part.

Yes, the current refuge manager who is from Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and maybe others are not supporters of the MTB community. What I have heard him say is that the usage by MTB's is in his opinion inconsistent with the stated goals of FWS. I'm not sure if I have the goals exactly but this is what I got from the FWS site, Region Staff are committed to:

1)Healthy fish and wildlife trust species (migratory birds, endangered species, interjurisdictional fish) populations, and habitats that support them
2)Quality hunting, fishing, wildlife watching, and enjoyment on Service lands by the public
3)Expanded partnerships, which offer innovative opportunities to enhance the nation's fish and wildlife resources
4)A clearly-defined U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service organization dedicated toward employee excellence, reflecting the nation's rich diversity and providing quality service and decision-making closer to the resources in our trust.

I feel like my own usage falls under number 2), and find it hard that someone else can say otherwise (i.e. that my use is inconsistent), but the refuge manager has told me personally that when he has been on the trail he has a) had his experience interfered with by MTB's and b) not felt that the users were down there for one of the above goals. Just another gentle message that we must be courteous when using the trail.

Also keep in mind that there was some illegal trail building (a long, long time ago) that keeps getting brought up. I think our cooperative and consistent activity over the last 5 years or so has impressed many folks, the City of Bloomington being one of them - and luckily their opinion will be very important in response to this plan.

Please plan to attend the meeting as a concerned citizen interested in and commenting on the whole plan (vs. an "extreme mountainbiker" only interested in the single issue of the trail - all this does is alienate the staff) and watch this space for more after we get to review the plan.

PS - I'm sure that they are listening and the more times we repeat our position the better.

[Kingbozo]

Who are the state Representative and Senator from that area?

I could find out from my Dad (state rep from Duluth) if they have a view on it.

[seberly]

http://midwest.fws.gov/MinnesotaValley

The Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1976 through the efforts of a group of citizens seeking to preserve the river valley along the Minnesota River. Now part of a 34-mile corridor of land and water that stretches from Fort Snelling to Jordan, Minnesota, the Refuge totals over 12,000 acres in eight units. Aptly described as an "urban refuge," the Visitor Center is located one mile east of the Mall of America in Bloomington. Approximately 5,000 acres are protected as Waterfowl Production Areas and easements through Refuge management of a 14-county Wetland Management District that heads south from the Twin Cities to Owatonna and Mankato. Bird watching is popular on the Refuge, especially when annual migrations funnel hundreds of thousands of waterfowl, songbirds, and raptors through the valley. Wetland, grassland and oak savanna habitat are preserved and restored through -water level management, grassland management, exotic species control, and water quality monitoring.

The Refuge was established to:

-Provide resting, nesting and feeding habitat for waterfowl and other migratory birds.
-Provide habitat for resident wildlife.
-Protect endangered and threatened species.
-Provide for biodiversity.
-Provide public opportunities for outdoor recreation and environmental education.

[cheese4brains]

Originally posted by Kingbozo
Who are the state Representative and Senator from that area?


If you're interested in contacting your state representative, you can find contact information here:

http://www.leg.state.mn.us/leg/districtfinder.asp

[Kingbozo]

The rep is Ann Lenczewski rep.ann.lenczewski@house.mn (651) 296-4218

The Senator is William V. Belanger, Jr. sen.bill.belanger@senate.mn (651) 296-5975

People who live in the area should try and contact them about this issue. They are more likely to listen to the people they represent, rather than people who "play" in their territory.

I realize it is short notice, but what the heck!

[Rocky Mountain]

THE FOLLOWING IS A MESSAGE I RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO DON'S MESSAGE I FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF BLOOMINGTON:

Mr. Voelkel -

Your e-mail was forwarded to me as the City's Parks & Recreation Division Manager for response. Thank you for your inquiry.

Lance Anderson, Park Planner/Project Coordinator for the City of Bloomington Parks and Recreation Division is planning on attending the October 21 meeting on behalf of the City. Mr. Anderson and I had previously been notified of the October 21 meeting by the DNR.

