Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Council of Governments
701.232.3242 • FAX 701.232.5043 • Case Plaza Suite 232 • One 2nd Street North • Fargo, North Dakota 58102-4807
Email: [email protected]
http://www.fmmetrocog.org
Agenda Clay County Heartland Trail Task Force Meeting Monday, September 15th, 2014 10:00am Clay County Courthouse, Meeting Room B (third floor) 1) Welcome and Introductions 2) Meeting Minutes from July 21st Meeting (Attachment 1) 3) Discuss Request for Designation as a Regional Park or Trail in Greater Minnesota Application 4) Discuss next steps and future public involvement 5) Next meeting date & time 6) Evaluate trail alignment alternatives (Attachment 2) 7) Other business or discussion Metro COG is committed to ensuring all individuals regardless of race, color, sex, age, national origin, disability/handicap, sexual orientation, or income status have access to Metro COG’s programs and services. Meeting facilities will be accessible to mobility impaired individuals. Metro COG will make a good faith effort to accommodate requests for translation services for meeting proceedings and related materials. Please contact Joan Geyer, Metro COG Executive Secretary at 701.232.3242 at least five days in advance of the meeting if any special accommodations are required for any member of the public to be able to participate in the meeting. A PLANNING ORGANIZATION SERVING
FARGO, WEST FARGO, CASS COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA AND MOORHEAD, DILWORTH, CLAY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Clay County Heartland Trail Task Force Meeting Minutes July 21, 2014 – 10:00am Clay County Courthouse, Meeting Room B (third floor) Attendees Dan Farnsworth, Metro COG Hannah Bahnmiller, Metro COG Adam Altenburg, Metro COG Peyton Mastera, City of Dilworth Jim Aasness, City of Dilworth John Young Jr, City of Hawley Cecil Johnson, City of Glyndon Kent Eken, MN State Senator (District 4) Tom Trowbridge, City of Moorhead Paul Marquart, MN State Representative (4B) Frank Gross, Clay County Commission Bruce Albright, Buffalo – Red River Watershed District Tim Magnusson, Clay County Planning Matt Mecklenburg, The Nature Conservancy Brian Winter, The Nature Conservancy Grant Weyland, Clay County Commission Mark Peihl, Historical & Cultural Society of Clay Co. David Overbo, Clay County Highway Dept. Samantha Specht, Clay Co 4H Office Emily Ambrosy, West Central Initiative Patrick Hollister, PartnerSHIP 4 Health Mike Hulett, City of Moorhead Tim Williamson, MN DNR Chris Weir‐Koetter, MN DNR Shawn Donais, MN DNR 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Meeting Minutes from June 16th Meeting The meeting minutes from the June 16th (2014) meeting were reviewed by the group. A motion to approve the minutes was made by John Young Jr. and seconded by Jim Aasness. The minutes were approved unanimously with no edits. 3. Discuss the latest on Bonding Bill Funding for Heartland Trail Extension A brief discussion was held to discuss the latest on the Bonding Bill for the Heartland Trail Extension. Paul Marquart provided information about the bill. Not much is new since the last meeting in June. The bill’s funding will remain at $2,684,000 with of the bulk of the funding going toward the construction of the trail from Frazee to Detroit Lakes. It was mentioned that funding for construction of the Frazee to Detroit Lakes will get first priority. 4. Discuss recent grant opportunities Dan provided the group with information regarding the various grant opportunities that have been available lately. The first grant opportunity mentioned was the National Park Service Community Assistance Program. This Program provides applicants the opportunity to have the National Park Service plan projects for the applicants. Eligible projects are those that plan new parks, trails, or conservation areas. Dan looked into the feasibility of applying for the grant, discussed with the National Park Service, and decided that it is no necessary to apply for this program. With the planning capabilities of Metro COG and the DNR, additional planning assistance would not be necessary. The second grant opportunity mentioned was the MnDNR National Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Program. This program assists projects in acquisition and/or development (construction) of projects. Since the Clay Co portion of the Heartland Trail is not at the acquisition or construction phase, we would not be eligible for this program. The third grant opportunity mentioned was the MnDNR Parks and Trails Legacy Grant Program. Similar the National Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Program, this grant funds the construction of trails. Therefore the Clay Co portion of the Heartland Trail would not be eligible. 