DOCSLIB.ORG

SUMMARY: PLAN COMMENTS and RESPONSES Spring 2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

SUMMARY: PLAN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Spring 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 53 Overview ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 54 Comments & Responses .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 55 Local Connections ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 55 State & Regional Bicycle Routes ......................................................................................................................................................................... 65 Separated Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................................................................................................................. 73 Funding ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 79 Safety ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 83 Education & Encouragement ............................................................................................................................................................................... 91 Engineering .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 95 Enforcement ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 102 Evaluation .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 104 District 1 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 104 District 2 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 106 District 3 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 108 District 4 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 109 District 6 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 110 District 7 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 111 District 8 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 112 Metro .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 113 All Comments ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Appendix 1. Commenter ID Reference ......................................................................................................................................................................... 41 Appendix 2. Social Media archives ............................................................................................................................................................................... 45 OVERVIEW The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) released the Draft Statewide Bicycle Plan for formal public review and comment on October 5, 2015. Regional coffee chats were held around the state for plan input and questions, and the comment period closed on November 16, 2015. MnDOT developed a social media plan with messages that were shared with over twenty partners to help get the word on out and generate responses. This document summarizes the comments received throughout this process and provides MnDOT’s responses to each point of feedback, where applicable. The coffee chats were held between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. at the following dates and locations: November 2, 2015: Grand Rapids – Bixby’s Itasca County Family YMCA November 2, 2015: Mankato – Tandem Bagels November 3, 2015: Bemidji – Harmony Natural Foods Co-op November 4, 2015: Minneapolis – Freewheel Bike Center November 5, 2015: Rochester – People’s Food Co-op Fifty-eight individuals attended the coffee chats held throughout the state. Throughout the comment period, seven key partners and over 150 individuals submitted email or written comments on the Draft Statewide Bicycle System Plan. Names of individuals and MnDOT’s key partners who submitted comments on behalf of themselves and their respective organizations can be found in Appendix 1. Many comments demonstrated supportive of the Plan; while other comments raised concerns. With social media, partners were encouraged to use the #pedalmn to track messages. Through tracking the hashtag, there were 20 tweets, 62 retweets and 53 likes about the bike plan on twitter. There were 7 facebook posts, resulting in 64 shares, 11 comments, and 533 likes. Screen shots of social media found through the #pedalmn archive can be found in Appendix 2. How to use this document The main text of this document consists of Plan comments and MnDOT responses organized by theme. Thematic responses provide a summary of what was heard and of changes that may have resulted from comments. Please note each comment is linked to a unique commenter ID. A list of commenters and respective IDs can be found in Appendix 1. Changes were made to the Plan following the public review and comment period and included overall changes to the language used and structural flow of the document. Below is an overview of revisions made to plan based on the public comments received. Specific responses to comments can be found in the within each theme. Revisions related to language and writing Have a more affirmative tone with plan direction and implementation Where possible, plain language was used Chapters were retitled to clarify purpose Stakeholders were identified as partners, and where possible clearly identified The terminology “bikeways” was changed to “bicycle route” to increase consistency with national and local language Revisions related to structural flow of plan Created a two-page, visually appealing executive summary Added an introductory letter from MnDOT leadership Develop a new introductory section (Chapter 1) Moved the “Planning in Context” chapter and merged it with Appendix B of the plan Moved the local connections chapter before the state bicycle route chapter to emphasize priority Created a next steps chapter, which provides an overview of implementation activities Added online participation summary as Appendix C Modified the vision statement Added new images to better reflect content Updated the Regional Bicycle Transportation Network map and language for the Twin Cities metropolitan area Balanced conversation related to planning partners in the appendix for Planning in Context The public comment period provided input that validated the direction of the Statewide Bicycle System Plan, and also provided suggestions for improvement. MnDOT values input from partners statewide on creating a state where bicycling is a safe, comfortable and convenient transportation option for all people. Summary: Plan Comments and Responses 54 COMMENTS & RESPONSES LOCAL CONNECTIONS Response Response to comments about Local and Regional Connections Local and regional bicycle connections are consistent with what was heard during the public engagement for the Bicycle System Plan, along with separated facilities. The plan proposes that 70% of MnDOT's Bicycle Investments prioritize these kinds of projects that would be within MnDOT's right of way. Several comments identified and noted specific locations for bicycle routes and / or facilities. Where appropriate,
Recommended publications
  • Oregon Historic Trails Report Book (1998)