For the past two years, Mr. Anderson and I have participated in the DNR's planning meetings for the Minnesota Valley State Recreation Area Plan. During these meetings, I have informed the DNR staff that many local users of the MN River valley trails, including the Minnesota Off Road Cyclists organization (MORC) are opposed to paving the multi-purpose trail along the MN River in Bloomington. The response from the DNR staff is that they prefer a paved trail as it is the easiest trail surface to maintain in a flood plain.

In concern with the DNR's proposed multi-purpose trail, I have indicated to DNR staff Bloomington Parks & Recreation's desire to have separate mountain biking and hiking trails located on City-owned parkland in the MN River Valley. The City is currently working with MORC on a proposed project to improve a segment of the MN River Valley biking hiking trail between Mound Springs Park and Parker's Picnic Grounds. I feel this trail improvement project is indicative of the City's continued support of mountain biking in the MN River Valley.

I'll ask Mr. Anderson to pick up a copy of the draft plan for the Minnesota Valley State Recreation Area at the October 21 meeting. We can then review the plan to determine what type of surface the DNR is proposing for the Bloomington segment of the trail and prepare a City response to the draft plan.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Thanks,
Randy Quale

[noise_is_life]

Somehow I don't buy that a paved trail is the easiest to maintain in a flood plain. It's still going to break down and when it does it is going to be more expensive to repair.

...and in what world is a paved trail (or limestone trail for that matter) the most compatable to fishing and wildlife habitat.

[nigel]

Paved has to nothing but costly to put down there, same with crushed rock. The way that area floods every year its bound to spread out the rock like crazy, do they plan on paying people to head down there and put it back?? Pavement, asphalt whatever would seem to just get frozen in the winter and crack apart in the spring, sink in mve about. Seems like a logistical nightmare to upkeep anything than whats there already.
What are the plans for the 9 mile crossing?? Do they plan on building somehting?? I suppose its the kind of thing like, if the mtn bikers want it, they gotta get permits and pay and do it themsleves. If we (DNR) have to do it, we'll make it great and bombproof, but if we build it we pave the trail too.

I dunno, Ima try and make the meeting, might have to skip trailwork that night, sry John :)

Douglas

[nigel]

Oh yeah I have a question too.....

When and how did the trails down there develop?? Who made them and why?? What was the intended use for them?? Who officially keeps them up now?? If they are left unpaved can MORC keep them up on a volunteer basis, or would the city rather waste money on paying people to repave it??

When I started mtn biking, and If i recall correctly, the first time I was down there was maybe 1994? The trails were just there, had not a clue who did it or when they appeared they were just there, with a cool log to walk across to boot!!

Just curious as to the origins of the trails down there

[Don Youngdahl]

Originally posted by nigel7780
Oh yeah I have a question too.....

When and how did the trails down there develop?? ....
Just curious as to the origins of the trails down there

The bluffside (east of Lyndale) trail allignments likely go back to the time when there was a large Native Americn settlement in the area near the Gideon Pond house. The trails in present form were built in the early 1960's by Bloomington.

West of Lyndale, my dirt bike friends claim that they built the trails (another clue to my age) long ago when dirt bikes were allowed there, although I believe the actual trail allignment has moved around due to flooding and fallen trees.

Don Youngdahl

[Don Youngdahl]

Hey guys, thanks for the enthusiastic response and willingness to speak up, but we need to slow down just a bit here. We haven't seen the draft plan yet, and it's entirely possible that the plan will be sensible and call for a natural surface trail. If that's the case, then we can thank the DNR for listening to us and go home happy.

The public will have thirty days after October 21 to comment on the plan, so there will be ample time to contact your legislators if necessary. Dennis Porter has been in frequent contact on the issue with Ann Lenczewski, his representative from Bloomington. If you live in Bloomington, it's fine to contact her. But it's premature to contact legislators from other areas until the fight starts in earnest.

I think it's important for off-road cyclists to make a good showing at this meeting even though there may see a fovorable plan when we get there. The DNR needs to see more signs of how popular our sport is and how serious we are about trails.

