LETTER: Many reasons to question paving of the Luce Line Trail

From Greg Graczyk
Silver Lake
I apologize for being late with this, but just wanted to add a couple of comments to the Luce Line Trail articles that were written in the April 3 edition of the Hutchinson Leader. I realize that it is impossible to put all the discussion topics that took place at the March 31 meeting in Silver Lake in the paper, but I feel that there are some points that were not covered and/or need further clarification.
Revenue generated by the Root River Trail and Paul Bunyan Trail was brought up in the presentation. These areas are completely different than the Cedar Mills to Winsted area so to try to compare revenue numbers is just not feasible.
The Gateway Trail was brought up in the above stated articles in regard to revenue as well. It is stated that this trail is “used less by out-of-town tourists,” meaning more local use or local dollars spent. This is probably true, but let’s take a closer look at the Gateway Trail as many readers probably don’t know anything about it.
Communities that are stated to be in association with this trail are St. Paul, Maplewood, Oakdale, North St. Paul, Mahtomedi, etc. It is obvious that the local population around this trail is not comparable to the population around the Luce Line Trail. In other words, even though the Gateway Trail and the proposal for the Luce Line Trail may have more closely related users, the two areas are still very, very, different.
As in earlier meetings, agricultural access and maintenance issues came up. Mr. Mitchell with the DNR did state that crossing locations would be addressed. It was brought up however that with land ownership, land usage and general landscape changes the term “crossings,” as used in Sen. Dille’s bill, is not adequate to accommodate access needs by agricultural producers.
Mr. Mitchell also tackled the question of agricultural tile line repair issues. It is thought that producers would be responsible for repair of the trail if tile maintenance is needed (as I assume they would be now). However, instead of just replacing fill material/gravel, they may have the added cost of replacement of a new asphalt surface over the disturbed area.
Hunting access and habitat issues were brought up. A question was asked if there would be a chance that hunting access rights could be denied in the future with the proposed Luce Line project. Mr. Mitchell’s short answer to this was that in the short term, no, but in the long term they may be.
It is obvious that to even attempt to accommodate horse riders with the Luce Line paving proposal, a secondary trail is going to have to be constructed or cleared out. Regardless of the cost of completing this activity, it is an indisputable fact that this will reduce the amount of habitat along the trail. So not only does this reduce the benefits of the trail from a hunting aspect but the game and non-game wildlife species lose out as well.
Discussions on snowmobile usage came up. There were various topics on this matter but the one comment that should be noted is that a representative of a local snowmobile club stood up and stated that as a group they voted on this matter and are against paving of the trail.
I’d like to take a moment and clarify where the funding for the proposed project would come from. Yes, the Luce Line proposal may have to compete with other trail improvement projects for funding. However, this is not from a mythical “trail fund” that has a lump sum of money sitting in it and if the Luce Line doesn’t get it other trails do.
The proposed funding is from state bonding money. These funds are used on things from schools and roads, to conservation programs such as Reinvest in Minnesota and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. So you see the Luce Line Trail “improvement” proposal competes with many more things than just other trails for funding.
Last but not least, I would also like to commend Rep. Shimanski on the nice job that he did in facilitating this meeting.