    Oregon Historic Trails Report Book (1998)

    i ,' o () (\ ô OnBcox HrsroRrc Tnans Rpponr ô o o o. o o o o (--) -,J arJ-- ö o {" , ã. |¡ t I o t o I I r- L L L L L (- Presented by the Oregon Trails Coordinating Council L , May,I998 U (- Compiled by Karen Bassett, Jim Renner, and Joyce White. Copyright @ 1998 Oregon Trails Coordinating Council Salem, Oregon All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in the United States of America. Oregon Historic Trails Report Table of Contents Executive summary 1 Project history 3 Introduction to Oregon's Historic Trails 7 Oregon's National Historic Trails 11 Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail I3 Oregon National Historic Trail. 27 Applegate National Historic Trail .41 Nez Perce National Historic Trail .63 Oregon's Historic Trails 75 Klamath Trail, 19th Century 17 Jedediah Smith Route, 1828 81 Nathaniel Wyeth Route, t83211834 99 Benjamin Bonneville Route, 1 833/1 834 .. 115 Ewing Young Route, 1834/1837 .. t29 V/hitman Mission Route, 184l-1847 . .. t4t Upper Columbia River Route, 1841-1851 .. 167 John Fremont Route, 1843 .. 183 Meek Cutoff, 1845 .. 199 Cutoff to the Barlow Road, 1848-1884 217 Free Emigrant Road, 1853 225 Santiam Wagon Road, 1865-1939 233 General recommendations . 241 Product development guidelines 243 Acknowledgements 241 Lewis & Clark OREGON National Historic Trail, 1804-1806 I I t . .....¡.. ,r la RivaÌ ï L (t ¡ ...--."f Pðiräldton r,i " 'f Route description I (_-- tt |".
  • Monitoring Use of Minnesota State Trails Considerations and Recommendations for Implementation

    Monitoring Use of Minnesota State Trails Considerations and Recommendations for Implementation

    Monitoring Use of Minnesota State Trails Considerations and Recommendations for Implementation MURP Capstone Paper In Partial Fulfillment of the Master of Urban and Regional Planning Degree Requirements The Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs The University of Minnesota Tom Holmes Jake Knight Darin Newman Xinyi Wu May 20, 2016 Date of oral presentation: Approval date of final paper: May 6, 2016 May 20, 2016 Capstone Instructor: Dr. Greg Lindsey, Professor Photo credit: www.flickr.com/photos/zavitkovski/6266747939/ Monitoring Use of Minnesota State Trails Considerations and Recommendations for Implementation Prepared for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Tom Holmes Jake Knight Darin Newman Xinyi Wu May 20, 2016 Advisor: Dr. Greg Lindsey Capstone Paper In Partial Fulfillment of the Master of Urban and Regional Planning Degree Requirements The Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs The University of Minnesota Monitoring Use of Minnesota State Trails | MURP Capstone Paper Table of Contents Executive Summary 1. Introduction 1 1.1. Project Methodology 3 2. Project Context 5 2.1. Historical DNR Trail Surveys 5 2.2. Project Purpose 7 2.3. Project Scope 7 3. Counting Methods 9 3.1. Duration 9 3.2. Visits 10 3.3. Traffic 10 3.4. Case Study 1: Differentiating Duration, Visits, and Traffic on the Gateway State Trail 12 3.5. Recommendation: Traffic Counts 13 4. Considerations for Automated Traffic Counts 15 4.1 How to Implement Automated Traffic Counts 15 4.2. Case Study 2: Gateway and Brown’s Creek State Trail AADT 17 4.3. Seven Decisions for Program Design 20 5.
  • Minnesota Statutes 2020, Chapter 85