Don Youngdahl

[dennis porter]

Yes, please show up to the meeting and make your voice heard. There's one thing I would like to add. The whole Trail plan is a Trail from St. Paul to Le Sueur. However the DNR has said in the past that they would like to someday go all the way to Big Lake. Picture this: If we could get the DNR to aggree on a natural surface multi use trail the whole length of the Trail you could ride multiple miles off road. Imagine riding off road for a hundred miles. They could have access points and camp sites along they way. It could be something unique to Minnesota. I think it a good thing to suggest alternatives rather than just criticize. It's just a dream but ....wouldn't it be great?

[Don Youngdahl]

It's gratifying to see all this interest in the river trail. It's a complex subject, with a lot of players. I've been heavily involved with the DNR on other trail issues in the last 10 years, and have been intently following the River Bottom Trail issue for the last several years. Following are several quotes from previous posts that need clarification or correction, so everyone can have a better understanding of the overall picture.

I'll show the quote and my brief response, but won't go into great detail, as nobody wants to read a 10 page post. Feel free to contact me by e-mail if you want further discussion of any of these points.

Quote: "Would not the Izaak Walton League people be a large impediment to the paving of this trail?? Seems to me they merely tolerate us bikers as it is"

I'm told the Ikes are opposed to a paved trail. They are quite friendly, and very cooperative with us, as they see we are sincere about minimizing mountain bike impact on their land. The main thing they want is simple - STAY ON ONE SINGLE PATH!

Quote: "We ended up talking to the DNR rep who has been at most of the other meetings and he considered mountain bikers to be "EXTREME"….."

That was almost certainly not a DNR representative, but was the manager of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Refuge. Perhaps I'll expand on that situation in a future post. He has expressed those sentiments in many meetings I've been to, and I agree, we won't change his mind. None of the many DNR people I've encountered characterized mountain biking as an extreme sport.

Quote: "The money to provide an adequate trail from Le Sueur to Fort Snelling was set aside back in the 60' or 70's by the MN government."

Quote: "The money was allocated 20+ years ago. Thing is, if they want the money, they HAVE to USE it with in the next few years."

The money to build this project has NOT been allocated, set aside, or appropriated by the legislature, according to a conversation with the project planner today. She explained that the normal DNR funding process first requires an approved plan, the they go to the legislature for funding. This process may be slow, but it gives the public (that's us) the opportunity to stop a bad project during the legislative funding process.

The law authorizing the multi-use bicycle and hiking trail was passed about 1970, long before mountain bikes were on the scene, as someone mentioned.

Quote: "MN~DNR, ……… doesn't recognize MTBs as legitimate recreation usage."

Minnesota DNR has several small mountain bike trails, and does recognize our sport, but as usual is about 10 years behind the times in undersanding our sport in such things as type of trails desired, minimal impact of our trails, minimal cost and rider volunteer efforts in building trails, etc.

It is LOCAL U.S. Fish & Wildlife service management that does not recognize mountain biking as a legitimate activity. Please note my emphasis on the word "local", but that's a subject for a future post.

--------------

It was 5 or six years ago that I first heard about the paving issue, and all the riders I talked to down there said "yeah, they're going to pave the trail, what a stupid idea." I replied "yes, it's a stupid idea, but it won't happen if enough of us users and taxpayers speak up." Some people were skeptical of the idea that the DNR would have to listen to stakeholders. Note that I said "have to", and not "wants to".

The laws regarding public notification, planning processes, and funding make it impossible for the DNR to NOT respond to public input if we work hard in the planning, public notification, and funding stages of the project.

Now all the riders I talk to ask "what's happening" on the paving issue, as they don't just assume it's a certainty, and are interested in speaking up to prevent paving the trail.
That's progress!