5. Historical points of interest presentation Mark Peihl of the Historical & Cultural Society of Clay Co. gave the group a presentation of the historical points of interest along the study area. Many historical features were described such as abandoned railroad corridors, old cemetaries, old schools, abandoned towns such as the town of Winnepeg Junction which used to have a population of 257, and more. It was mentioned that the abandoned railroad corridors could provide an interesting, scenic, historic, and direct route for parts of the trail. However it is believed that the abandoned railroad corridors are now owned by area farmers. 6. Buffalo River State Park / Nature Conservancy Land presentation The Mn DNR and The Nature Conservancy provided information about the possibility of the trail inside the park and the desired entry and exit points. Due to the level of habitat protection of The Nature Conservancy land it is very unlikely that the trail would be permitted to cross The Nature Conservancy land (which is just south of Buffalo River SP). Regarding the trail’s alignment within Buffalo River SP, many variables need to be considered when planning a trail through a state park such as parking, restroom/drinking facilities, ADA compliance, topography, points of interest, and more. Entrance and exit locations of the trail into Buffalo River SP may also be limited. The DNR mentioned that the most desirable location to enter and exit the park would be using the existing park entrance since this route leads to most of the park amenities and because the route’s ownership is public. It was mentioned however that entrance to the park may be possible in the vicinity of the MSUM Science Center. The DNR had a discussion with the MSUM Science Center and they mentioned that they were not opposed to a trail in their land. 7. Group breakout sessions to review trail sub areas The group broke‐out into sections and reviewed the five subarea maps that were provided. The maps were the same ones used at the previous meeting so this was an additional opportunity to provide input regarding alternate alignments, hazards, points of interest, and trail access points. A detailed map was also provided of the Buffalo River State Park. 8. Next meeting data and time Dan suggested that the next meeting be in September as it may take some time for Metro COG to create new maps per the input provided. One possible date for the next meeting could be Monday Sept 15th. Dan will notify the group of the next meeting date and time. Attachment 2
To: Clay County Heartland Trail Task Force From: Dan Farnsworth, Metro COG Date: September 10, 2014 Subject: Evaluation of Trail Alignment Alternatives At the last Clay Co Heartland Trail Task Force meeting (July 21st), the group completed their addition of proposed trail alignment alternatives. Since the July 21st meeting Metro COG has incorporated these proposed alignment alternatives into the latest Heartland Trail map. Now that the trail alignment alternatives have been proposed and documented, it is time to evaluate the alternatives. We will plan to evaluate the route alternatives at the September 15th Clay County Heartland Trail meeting. The following are the attached evaluation documents that we will plan to use to evaluate the trail alignments at the meeting:  Latest Clay Co Heartland Trail map (attachment 2a)  Trail alignment evaluation criteria (attachment 2b)  Trail alignment evaluation sheet (attachment 2c) Clay Co.
Becker Co.
(
!
Bridge may
be too
narrow
Manitoba
Ju nction
B1
I1
(
!
(
!
(
!
Bridge may
be too
narrow
(
!
B4
Centen nial
Park
Sh are d
Use Path
on 34 th
(
!
(
!
(
!
Wetlan ds
B3
A2
(
!
(
!
Nature
Center
C1
Winn epeg
Ju nction Ave Ju nction
More Scen ic
th an 115
Old RR Brid ge,
Owned by BSNF
H1
A1
(
!
I2
Und erpass
too Narrow
H4
H2
Scenic
River
(
!
(
!
A3
Moorh ead
High School
(
!
Moorhead
Community
Center
(
!
Dilworth
(
!
Depot\ Whistle Stop Park
C2
B2
D3
D4
Glyndon
Glyn don Sch ool
(
!
D2
Narrow
und er Rail
Cross in g
Best BRSP
Acces s
!
(
E1
(
!
Region al
Science
Center
E3
C3
D6
G1
E2
D5
Johns on
Park
Hawley
F1
(
!
No Current
Bridge
F2
F3
(
!
Very
Scenic
(
!
E5
F4
(
!
E4
Critical
Habitat
H3
Native
Prairie
Muskota
Very
Narrow
Bridge
Fed erally
Threate ned
Plant
G2
!
(
(
!
(
!
(
!
I3
F5
C4
Fed erally
Threate ned
Plant
(
!
Fed erally
Threate ned
Plant
(
!
F6
G3
Heartland Trail Extension - Clay County
Bridges
Railroad
Railroad Crossings
Historic Rail Line
(
!
Potential Trail Heads
Snowmobile Trails
(
!
Areas of Concern
State Park Trail
(
!