    Minnesota Statutes 2020, Chapter 85

    1​ MINNESOTA STATUTES 2020​ 85.011​ CHAPTER 85​ DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION​ STATE PARKS, RECREATION AREAS, AND WAYSIDES​ 85.06​ SCHOOLHOUSES IN CERTAIN STATE PARKS.​ 85.011​ CONFIRMATION OF CREATION AND​ 85.20​ VIOLATIONS OF RULES; LITTERING; PENALTIES.​ ESTABLISHMENT OF STATE PARKS, STATE​ 85.205​ RECEPTACLES FOR RECYCLING.​ RECREATION AREAS, AND WAYSIDES.​ 85.21​ STATE OPERATION OF PARK, MONUMENT,​ 85.0115​ NOTICE OF ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS.​ RECREATION AREA AND WAYSIDE FACILITIES;​ 85.012​ STATE PARKS.​ LICENSE NOT REQUIRED.​ 85.013​ STATE RECREATION AREAS AND WAYSIDES.​ 85.22​ STATE PARKS WORKING CAPITAL ACCOUNT.​ 85.014​ PRIOR LAWS NOT ALTERED; REVISOR'S DUTIES.​ 85.23​ COOPERATIVE LEASES OF AGRICULTURAL​ 85.0145​ ACQUIRING LAND FOR FACILITIES.​ LANDS.​ 85.0146​ CUYUNA COUNTRY STATE RECREATION AREA;​ 85.32​ STATE WATER TRAILS.​ CITIZENS ADVISORY COUNCIL.​ 85.33​ ST. CROIX WILD RIVER AREA; LIMITATIONS ON​ STATE TRAILS​ POWER BOATING.​ 85.015​ STATE TRAILS.​ 85.34​ FORT SNELLING LEASE.​ 85.0155​ LAKE SUPERIOR WATER TRAIL.​ TRAIL PASSES​ 85.0156​ MISSISSIPPI WHITEWATER TRAIL.​ 85.40​ DEFINITIONS.​ 85.016​ BICYCLE TRAIL PROGRAM.​ 85.41​ CROSS-COUNTRY-SKI PASSES.​ 85.017​ TRAIL REGISTRY.​ 85.42​ USER FEE; VALIDITY.​ 85.018​ TRAIL USE; VEHICLES REGULATED, RESTRICTED.​ 85.43​ DISPOSITION OF RECEIPTS; PURPOSE.​ ADMINISTRATION​ 85.44​ CROSS-COUNTRY-SKI TRAIL GRANT-IN-AID​ 85.019​ LOCAL RECREATION GRANTS.​ PROGRAM.​ 85.021​ ACQUIRING LAND; MINNESOTA VALLEY TRAIL.​ 85.45​ PENALTIES.​ 85.04​ ENFORCEMENT DIVISION EMPLOYEES.​ 85.46​ HORSE
  • In the of Tracing the Route of Paul Bunyan in Minnesota's Northwoods

    In the of Tracing the Route of Paul Bunyan in Minnesota's Northwoods

    in the of tracing the route of Paul Bunyan in Minnesota’s Northwoods story and photos by Cindy Ross 26 ADVENTURE CYCLIST JUNE 2021 strange-sounding animal forced my eyelids open one August evening in the Minnesota Northwoods. A dark, hulking form sat on a branch, making a clattering soundA in the tree above our tent. We were camped in the shadow of ancient white pines along the Pine River on the Paul Bunyan State Trail. We had cruised a half-mile of fun singletrack on our loaded Surly mountain bikes to this remote biker/paddler campsite — the first night in a weeklong ride. The owl called another owl in, and soon there were two clattering above us. One dove down to our tent, its silent wings almost touching us. They were young barred owls, anxious about many things at this stage of their lives and perhaps curious about our tent. Come morning, a feather was left by our site — a welcome as we began our approximately 250-mile ride through Minnesota’s Paul Bunyan land, a larger- than-life folklore character that has captured the enduring hearts of this part of America. Our route traced three rail trails, beginning with the south-north 121-mile paved Paul Bunyan Trail (PBT), which travels from Crow Wing State Park on up to Bemidji. It’s one of the longest rail trails in the U.S. and was inducted in the Trail Conservancy’s Hall of Fame as a “Signature Minnesota Destination.” Next, we rode the nearly 50-mile paved Heartland Trail, which intersects the PBT at Walker, followed by the gravel and dirt 96-mile Blue Ox-Voyageur Trail, an ATV-snowmobile converted rail trail that runs from Bemidji to International Falls at the Canadian border.
  • Guidelines for Constructing Local Roads in New York's Adirondack Park Edward J