Don Youngdahl
dmy@visi.com

[dennis porter]

Here's an update on the Draft plan meeting on Tuesday 10/21. It really was no suprise. The DNR is still holding on to an improved DNR standard trail surface. The DNR standard is.... crushed gravel or pavement. I believe they have the power to change thier standards if they want to, but it does not seem like they are interested. The most interesting part of the whole citizen advisory process 99% of the people at those meetings supported a natural trail. There only a couple of people through the whole three year process that wanted an improved trail. I would even throw in the towel if the majority supported a improved trail, but that's not the case. I asked the question about funding and costs. Well, they don't have any money. That means they are a few years off, but that doesn't mean we can rest. We (mtb riders, taxpayers, hikers, skiers, and etc) need to get political to change the plans. Does that means signing a allegiance to a particular political party? No. It just means whomever is on the appropiate commitee will need to be pressured on this issue. We will need people to get involved. Look for information in the future on how we take this issue to the next level.
Dennis.

[seberly]

Hi everybody, here is the link to the DNR "draft" plan:

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/input/mgmtplans/parks/mnvalleyrec.html

We have until November 21 to input comments.

Note: at the bottom of the link page is a message box where you can quickly input comments. (Of course that doesn't mean you cannot send a personal letter or make a phone call to your legislators as well)

Here are some things to consider in your response.

1) even though most of us are Mountain Bikers be sure to indicate that you are interested in a natural surface, "multi-use trail". Here is why this is important: even if you favor a multi-use trail (as it is now) if you use the term "mountain bike trail" it may indicate that you want to exclude other users - this is not in our best interests - one reason is that other user groups also oppose paving and we want to work with them in this endeavour.

2) you might mention that you know funding is an issue and that you do not want your dollars spent on paving a flood plain but that you do support minimum improvements for safety reasons such as trail head improvements, signage, and bridges across major drainage areas.

3) we do support actively "managing" the trail and as a user you will be interested and active in support of the trail.

4) you favor a natural experience - and a wide or paved trail is not consistent with this experience.

Thanks!

[jasonp]

This is my first post, so I hope I don't screw it up. I just want to say I appreciate people who stay up on these issues. I submitted feedback at the DNR website. I can honestly say I would not have done this without the efforts of people who stay abreast of these issues.

[zerpy]

Another problem with paving the trails is you are bound to get a few people that don't like it so they stray from the paved trails. Once that happens and a trail begins to form then others will see it and begin to follow it. Now you have "new" trails that are being formed, probably in not so good locations that are bad for erosion, etc... that might see heavy use by people that don't like the paved trails and think it's a perfectly valid trail.

[jkalla]

Paving this trail or otherwise making it more accessible for the casual biker / hiker will only increase the number of users and result in potentially more user conflicts. I live near a trail that was paved over a few years ago. Where I used to be able to walk my dog without any problems - now with the bike traffic and increase in trail walker - it is difficult to enjoy any activity on this trail. It is definitely worse than the current situation at the River Bottoms.

[pwpatton]

Thanks for the link, I've sent my comments.

[Ish]

Steve - thanks for the info. I have also sent in my comments.
Craig

[Rocky Mountain]

I attended this most recent meeting with the DNR and from what I observed they are willing to listen to everybody's comments. The one thing that stands out is the fact that their trail standards are not easily availlable knowledge. These standards have not been revised in many years. The most recent revision was probably before the popularity of mountain biking. The possibility of them changing these standards is most likely not much of a priority.

This whole trail system does not have to be the same type of material. This is stated in the Management Plan Draft. The current surface trail recommended by the DNR for the Bloomington area is an improved surface trail that meets DNR safety standards. These standards are again not readily available.

This trail system will be implemented 10-15+ years from now, but they want to start the planning process now due to all the complexities of this trail system.

Get ready for a difficult battle with the DNR and the Fish and Game organization. It is no doubt worth it but hopefully the biking community has enough to work to the end and satisfy everybody.

[ryno lite]

I think one good thing is that we are starting to gel as an organization and we are only growing and becoming more organized. I'm glad that we now have the ability to voice our opinions with one organized group! Thanks to all of those advocates who have helped to this point and hopefully MORC will become a voice big enough so that they cannot ignore us!