Points of Interest
Heartland Trail Working Draft
Township Road - Unpaved
Trail Alternatives
County Road - Paved
Water Trails
County Highway - Unpaved
Rivers & Streams
County State Aide Paved Highway
Waterbodies
County State Aid Unpaved Road
Wetlands
Federal
National Wildlife Refugues
Interstate
Scientific and Natural Areas
Local Paved
Publicly Accessible WMAs
³
ú
GF
MSU M
(
!
A4
D1
D7
E6
State Parks
State Highway
Nature Conservancy Land
Waterfowl Production Areas
Parcels
0
Imagery: NAIP 2013
0.3 75
0.7 5
1 inch equals 0.49 miles
1.5
Miles
´
Attachment 2b
Clay County Heartland Trail Trail Alignment Evaluation Criteria Thorough evaluation of proposed trail alignment alternatives is an important step in determining a preferred trail alignment. Trail alignment alternatives were proposed by those attending the Clay County Heartland Trail meetings and the proposed alternatives were compiled and displayed on maps. Due to the number of alternatives throughout the study area, the maps were sectioned into nine sections (A, B, C, etc.). Alignment alternatives can then be evaluated for each section. Eight criterion was created to evaluate the route alternatives. After all alignment alternatives have been evaluated by the Clay County Heartland Trail Task Force and members of the public, alignment alternatives can be prioritized. Below is a description of the criteria: Nearby Points of Interest This evaluation criteria rates a trail alignment based on the nearby points of interest along or near the trail. Point scale: 1 = few points of interest 5 = many points of interest Areas of Concern (negative points) This criteria rates a trail alignment based on the areas of concern along the trail. Areas of concern can include interference with wetlands, narrow bridges, rail crossings, nearby critical habitat, and more. Point scale: ‐1 = few areas of concern ‐5 = many areas of concern Scenic Value / Rider Desirability This criteria rates a trail alignment based on the potential scenic value and rider desirability along the trail alignment. Scenic value is self‐explanatory. Rider desirability would be trail alignments that would be enjoyable for riders. For example if a particular route in near a gravel road which could create dusty conditions for trail users, this may have a low rider desirability. Whereas a trail alignment with protection from the elements, such as trees along the corridor, may have a higher rider desirability. Point scale: 1 = low scenic value / low rider desirability 5 = high scenic value / high rider desirability Direct Connection This criteria rates a trail alignment based on the directness of the proposed trail alignment. Trail alignments with a direct connection from point A to point B would be considered a direction connection. Trail alignments with additional distance from point A to point B would be considered an indirect connection. Point scale: 1 = indirect connection 5 = direct connection ROW (Right of way) Availability This criteria rates a trail alignment based on the likelihood of available right of way. Point scale: 1 = unavailable right of way 5 = easily‐available right of way Construction Feasibility This criteria rates a trail alignment based on the feasibility of construction. For example, a trail that would require the removal of numerous trees, river crossings, or excessive earthwork may be considered less feasible while a trail alignment with few obstacles may be considered more feasible for construction. Point scale: 1 = less feasible for construction 5 = more feasible for construction Service to Community This criteria rates a trail alignment based on the service to communities along the corridor. For example a trail that runs through the center of a community would better serve a community than a trail that runs a mile from a community. Point scale: 1 = poor service to community 5 = excellent service to community Public Preference This criteria rates a trail alignment based on the public’s preference of the trail. Future public input is anticipated where the public can ‘weigh‐in’ on their trail alignment preference. Point scale: 1 = Unprefered by public 10 = Prefered by public Attachment 2c
Clay County Heartland Trail Alignment Evaluation Sheet
Name:
Trail Alternative
A1
A2
A3
A4
B1
B2
B3
B4
C1
C2
C3
C4
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
Representing:
Nearby Points of Interest
Points: 1 to 5
Areas of Concern
(negative points)
Points: ‐1 to ‐5
Scenic Value / Rider Desirability
Direct Connection
Points: 1 to 5
Points: 1 to 5
ROW Availability
Points: 1 to 5
Construction Feasibility
Points: 1 to 5
Service to Community
Points: 1 to 5
Public Preference
Points: 1 to 10
Route Alternative
E1
E2
E3
E4
E5
E6
F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
G1
G2
G3
H1
H2
H3
H4
I1
I2
I3
Nearby Points of Interest
Areas of Concern
(negative points)
Points: 1 to 5
Points: ‐1 to ‐5
Scenic Value / Rider Desirability
Direct Connection
Points: 1 to 5
Points: 1 to 5
ROW Availability
Construction Feasibility
Service to Community
Public Preference
Points: 1 to 5
Points: 1 to 5
Points: 1 to 5
Points: 1 to 10