    Guidelines for Constructing Local Roads in New York's Adirondack Park Edward J

    5 Guidelines for Constructing Local Roads in New York's Adirondack Park Edward J. Kearney, New York state Department of Transportation, Albany The Adirondack Park in upstate New York contains more than 23 000 phasize that aesthetics and engineering are mutually km2 (9000 rniles2) of public and private lands. Most stote·owned land is dependent and that roads can be built that will be designated by the state constitution to remain "forever wild", and de­ operationally safe and efficient and easier and cheaper velopment of private land is closely controlled by the Adirondack Park to maintain and yet will blend attractively into the sur­ Agency, which is part of the executive branch of the state government and also has jurisdiction over construction of new municipal roads and rounding landscape. Figures 1 and 2 show examples of expansions of existing ones. Guidelines that have been developed for use good construction practices in the park, a11d Figure 3 in lieu of review of individual local road projects by the Adirondack Park shows an example of what should be avoided. Agency are presented and discussed. The guidelines are presented in Many researchers have questioned the applicability seven categories: (a) planning, (b), alignment, (c) cross section, (d) road­ of the American Association of state Highway and bed construction, (e) riding surface, (f) bridges and culverts, and (g) gen­ Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Geometric Design eral construction. Their objective is to ensure that local roads are con­ Guide for Local Roads and streets (!) and Highway De­ structed or reconstructed so that they fit harmoniously into the natural surroundings and impart the feeling of being in a park.
  • Heartland State Trail Extension Master Plan Park Rapids to Moorhead

    Heartland State Trail Extension Master Plan Park Rapids to Moorhead

    HEARTLAND STATE TRAIL EXTENSION PARK RAPIDS TO MOORHEAD MASTER PLAN Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks and Trails June 2011 The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Parks and Trails Division would like to thank all who participated in this master planning process. Many individuals and groups in trail communities have been working for many years to help establish this trail. The Heartland Trail Association has played an active role in generating interest in local communities. Assistance from local officials and citizens in the cities of Park Rapids, Frazee, Wolf Lake, Detroit Lakes, and Hawley is greatly appreciated. Many DNR staff, city and county officials, trail association members and local citizens contributed their time and energy to the planning process as well. This master plan was prepared by: • Laurie Young, Planning Supervisor • Suzanne Rhees, AICP, Principal Planner June 2011, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from programs of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is available to all individuals regardless of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, age, sexual orientation, membership or activity in a local commission, or disability. Discrimination inquiries should be sent to MN-DNR, 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155-4031; or the Equal Opportunity Office, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC 20240. This document is available in alternative formats to individuals with disabilities by calling 651-296-6157 (Metro Area) or 1-888-MINNDNR (MN Toll Free) or Telecommunication Device for the Deaf/TTY: 651-296-5484 (Metro Area) or 1-800-657-3929 (Toll Free TTY).
  • Dear Sir: I Have Lived for 15 Years in Dolphin Cove with the Ever Growing Disaster That Is Greenwich Avenue and Southfield Avenue

    Dear Sir: I Have Lived for 15 Years in Dolphin Cove with the Ever Growing Disaster That Is Greenwich Avenue and Southfield Avenue

    To: Rosenson, Valerie Subject: The promised roundabout Date: Monday, December 02, 2019 3:22:46 PM Dear Sir: I have lived for 15 years in Dolphin Cove with the ever growing disaster that is Greenwich Avenue and Southfield Avenue. My husband and I have been to several meetings with various city employees who told us Waterside people that we were eventually going to get a roundabout at the intersection of Pulaski, Greenwich and Davenport. Greenwich would become one way south and Davenport one way north. The roundabout would be speedier than the triangle 3 stop signs are today. We were told to be patient. Over and over. Still, you approved, over our objections, 700 new apartments with nary a change in our favor-just far more traffic than could possibly be reasonably handled on top of an already impossible traffic situation. You did not widen Southfield as far as promised, but you did enlarge the corner at Selleck so a turn to Davenport could avoid the still 2direction Greenwich. We felt hope, but since Davenport still hits the Greenwich northbound traffic before the triangle, it really was of no help. But it gave us a glimmer of hope that the plan was progressing. It was planned that with the roundabout both those roads would be merging out of/into the new roundabout which should slightly improve throughput. Now you have stopped the project in its tracks by not allowing Pulaski to be widened so it can be both an entrance and an exit from the roundabout out! So the congestion at Washington will just back up into the triangle or roundabout.
  • Discover All Red Wing