[Don Youngdahl]

This post also appeared on another thread, but I wanted to have all my bases covered.

Thought I’d make some belated comments on the meeting last Tuesday on the Minnesota River Valley State Recreation Area. Perhaps my comments can benefit those who’ve not yet sent their comments to the DNR.
Thanks for showing up to Bill B, Chris W, Dennis P, Dirk D, Jason V, Michael H, Nicole T, and all the mountain bikers I forgot or didn’t recognize.

For those lacking the time to peruse the lengthy plan document, here’s some more pages I bookmarked that contain statements pertinent to our concerns: pp xii-xii, 5-7, 39-41, 49-51, and 81-82. There’s repetition in the later parts of the plan, and you may well find other items that interest you, particularly if your interests go beyond off-road cycling in Bloomington.

As you read this, you’ll see that the DNR readily acknowledges that a natural surface trail is preferred in the Bloomington area, yet they propose an improved surface trail, and use statements like “state of the art trail design and construction techniques”. In the discussion they waffled around with statements that “improved surface” didn’t necessarily mean paved or crushed limestone, and at other times referred to crushed limestone as “natural surface”. In short, they still JUST DON’T GET IT regarding what off-road cyclists, hikers, and all the other users want down there.

We fully support having a designated, marked, and managed trail, and we support improving the trail to the extent that drainages, streams, gullies, and bogs are fixed with bridges, culverts, boardwalks, etc. But, repeat after me, Mr. DNR, CRUSHED LIMESTONE OR ASPHALT IS NOT A NATURAL SURFACE TRAIL.

You’ll find statements about a trail “designed and maintained in an ecologically sensitive, sustainable, and fiscally responsible manner.” If you think about those three points a bit, a true natural surface trail, with the alignment changing slightly as nature floods and re-floods the area, I think you’ll see that a natural surface trail wins handily on all three points. If you agree with this, explain the reasons in your comments to the DNR. Crushed limestone is likely the costliest of the improved surface trail surfaces in a flood-prone environment, as the rock is washed away or buried under silt after each flood, necessitating almost a complete re-application of rock.

Page 81 mentions maintenance. Organized mountain bikers are establishing solid partnering arrangements with many land managers for trail maintenance, and it’s certainly possible here also.

Please don’t worry if you think you don’t have the writing skills to express yourself in your comments. Here’s a true story. A man I know in my “former life” had been a top aid for Governor Perpich, who had to deal with many controversial issues. On one rural Minnesota issue, the Governor had many slick, well-written and almost identical letters pro and con, and he also had one letter, written in pencil on a brown paper bag, with bad spelling and bad grammar. As he read the letter, the Governor reflected on how much effort it must have been for that man to struggle to get his thoughts on paper, and how much the issue must have meant to him. That letter motivated him to take a harder and more serious look at the situation before making a decision. I’ve suggested some talking points, but I won’t provide sample letters.

Funding constraints and priorities likely mean that this project is a long way away (maybe I’ll want it paved by then for my wheelchair!), but we need to speak up to get a good plan and to help educate the DNR on what off-road cyclists want.

The proposed plan is located on the DNR website http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/input/mgmtplans/parks and the information pertaining to the Cedar Ave to Bloomington Ferry section can be found on pages 49-51 of the document. Comments can be submitted via their website, fax at 651-297-1157, phone at 651-284-0263, or mail to Nancy Albrecht Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Box 39, 500 Lafayette Rd.
St. Paul, MN 55155-4039

Don Youngdahl

[pwpatton]

Any more news on this front don?

[Don Youngdahl]

Any more news on this front don?
Nothing new, but it's almost certain that funding wouldn't be available until 2006 at the earliest, even IF they did adopt a plan that calls for paving the trail, and IF a paved trail had high priority over other parts of the Minnesota River Valley Recreation Area. I expect that sometime this summer the plan will be complete and published. The plan will likely not commit to paving or not, so that means more watching and waiting.

If the plan does call for paving the trail, then we'll have to decide whether we fight the plan now, or wait until the next funding cycle.

Don Youngdahl