    Discover All Red Wing

    VISITOR’S GUIDE 2020 Discover All Uniquely that is Red Wing... www.RedWing.org #RedWingMN Getting CONNECT Red Wing with Plan your trip to Red Wing with resources online and in person. AT REDWING.ORG Plan your trip by visiting us online at RedWing.org, the place with the most Stop by the Visitor Center located inside the Historic Train comprehensive visitor Depot for more information and maps once you arrive. information. Find upcoming events, special deals, maps, Arrive in style by plane, train, land, or water! Traveling to Red Wing has never been easier. Regardless of and travel ideas. if you’re staying for a day, a weekend, or a week, we’d love for you to be our guest as you explore all that Red Wing has to offer. IN PERSON By Car Have questions before It's an easy drive to Red Wing. You can expect a low-stress, scenic drive when you make your way or during your visit? to Red Wing. Relax as you take in beautiful views of the Mississippi River, rolling bluffs, prairie Whether you need fields, natural wildlife, and more during your trip. We even have a free public DC fast charger for directions, dinner electric vehicles (located in the Mural Lot behind Red Wing Shoe Store). suggestions, or Ready for a Road Trip? just want to know what the "locals" In the From Minneapolis, MN (54 miles) From Rochester, MN (44 miles) do, speak with the Historic Train I-94 E to St. Paul / U.S. Hwy 52 S U.S.
  • Heritage Rail Trail Feasibility Study 2017

    Heritage Rail Trail Feasibility Study 2017

    TOWN OF DEDHAM HERITAGE RAIL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY 2017 PLANNING DEPARTMENT + ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We gratefully recognize the Town of Dedham’s dedicated Planning and Environmental Department’s staff, including Richard McCarthy, Town Planner and Virginia LeClair, Environmental Coordinator, each of whom helped to guide this feasibility study effort. Their commitment to the town and its open space system will yield positive benefits to all as they seek to evaluate projects like this potential rail trail. Special thanks to the many representatives of the Town of Dedham for their commitment to evaluate the feasibility of the Heritage Rail Trail. We also thank the many community members who came out for the public and private forums to express their concerns in person. The recommendations contained in the Heritage Rail Trail Feasibility Study represent our best professional judgment and expertise tempered by the unique perspectives of each of the participants to the process. Cheri Ruane, RLA Vice President Weston & Sampson June 2017 Special thanks to: Virginia LeClair, Environmental Coordinator Richard McCarthy, Town Planner Residents of Dedham Friends of the Dedham Heritage Rail Trail Dedham Taxpayers for Responsible Spending Page | 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction and Background 2. Community Outreach and Public Process 3. Base Mapping and Existing Conditions 4. Rail Corridor Segments 5. Key Considerations 6. Preliminary Trail Alignment 7. Opinion of Probable Cost 8. Phasing and Implementation 9. Conclusion Page | 2 Introduction and Background Weston & Sampson was selected through a proposal process by the Town of Dedham to complete a Feasibility Study for a proposed Heritage Rail Trail in Dedham, Massachusetts.
  • Summary of the 2019 Minnesota State Trail Visitor Study

    Summary of the 2019 Minnesota State Trail Visitor Study

    Summary of the 2019 Minnesota State Trail Visitor Study In Minnesota, paved state trails serve about 1.2 million visitors each summer. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) administered a trail intercept survey to 1,561 visitors throughout the summer of 2019 to better understand visitor satisfaction, how they used state trails, their opinions on investment and funding, and their demographics. Below are key takeaways from the survey. Root River State Trail Visitor satisfaction Given that providing high-quality experiences is a cornerstone of the DNR’s efforts to attract new and current visitors to state trails, how satisfied are people with Minnesota state trails? Overall, trail users were highly satisfied with their experiences. The majority were also satisfied with specific aspects of the trails, such as how well they were maintained and the availability of amenities, such as toilet facilities. Of those trail visitors who were not completely satisfied, the most common suggestion was the need to improve trail surface conditions, such as fixing potholes and cracks. Blank Blank Blank blank More than 90% of visitors reported The most commonly suggested being completely satisfied or very improvement was that trail surface satisfied with their overall experience. + conditions needed improving (e.g., potholes, cracks). More than 90% of visitors indicated More than 80% of visitors reported that different aspects of state trails, that the availability of trail amenities including trail maintenance, trail was at least acceptable; 36% reported surface, and amenities were at least that drinking water availability was acceptable. poor or very poor. "DNR trails are a great resource for Minnesotans.
  • Great River Road Tennessee

    Great River Road Tennessee

    Great River Road Tennessee Corridor Management Plan Corridor Management Plan Recognitions Mayor AC Wharton Shelby County Byway Consultant Mayor Jeff Huffman Tipton County David L. Dahlquist Mayor Rod Schuh Lauderdale County Governor Phil Bredesen President Mayor Richard Hill Dyer County State of Tennessee David L. Dahlquist Associates, L.L.C. Mayor Macie Roberson Lake County State Capitol 5204 Shriver Avenue Mayor Benny McGuire Obion County Nashville, TN 37243 Des Moines, IA 50312 Commissioner Susan Whitaker Pickering Firm, Inc Department of Tourist Development Byway Planning Team Architecture – Engineering – Planning – Surveying Wm. Snodgrass/Tennessee Tower 312 8th Avenue North, 25th Floor Bob Pitts, PE Nashville, TN 37243 Mississippi River Corridor – Tennessee, Inc. Principal Owner Board of Directors Director, Civil Engineering Services Ms. Marty Marbry 6775 Lenox Center Court – Suite 300 West Tennessee – Tourist Development Memphis, TN 38115 Regional Marketing & Public Relations John Sheahan Chairman/CEO John Threadgill Secretary Historical Consultant Commissioner Gerald Nicely Dr. Carroll Van West Tennessee Department of Transportation Jim Bondurant Chair – Obion - Task Force Committe Director 505 Deaderick St. Rosemary Bridges Chair – Tipton - Task Force Committee Center for Historic Preservation James K. Polk Bldg. – 7th Floor Peter Brown Chair – Dyer - Task Force Committee Middle Tennessee State University Nashville, TN 37243 Laura Holder Tennessee Civil War National Heritage Area P.O. Box 80 – MTSU Pamela Marshall Public Affairs
  • Mississippi Blufflands State Trail Master Plan

    Mississippi Blufflands State Trail Master Plan

    Mississippi Blufflands State Trail Master Plan Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks and Trails September 2016 Mississippi Blufflands State Trail Master Plan The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Parks and Trails Division would like to thank all who participated in this master planning process. Individuals and groups in local communities have been working for years to support this trail. Many DNR staff, city, county and state officials, trail committee members, and local citizens contributed their time and energy to the planning process. Project Team: • Craig Blommer, area supervisor • Andrew Grinstead, planning specialist, Conservation Corps Minnesota & Iowa • Kevin Hemmingsen, regional trails specialist • Caleb Jensen, manager, Frontenac State Park • Darin Newman, planner Copyright 2016 State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources For more information on this management plan, please contact the DNR Parks and Trails Division at (651) 259-5600. This information can be made available in alternative formats such as large print, braille or audio tape by emailing [email protected] or by calling 651-259-5016. The Minnesota DNR prohibits discrimination in its programs and services based on race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, public assistance status, age, sexual orientation or disability. Persons with disabilities may request reasonable modifications to access or participate in DNR programs and services by contacting the DNR ADA Title II Coordinator at [email protected] or 651- 259-5488. Discrimination inquiries should be sent to Minnesota DNR, 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155-4049; or Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C.